Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PM

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.

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 PM

Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PM

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.

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 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 08:24:07 PM

Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PM

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.

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 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2025, 08:24:07 PM

Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 07:44:33 PM

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.

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 AM

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."

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 PM

Quote from: Spooky on April 16, 2025, 06:56:09 AM

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."

They can do that without you rolling it out. There's nothing inherently "proper" about that approach.

I disagree.

Quote from: Spobo on April 20, 2025, 12:05:17 PMwho cares?

Me. I care.

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