Lemme start this out by saying that player characters should rarely, if ever, be forced to do something like retreat. That should be left up to the player.
But how do you feel about a morale system where the character may be tired and demoralized, and accrue penalties if the player decides to push on?
It's definitely thematic and I like it in theory but I'd worry about a death spiral potentially if the player doesn't want to take the hint.
I make PCs initially get suppressed by incoming gunfire if they fail the roll because that's instinctual. I THEN give them the option of exposing themselves to fire anyway, knowing the risks of being hit. Sometimes, if they're smart, they'll stay behind cover.
Outright failings of willpower? Sure, they can happen mechanically too in my games and the PCs will have no choice. Fatigue, hunger, environment can all make it mechanically impossible for a PC to keep acting.
I think it's important to back up mandatory rulings for PC behaviour with tons of mechanics so they know you're not just punishing them on a whim or because you hate them. And I do, I do hate the PCs and consider my relationship to them to be generally adversarial.
My system uses a simple morale rule for the main player characters: If they fail morale, they can still do anything they want. However, if what they want to do is not surrendering, fleeing, hiding, or some similar attempt to get out of the fight, they are "hindered" on the actions until they succeed at one or are rallied by someone else. "Hindered" is a substantial penalty, much like D&D 5E disadvantage.
Also, my rules for what will cause a main PC to fail are slightly less onerous than the equivalent rules for allied NPCs. Basically, an allied NPC getting brutally killed does not force the check on the PC's but a PC going down does force the check on the allies.
Yes, this can cause a bit of a PC and party death spiral, but in my case that's on purpose. I wanted it to work such that a player was encouraged to flee but not forced. In play, that means that sometimes the player does flee and sometimes does not.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 02, 2025, 10:11:18 PMAlso, my rules for what will cause a main PC to fail are slightly less onerous than the equivalent rules for allied NPCs. Basically, an allied NPC getting brutally killed does not force the check on the PC's but a PC going down does force the check on the allies.
I'm really not a fan of that kind of ruling. Rules that make NPCs 'non-people' really hurts my immersion in the game. IMO, if my best buddy gets mutilated right next to me, it shouldn't matter whether that buddy is another PC or an NPC.
I imagine Morale got trimmed from D&D monster design because it felt like rules bloat. It would definitely feel like rules-bloat for the PC-side. You could be adding a lot of interactivity to the game in the form of morale checks which could make the game notably worse to play because the overall gameplay is slower, even if the mechanic works perfectly.
The best way to do this is probably by recycling resources from another part of the game. If you have mechanics which can give you more than one bit of information at a time, this seems doable. For example, if you draw cards for initiative, you can use card interactions across rounds to recharge your morale or the party's morale. If you use a dice pool, you can look for multiples and runs in addition to just counting successes. There are probably a lot more options, but my point is to look to recycle interactions into morale rather than trying to build one out of scratch.
But just tacking it onto a D20 system seems like a mistake. I don't think you can do that without slowing down the system enough that it becomes a bad trade.
PCs are typically fanatics and shouldn't be able to fail morale. The NPCs of the world, many of them aren't really there for a hard fight, or even any fight.
If you were to have a realistic morale applied to PCs, it would be something that derived from their stats and perhaps they would be able to take some skill or feat or proficiency to raise it from high to invincible. But assuming that they don't, then PCs will fail morale at some point, and suffer the consequences- and this will add a potential snowball to hard fights against the PCs.
I suspect in the shift to 3rd, the fact that morale wasn't something the PCs had was a reason to get rid of it for monsters, especially given how hard that edition worked to have symmetry.
I don't like anything that impinges on player control of their characters, so no morale for pcs in my game. For tired and worn, out my game uses an endurance system. If a character gets too fatigued then anything that normally costs fatigue gets a big penalty and causes a bit of damage. If your character is at that point and your enemies are not it's time to think about leaving.
Quote from: Fheredin on April 02, 2025, 10:34:14 PMThe best way to do this is probably by recycling resources from another part of the game.
I had considered using rules for slow-acting poisons to represent failing morale. Sure, the resisting stat is mental resolve rather than physical hardiness, but there are some parallels that could work well mechanically--assuming your game system doesn't just have instant-effect-and-done poisons (as are most in D&D).
I think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
My one point of comparison is fear effects in various games. Nothing was less fun than having to run away each turn until you succeed on a check (and then need to spend an equal number of turns to get back) because a failed die rolls says you succumb to mundane fear and leave you allies in the lurch, but then the system further presumes a metagame reaction that your allies shouldn't treat you like a bloody coward afterwards because its not like you chose to run away, you just had an unlucky dice roll.
As such, I generally prefer non-magical morale/courage to be conveyed not through penalties or forced actions, but GM narration of how hopeless the situation looks and probing questions like "is this situation really worth dying over when you clearly cannot win?"
The player can choose to keep going or whatever they wish, but I've generally found that just the DM hyping the hopelessness of the situation often makes the players choose to withdraw and feels better about it because it was a mechanic forcing it on them.
