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 AM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 PM

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.




 

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 PM

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, 05:23:54 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

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.