That said, my own system does have fear effects, but they're more in the "shock" reaction category (take a few steps back, lose your reaction, take a penalty to hit on your next attack) and rarely last more than a single round. It's also a wounds/vitality (fatigue, morale, luck) type system where excess vitality damage (called "threat" in the system) can cascade to nearby oppon and if it depletes their vitality too (very possible with mooks), then the presumption is their morale broke on seeing their ally defeated and they are out of the fight because they're either fleeing, surrendering or playing dead (the GM noting it if it's possible they could show up again).
In other words, morale is also baked into the default mechanics of "dealing threat" to opponents.
If you want to leave choice entirely in the hands of the players (something I'm not in agreement with), then perhaps a character with broken morale suffers double damage? Now it's FAR more likely the PC will want to avoid the threats that broke them, but they still have a choice.
The original Albedo RPG had a PC morale system and one for flipping out even under stress. And considering how deadly combat was. PCs could end up breaking nearly as often as Call of Cthulhu PCs.
The rules for AD&D Conan introduced a fear element which was effectively morale for PCs.
Those are the three RPGs that come to mind for different takes on that sort of thing.
Quotethen perhaps a character with broken morale suffers double damage?
Undead level drain only happens after morale breaks.
In Albedo there were a few different possibly outcomes if a PC or NPC broke under stress.
The first was the "Coolness Under Fire" and failing a check would cause the character to either duck or miss a shot and lose 2 actions.
Some of the triggers were things like being shot at or melee'd for the first time in an encounter. Near misses by 1-2 points on the hit roll. An enemy suddenly appears. Or the character seeing a companion killed or suffering massive or catastrophic wound. Being set on fire will also cause a CUF check and failing that the character runs around in a panic instead of stopping, dropping and rolling.
And all this can cause a drop in self image and possibly induce a mental disorder in worse case scenarios.
Enemies suffer all this too.
I think it's okay in a game like Call of Cthulhu or something, where the material it's based on has lots of people fainting, running away, or going insane.
In a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared. Ideally you play in an old school way where combat is inherently scary and dangerous, and the players have the expectation that sometimes they're going to encounter enemies that they probably won't beat, and running away is an option.
Fatigue is a different concept from morale, and is already represented by hit points (kind of) or other status effects.
Quote from: Spobo on April 05, 2025, 07:15:58 AMIn a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared. Ideally you play in an old school way where combat is inherently scary and dangerous, and the players have the expectation that sometimes they're going to encounter enemies that they probably won't beat, and running away is an option.
Part of the reason that I wanted a very light touch morale effect on PCs was to train newer players in old school ways. That might sound counter-productive, but I've found that it helps to give players just a taste of what is happening to get them to think about it. In fact, with a given group, I end up doing less and less morale checks that affect PCs because:
1. The morale rules impinge a lot more on any allies they have, so that they are reminded that people can break.
2. This in turn causes 1 or 2 players to prioritize building up their rallying abilities and/or making themselves harder to break. I've rolled that up into a "Leadership" talent that also affects intimidation. So the characters that are naturally the most aggressive are also least likely to break.
3. The above two things conspire such that any given group only needs to have a PC morale check once in a blue moon,
and then they begin retreating before the morale check happens.
Either their allies are breaking or threatening to, or something really bad just went down. Then the group will decide to do a strategic retreat before some of them have their skills diminished due to the morale effects. On those rare occasions when they decide they need to push through despite the risk of PC morale hitting, it makes for some dramatic moments.
This kind of design is part of what I referenced elsewhere when I said that a lot of the problems in game design is taking a good idea too far. Thinking that because a rule with a light touch happens rarely that you should just eliminate it entirely. Which is also why I disagree with removing fear effects entirely (though I've rolled them into my morale system, which actually gives them a lighter touch than old-school D&D). The idea that sometimes a player character feels the strain, fear, nervousness to the degree that it impedes their ability to act, is
not removing player agency, anymore than not allowing a character without magic or wings to fly.
If hit points represent more than the physical ability to soak damage, then morale could be considered a part of hit points. Doing so could be used to indicate that 0 hit points is broken morale and -10/-(Con) is dead. This would probably require a minor rule change that 0 hit point "broken" opponents can still run & hide, but it would be far simpler than adding in most rule changes.
Quote from: Spobo on April 05, 2025, 07:15:58 AMIn a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared.
I think the name "fear" is unfortunate. Like you, I prefer the PCs always decide what they
feel, and "fear" is a feeling. But that doesn't stop me from running fear effects in D&D.
When I run fear effects, it's more like mindless panic -- it's something that the PC is
doing, not feeling. The PC is not even conscious that they are dropping things, screaming, and running away. They are not
feeling anything.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
I agree 100%.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMQuote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
Agree, in GURPS you can fail an alcohol addiction check when you walk by a bar and you have to go in and order, so why the hell can't the PCs fail a morale/Will check in combat? It seems perfectly logical to me.
I'm a simulationist style gamer and my players love it. If they don't want their dude to cower in fear they can choose advantages like strong will or inperturbable. ie You can build in resistance to your PCs if you don't want them constantly shitting themselves in a firefight.
Quote from: Spooky on April 10, 2025, 08:48:36 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMQuote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
Agree, in GURPS you can fail an alcohol addiction check when you walk by a bar and you have to go in and order, so why the hell can't the PCs fail a morale/Will check in combat? It seems perfectly logical to me.
I'm a simulationist style gamer and my players love it. If they don't want their dude to cower in fear they can choose advantages like strong will or inperturbable. ie You can build in resistance to your PCs if you don't want them constantly shitting themselves in a firefight.
This is the way I prefer too.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMQuote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.
I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
I get what you mean by this, but NPCs are still handled the same way as PCs no matter what, because they're being played by the GM. The GM still ultimately decides what the NPCs are feeling, how afraid they are, and whether they run. Morale is more of an optional win condition or complication for the players to deal with. If I have a bunch of NPCs all fighting each other offscreen, I don't need to make attack, damage, or morale rolls, I can just decide who wins.
I'll allow there are some systems where it is that granular and you have the GM rolling for organizations making moves against each other, but that's usually at the faction level where the PCs have their own faction.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 12, 2025, 10:39:29 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?
For me it's the fact that being a PC should not make you inherently special. It's what you do (or attempt to do) that makes you special. If you want to be the big damn hero, then make the character that way while accepting that, unless you take something that makes you immune to fear/terror/morale break, you might not be able to stand your ground when the going gets tough.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 12, 2025, 10:39:29 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me
What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?
It creates a disconnect between the setting and the mechanics. If according to setting lore the PCs are people just like any other, then the mechanics should reflect this. If a setting conceit is that the PCs and only the PCs are special people blessed by the gods or somesuch I would be okay with them having their own rules.
Okay, for the sake of argument, what would be the difference between a morale system for players and a supernatural effect like the Fear spell? I mean, I get that its MECHANICALLY different, but the horror of something horrid that radiates a kind of supernatural terror like The Nazgûl, the Army of the Dead or just something icky crawling out of the woodwork like Shelob....
Quote from: Zalman on April 09, 2025, 02:55:29 PMI think the name "fear" is unfortunate. Like you, I prefer the PCs always decide what they feel, and "fear" is a feeling. But that doesn't stop me from running fear effects in D&D.
When I run fear effects, it's more like mindless panic -- it's something that the PC is doing, not feeling. The PC is not even conscious that they are dropping things, screaming, and running away. They are not feeling anything.
That's interesting, because I draw the line on the other side. A person can't always control what they feel, but they can usually (often?) control (somewhat?) what they do about it. So I don't mind mechanics that produce a feeling--whether fear or love or contentment or anger or whatever. I don't like mechanics that say because you feel X you must necessarily do Y.
I think this is a more medieval mentality, too, which fits into a medieval fantasy mechanic. Being "born under Mars" explains anger to the medieval mind. It doesn't excuse murder. In fact, the angry person is supposed to know that about himself and learn to control it.
As for separate mechanics for PC/NPC, far as I'm concerned that's a side effect of rulings based on the setting. The mechanical way that things get resolved may be different, where convenient, but the thing being portrayed is the same. Thus I'm perfectly fine temporarily promoting an NPC to "PC status for morale effects" if it warrants it in the situation and setting, but the shorthand version normally used for NPCs/monsters is merely to reduce handling time.
I appreciate the ideas and opinions here both positive and negative. I've been leaning for a while towards a penalty (whether dice pool/result penalty or action penalty like losing the bonus/reaction) if the player acts against the condition they got with the morale system.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 13, 2025, 02:50:20 PMThat's interesting, because I draw the line on the other side. A person can't always control what they feel, but they can usually (often?) control (somewhat?) what they do about it. So I don't mind mechanics that produce a feeling--whether fear or love or contentment or anger or whatever. I don't like mechanics that say because you feel X you must necessarily do Y.
Very this. Even trained soldiers can still crack and lose it in various ways.
Quote from: Spobo on April 11, 2025, 03:58:25 PMIf I have a bunch of NPCs all fighting each other offscreen, I don't need to make attack, damage, or morale rolls, I can just decide who wins.
No you can't. Otherwise you undermine the legitimacy/impact of the rolls you make when the PCs are involved.
Always roll it out. Even if behind the scenes.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 13, 2025, 01:23:35 PMOkay, for the sake of argument, what would be the difference between a morale system for players and a supernatural effect like the Fear spell? I mean, I get that its MECHANICALLY different, but the horror of something horrid that radiates a kind of supernatural terror like The Nazgûl, the Army of the Dead or just something icky crawling out of the woodwork like Shelob....
Good question. I think fear, hurt and morale could all be bound up into a single condition track. Someone wounded and demoralized would likely be susceptible to a fear check. Alleviating the source of fear, (getting away from the icky squiggly) would move the character back on the track. stuff like that.
It does run the risk of creating the aforementioned death spiral, but it does give a mechanical effect for players to role play off of. "Let's keep going!", "Man, my character is a mess. Can we take a short rest?"
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 13, 2025, 02:50:20 PMI don't like mechanics that say because you feel X you must necessarily do Y.
Yep, on this we agree! I just prefer to remove the other side of the equation. Just like happens with charm, suggestion, etc.
The only difference I see here is the unfortunate name "fear".
Quote from: Spooky on April 14, 2025, 03:02:11 AMQuote from: Spobo on April 11, 2025, 03:58:25 PMIf I have a bunch of NPCs all fighting each other offscreen, I don't need to make attack, damage, or morale rolls, I can just decide who wins.
No you can't. Otherwise you undermine the legitimacy/impact of the rolls you make when the PCs are involved.
Always roll it out. Even if behind the scenes.
Undermine the legitimacy/impact for who? The players don't even know what's happening until I tell them. There's a big chance that they will never even see the aftermath of a battle if they simply go in a different direction.
If you take that to its logical conclusion I would spend all my prep time and in-game time (my whole life really) just rolling to simulate every interaction going on in the entire universe, just for the sake of consistency.
Quote from: Spobo on April 14, 2025, 08:42:55 PMUndermine the legitimacy/impact for who? The players don't even know what's happening until I tell them. There's a big chance that they will never even see the aftermath of a battle if they simply go in a different direction.
If you take that to its logical conclusion I would spend all my prep time and in-game time (my whole life really) just rolling to simulate every interaction going on in the entire universe, just for the sake of consistency.
Well obviously sometimes you have to zoom out to keep it manageable but you have to roll dice behind the scenes or its not legit.
I'll give you two examples from my recent play:
ZOOMED IN:
An NPC wanted to take down a nearby mountaintop NVA radio transmitter station before trying to steal a boat from a naval installation in North Vietnam. The PCs declined so he went off by himself. He reached the top, killed the guards, set claymores and ambushed and fought off a counter attack. It took me 5 or 6 hours to roll out solo between sessions and I had a great time. The NPC became a hero. All the PCs knew was the gunfire and explosions coming from the mountaintop. They didn't know the guy had even succeeded until the NPC stumbled out of the brush near the road, bloodied and bruised as they were boarding the modified hercules transport the NPC had called in from an ally before he destroyed the transmitter.
It was awesome and needed to be played out in detail to make it legit. The NPC could have just died and the PCs could have been on their own, trying to steal the boat out of the harbor while the transmitter called in an interception force once they got out of the harbor.
ZOOMED OUT:
The PCs wanted to assault the US embassy in Cairo with Libyan support. I determined the Libyan intelligence organisations skill, then DIA/CIA. I gave DIA/CIA a bonus for the awesome resources they possess and rolled out opposed checks (in GURPS) between sessions for a list of questions the PCs had.
The next session I would tell them the truth if the Libyans won the opposed check for that question, I would tell them "it's unclear" for a failure and at a certain threshold of failure I would tell them false information as if it was truth.
I made other rolls to tell me if the Libyans had human assets in Cairo that would be useful. Once I knew I determined by caveat. ) who they were and what they could provide (based on the margin of success on a roll). Yes, sometimes you have to make stuff up but it should always be informed by a roll first.
Of course I had to note down the parameters for these rolls before I rolled. Like making little mini games required for the particular situation.
As GM I am not writing a story, I'm also playing. I'm playing to find out what happens. That's why its so fun.
Quote from: Spooky on April 14, 2025, 09:16:07 PMQuote from: Spobo on April 14, 2025, 08:42:55 PMUndermine the legitimacy/impact for who? The players don't even know what's happening until I tell them. There's a big chance that they will never even see the aftermath of a battle if they simply go in a different direction.
If you take that to its logical conclusion I would spend all my prep time and in-game time (my whole life really) just rolling to simulate every interaction going on in the entire universe, just for the sake of consistency.
Well obviously sometimes you have to zoom out to keep it manageable but you have to roll dice behind the scenes or its not legit.
I'll give you two examples from my recent play:
ZOOMED IN:
An NPC wanted to take down a nearby mountaintop NVA radio transmitter station before trying to steal a boat from a naval installation in North Vietnam. The PCs declined so he went off by himself. He reached the top, killed the guards, set claymores and ambushed and fought off a counter attack. It took me 5 or 6 hours to roll out solo between sessions and I had a great time. The NPC became a hero. All the PCs knew was the gunfire and explosions coming from the mountaintop. They didn't know the guy had even succeeded until the NPC stumbled out of the brush near the road, bloodied and bruised as they were boarding the modified hercules transport the NPC had called in from an ally before he destroyed the transmitter.
It was awesome and needed to be played out in detail to make it legit. The NPC could have just died and the PCs could have been on their own, trying to steal the boat out of the harbor while the transmitter called in an interception force once they got out of the harbor.
ZOOMED OUT:
The PCs wanted to assault the US embassy in Cairo with Libyan support. I determined the Libyan intelligence organisations skill, then DIA/CIA. I gave DIA/CIA a bonus for the awesome resources they possess and rolled out opposed checks (in GURPS) between sessions for a list of questions the PCs had.
The next session I would tell them the truth if the Libyans won the opposed check for that question, I would tell them "it's unclear" for a failure and at a certain threshold of failure I would tell them false information as if it was truth.
I made other rolls to tell me if the Libyans had human assets in Cairo that would be useful. Once I knew I determined by caveat. ) who they were and what they could provide (based on the margin of success on a roll). Yes, sometimes you have to make stuff up but it should always be informed by a roll first.
Of course I had to note down the parameters for these rolls before I rolled. Like making little mini games required for the particular situation.
As GM I am not writing a story, I'm also playing. I'm playing to find out what happens. That's why its so fun.
So that's what I mean, you're talking about the legitimacy for yourself and not necessarily your players. You're playing a time-consuming solo game between sessions. That's fine but that's not for everyone, and it's not something that should be assumed by the system.
The second example is what I was referring to before, where there are some opposed rolls for faction-level play. I think that does make sense if the players are getting involved at that level, but if it's just some goblins vs. a troll or something I don't think it's necessary.
You're still writing a story by coming up with the situation, the setting, and the NPCs, you're simply using more dice rolls to find out what happens with the components. I'm not saying that's bad at all.
A morale system for PCs would be something like
1. CoC's sanity rules
2. The Alien RPG's rules for "losing it"
3. Unbidden RPG (if I remember correctly) also has "dementia" rules--which are similar to sanity. Your PC can become unhinged as the game goes on ...
Some of the best RPGs have rules that attack the mind and morale of PCs. AD&D Ravenloft setting had fear and horror checks.
Quote from: Spooky on April 14, 2025, 09:16:07 PMQuote from: Spobo on April 14, 2025, 08:42:55 PMUndermine the legitimacy/impact for who? The players don't even know what's happening until I tell them. There's a big chance that they will never even see the aftermath of a battle if they simply go in a different direction.
If you take that to its logical conclusion I would spend all my prep time and in-game time (my whole life really) just rolling to simulate every interaction going on in the entire universe, just for the sake of consistency.
Well obviously sometimes you have to zoom out to keep it manageable but you have to roll dice behind the scenes or its not legit.
I'll give you two examples from my recent play:
ZOOMED IN:
An NPC wanted to take down a nearby mountaintop NVA radio transmitter station before trying to steal a boat from a naval installation in North Vietnam. The PCs declined so he went off by himself. He reached the top, killed the guards, set claymores and ambushed and fought off a counter attack. It took me 5 or 6 hours to roll out solo between sessions and I had a great time. The NPC became a hero. All the PCs knew was the gunfire and explosions coming from the mountaintop. They didn't know the guy had even succeeded until the NPC stumbled out of the brush near the road, bloodied and bruised as they were boarding the modified hercules transport the NPC had called in from an ally before he destroyed the transmitter.
It was awesome and needed to be played out in detail to make it legit. The NPC could have just died and the PCs could have been on their own, trying to steal the boat out of the harbor while the transmitter called in an interception force once they got out of the harbor.
ZOOMED OUT:
The PCs wanted to assault the US embassy in Cairo with Libyan support. I determined the Libyan intelligence organisations skill, then DIA/CIA. I gave DIA/CIA a bonus for the awesome resources they possess and rolled out opposed checks (in GURPS) between sessions for a list of questions the PCs had.
The next session I would tell them the truth if the Libyans won the opposed check for that question, I would tell them "it's unclear" for a failure and at a certain threshold of failure I would tell them false information as if it was truth.
I made other rolls to tell me if the Libyans had human assets in Cairo that would be useful. Once I knew I determined by caveat. ) who they were and what they could provide (based on the margin of success on a roll). Yes, sometimes you have to make stuff up but it should always be informed by a roll first.
Of course I had to note down the parameters for these rolls before I rolled. Like making little mini games required for the particular situation.
As GM I am not writing a story, I'm also playing. I'm playing to find out what happens. That's why its so fun.
If that's fun and personally satisfying for you, then great, knock yourself out. If not, then it's entirely too much time to spend on something the players will never see. I don't see any difference in legitimacy or moral virtue between the two. There are other approaches you can take as well. If you want the event to be non-deterministic you could estimate the NPCs chances of success and make a single success/fail die roll. You could also have one of the players play the npc for the scenario.
Quote from: Spobo on April 15, 2025, 10:20:31 AMYou're still writing a story by coming up with the situation, the setting, and the NPCs,
Ah nope. The PCs decided to attend a meeting on a remote island near Hainan and were trying to escape back to Free World lines. While plotting their movement on the hopelessly slow raft they constructed (they ended up killing everyone at the meeting, including Don Sutherland and Jane Fonda and destroying their watercraft with white phosphorous rounds. They repaired the shot up plane they arrived on but crashed it trying to learn how to fly it - pilot got killed in the firefight), on real era maps, they blundered onto an actual historical North Vietnamese Naval base.
I play sandboxes.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2025, 01:04:10 PMIf not, then it's entirely too much time to spend on something the players will never see.
We disagree. I think what you describe here is something a basically lazy GM who isn't properly invested in his world would say.
Quote from: Spooky on April 15, 2025, 06:13:30 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2025, 01:04:10 PMIf not, then it's entirely too much time to spend on something the players will never see.
We disagree. I think what you describe here is something a basically lazy GM who isn't properly invested in his world would say. Quote from: Spooky on April 15, 2025, 05:23:54 PMQuote from: Spobo on April 15, 2025, 10:20:31 AMYou're still writing a story by coming up with the situation, the setting, and the NPCs,
Ah nope. The PCs decided to attend a meeting on a remote island near Hainan and were trying to escape back to Free World lines. While plotting their movement on the hopelessly slow raft they constructed (they ended up killing everyone at the meeting, including Don Sutherland and Jane Fonda and destroying their watercraft with white phosphorous rounds. They repaired the shot up plane they arrived on but crashed it trying to learn how to fly it - pilot got killed in the firefight), on real era maps, they blundered onto an actual historical North Vietnamese Naval base.
I play sandboxes.
You're still making a lot of assumptions, and deciding what events happen when and what the NPCs do, what NPCs exist, who is where, etc. I like sandboxes and I try to run them myself as much as I can, but they don't exist in a vacuum.
Quote from: Spooky on April 15, 2025, 06:13:30 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2025, 01:04:10 PMIf not, then it's entirely too much time to spend on something the players will never see.
We disagree. I think what you describe here is something a basically lazy GM who isn't properly invested in his world would say.
This is just goofy. "Proper" according to what? If there's anyone being self-indulgent and unvirtuous here, it's you wasting 5-6 hours of effort on a personal vanity project that doesn't involve your players. Choosing not to do that isn't "lazy", it's prudent.
Quote from: Spobo on April 16, 2025, 06:20:29 AMThis is just goofy. "Proper" according to what? If there's anyone being self-indulgent and unvirtuous here, it's you wasting 5-6 hours of effort on a personal vanity project that doesn't involve your players. Choosing not to do that isn't "lazy", it's prudent.
The PCs looked up at the tracer fire from the battle on that mountain top and thought "whatever the outcome is, we know it's been properly rolled out and we can properly immerse ourselves in the ripple effects and consequences from it."
Quote from: Spooky on April 15, 2025, 06:13:30 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2025, 01:04:10 PMIf not, then it's entirely too much time to spend on something the players will never see.
We disagree. I think what you describe here is something a basically lazy GM who isn't properly invested in his world would say.
This is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 11:56:42 AMThis is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Recently, the word literally has been over-used and often incorrectly or unnecessarily used. I seem to be the only one that notices.
For example, in your last post you thought you used it for emphasis. But that's not actually what the word does. Literally distinguishes it from figuratively and makes it clear that your experience isn't figurative or hypothetical - which clearly isn't necessary, because why would you figuratively have that experience? It makes no sense.
There are a lot of things I could teach the world.
My games have a level of verisimilitude that most GMs don't have.
Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 11:56:42 AMThis is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Recently, the word literally has been over-used and often incorrectly or unnecessarily used. I seem to be the only one that notices.
For example, in your last post you thought you used it for emphasis. But that's not actually what the word does. Literally distinguishes it from figuratively and makes it clear that your experience isn't figurative or hypothetical - which clearly isn't necessary, because why would you figuratively have that experience? It makes no sense.
There are a lot of things I could teach the world.
My games have a level of verisimilitude that most GMs don't have.
Without the word, the rest of the statement could have been take as hyperbole, which is common in such a situation. But I'm not really hear to give writing lessons. If you've nothing substantive to add, I'll be on my way
Greetings!
I'm more partial to applying the same Morale Rules to Player Characters in a similar manner to how such rules are used for every other creature. High Wisdom scores, special feats, traits, skills, and training actually mean something--or they don't.
Green, untrained recruits are likely to panic and lose their nerve in combat. That results in various reactions, from being immobilized from fear or disorientation for several rounds, to something like an orderly withdrawal, or a full-fledged, hysterical retreat. Whatever, based upon the dice roll and modified by relevant scores, attributes, bonuses and so on.
For as often as some like to remind others that people and creatures are not likely to fight to the death, and suffer from poor morale--well, there are some fair number of examples from our own history where people dig in and fight to the death, regardless of the odds and forces faced against them.
Many Pagan barbarians would resist the Roman legions, even to being surrounded and being slaughtered. They grimly faced their heroic fate, and fought on to the end.
In the final hours of Rome's victory against Carthage, the Queen of Carthage, in seeing the groveling and kneeling of her husband to the Roman commander, publicly condemned her husband, and cursed the Romans, before hurling her own children into the raging fires beneath her, and then stoically flung herself into the fire rather than be captured by the Romans, or kneel in surrender to them.
Many German soldiers of the Wehrmacht, especially when fighting against the Soviets, fought to the end, no matter the odds. Likewise, in battle after battle, many Soviet soldiers grimly laid down their lives for the Motherland, knowing they were doomed.
Japanese soldiers heroically resisted American forces throughout the Pacific, and routinely fought to the last man. When being killed in battle was less likely, the Japanese soldiers often kept a grenade for themselves. American Marines as well, heroically waded into withering machine-gun fire and death, fighting the Japanese, knowing full well that doing so would likely end with their own deaths.
While in so many such situations, training, skills, and leadership, all contributed heavy influence on how warriors behaved in dire circumstances, there are surprising episodes of super-human heroism, even from green troops barely fresh from training, and or poorly armed and equipped.
A fine example of such from recent history, stands out with the German's great offensive in 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. While many elite American formations and units receive much credit and glory--such as Patton's excellent veteran tank troops, or the US 101st Airborne troops trapped inside Bastogne--it must be remembered that much of the American resistance and defiance that slowed the German advance to a crawl and set up the conditions for a powerful counter-attack that crushed the Nazis, were many, many members of US Army replacement units, green infantry divisions, fresh-faced artillery crews, maintenance troops, cooks, supply soldiers, and other kinds of rear-echelon forces that were in absolutely no condition to face off against what the Nazis threw at them.
The German forces included the ferocious veteran Waffen SS Panzer divisions, and many hardened, well-equipped, veteran troops.
Despite the odds facing them, many leaders killed, absolute confusion and chaos--many of these young, inexperienced, utterly green American troops simply dug in and said "NO" to the Nazi armies marching against them. They snapped to, welded together leadership and purpose, and dug into the icy forests and fought back with everything from machine guns to flame throwers to shovels and fighting in desperate hand-to-hand combat. Every step of the way. Trenches, forest ridges, isolated road crossings, at every opportunity, odd, shattered American units came together, and savagely determined to resist the Nazis and fight back.
Regardless of the cost to themselves.
Many died in the onslaught and desperate struggle before they could be rescued by fresh, stronger comrades coming to their rescue. Still, many also survived, and triumphed. The dead did not die in vain, for even their heroic sacrifices saved many of their comrades from certain doom if the Nazis had been victorious.
All of that to say, yes, even in the fire and slaughter of combat, the death, blood and terror, people can surprise you. It is a kind of spiritual element, where the man says simply "NO" and throws himself into combat, refusing to surrender even while dying in battle. The crucible of war often brings out the very worst in men--but also the very noble, and the very best.
Thus, I think that Morale Rules are very useful and appropriate in a campaign.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 17, 2025, 01:02:52 AMThus, I think that Morale Rules are very useful and appropriate in a campaign.
I'm considering implementing rules for my
Fimbul Winter RPG that include effects on morale beyond just the normal horror of combat. Weather (since my setting is basically the worst years of The Little Ice Age on steroids), hot food (no joke, I think there has to be SOMETHING that causes you to have Standard Rations other than just cost) and fatigue should all affect your morale. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, rules for 'Liquid Courage' should be used to counteract such things, even at the cost of being slightly less capable in combat. A system of Stress like in the videogame
Darkest Dungeon, but WAY LESS punishing, might be a thing.
IOW, something that affects levels of dopamine and noradrenaline. Since I plan on retaining the Mythic Underworld concept from OD&D (even though my rules are effectively AD&D1E), I think a natural 'Horror' should be in evidence. I already have Blight (Taint/Corruption) as a concept that I've explored in both my first novel,
The Shrouded King, and a spin-off
The Reaper I'm working on. The idea it's basically like Fear Levels in
Deadlands, but again less punishing (cause
BigDamnHeroes!). Maybe the two should be linked: increased Blight levels leads to Fear Checks and at a certain Blight threshold, The Underworld manifests.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 08:24:07 PMQuote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 11:56:42 AMThis is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Recently, the word literally has been over-used and often incorrectly or unnecessarily used. I seem to be the only one that notices.
For example, in your last post you thought you used it for emphasis. But that's not actually what the word does. Literally distinguishes it from figuratively and makes it clear that your experience isn't figurative or hypothetical - which clearly isn't necessary, because why would you figuratively have that experience? It makes no sense.
There are a lot of things I could teach the world.
My games have a level of verisimilitude that most GMs don't have.
Without the word, the rest of the statement could have been take as hyperbole, which is common in such a situation. But I'm not really hear to give writing lessons. If you've nothing substantive to add, I'll be on my way
Are you serious?
If you simply wrote the following:
"This is the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way."
You seriously think anyone would read that as even remotely hyperbolic?
WHY?! HOW?!
It's like I live in this alternate world to people like you. I live in a world of common sense and reason and people like you live in a bizarro world where they're never wrong, have an excuse and justification for everything.
Just admit you used "literally" redundantly. I'm not perfect either (my spelling is the worst), I make mistakes. But when I do, I own up to them and learn.
Quote from: Spooky on April 17, 2025, 02:31:25 AMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 08:24:07 PMQuote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 11:56:42 AMThis is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Recently, the word literally has been over-used and often incorrectly or unnecessarily used. I seem to be the only one that notices.
For example, in your last post you thought you used it for emphasis. But that's not actually what the word does. Literally distinguishes it from figuratively and makes it clear that your experience isn't figurative or hypothetical - which clearly isn't necessary, because why would you figuratively have that experience? It makes no sense.
There are a lot of things I could teach the world.
My games have a level of verisimilitude that most GMs don't have.
Without the word, the rest of the statement could have been take as hyperbole, which is common in such a situation. But I'm not really hear to give writing lessons. If you've nothing substantive to add, I'll be on my way
Are you serious?
If you simply wrote the following:
"This is the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way."
You seriously think anyone would read that as even remotely hyperbolic?
WHY?! HOW?!
It's like I live in this alternate world to people like you. I live in a world of common sense and reason and people like you live in a bizarro world where they're never wrong, have an excuse and justification for everything.
Just admit you used "literally" redundantly. I'm not perfect either (my spelling is the worst), I make mistakes. But when I do, I own up to them and learn.
This must be your first time on the internet. Bye.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 17, 2025, 02:57:53 AMThis must be your first time on the internet. Bye.
Loser.
Quote from: Spooky on April 17, 2025, 02:31:25 AMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 08:24:07 PMQuote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 11:56:42 AMThis is literally the the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way. That would mean you're asserting that every other gm out there is doing it wrong, which is quite a reach. But don't get me wrong, if it works for you, great, and I'd be interested in hearing about how you do it without hanging up your game, and what exactly you get out of it.
Recently, the word literally has been over-used and often incorrectly or unnecessarily used. I seem to be the only one that notices.
For example, in your last post you thought you used it for emphasis. But that's not actually what the word does. Literally distinguishes it from figuratively and makes it clear that your experience isn't figurative or hypothetical - which clearly isn't necessary, because why would you figuratively have that experience? It makes no sense.
There are a lot of things I could teach the world.
My games have a level of verisimilitude that most GMs don't have.
Without the word, the rest of the statement could have been take as hyperbole, which is common in such a situation. But I'm not really hear to give writing lessons. If you've nothing substantive to add, I'll be on my way
Are you serious?
If you simply wrote the following:
"This is the only time I've ever heard of anyone playing this way."
You seriously think anyone would read that as even remotely hyperbolic?
WHY?! HOW?!
It's like I live in this alternate world to people like you. I live in a world of common sense and reason and people like you live in a bizarro world where they're never wrong, have an excuse and justification for everything.
Just admit you used "literally" redundantly. I'm not perfect either (my spelling is the worst), I make mistakes. But when I do, I own up to them and learn.
who cares?
Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 06:56:09 AMQuote from: Spobo on April 16, 2025, 06:20:29 AMThis is just goofy. "Proper" according to what? If there's anyone being self-indulgent and unvirtuous here, it's you wasting 5-6 hours of effort on a personal vanity project that doesn't involve your players. Choosing not to do that isn't "lazy", it's prudent.
The PCs looked up at the tracer fire from the battle on that mountain top and thought "whatever the outcome is, we know it's been properly rolled out and we can properly immerse ourselves in the ripple effects and consequences from it."
They can do that without you rolling it out. There's nothing inherently "proper" about that approach.
Quote from: Spobo on April 20, 2025, 12:08:33 PMQuote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 06:56:09 AMQuote from: Spobo on April 16, 2025, 06:20:29 AMThis is just goofy. "Proper" according to what? If there's anyone being self-indulgent and unvirtuous here, it's you wasting 5-6 hours of effort on a personal vanity project that doesn't involve your players. Choosing not to do that isn't "lazy", it's prudent.
The PCs looked up at the tracer fire from the battle on that mountain top and thought "whatever the outcome is, we know it's been properly rolled out and we can properly immerse ourselves in the ripple effects and consequences from it."
They can do that without you rolling it out. There's nothing inherently "proper" about that approach.
We disagree.
Greetings!
I just poured some fresh coffee, and lit my pipe of fine tobacco.
All ya'all should do the same, and ask yourselves, what the fuck were were arguing about? Is it really worth an actual argument over? Chill, people. Be cool with each other. This is a medium that doesn't always communicate fully, properly, or accurately. Be gracious, and of good cheer, gang.
I don't know what the fuck ya'all were arguing about, honestly.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK