Greetings!
Are barbarian tribes in your campaigns highly skilled in ambushes and guerilla warfare? I was thinking about that as I watched this clip of the
Barbarians program and recalled that such tactics--even when not performed on the same scale as at the Tuetoburg Forest--always presented distinct problems and hazards for Roman Legions. The music soundtrack here in the program is performed by the folk band Heilung--a band of musicians devoted to historically-inspired folk music of ancient Germania and Nordic culture.
I also thought it was interesting how on one hand, so many of the Germanic barbarians are unamoured--and conversely, the Roman's standardized heavy armour here, doesn't seem to help the Legionnaires very much. The Roman Legionnaires are cut down like so much helpless sheep.
Savage tribes of barbarians in the campaign--even when facing a more modern, and advanced opponent--are certainly not helpless, with their defeat a foregone conclusion. While the Romans in our historical examples achieved many victories in Germania, and other, similar rugged terrain, like the Danube region, they also experienced a great deal of difficulty in making a lot of enduring progress.
Such cultural as well as environmental dynamics are worthwhile in considering various political developments in the campaign, as well, of course, in inspiring many different kinds of adventure scenarios throughout a savage, mysterious barbarian frontier!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Dense forests full of savage barbarian tribes definitely serve as an obstacle for even large, advanced societies.
Do you have conflicts between civilized kingdoms and barbarian tribes in your campaigns?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am making a deep forest situation in my Through Sunken Lands game in which vicious apefolk live deep in the forest and let no one pass through with the exception of very few, most trespassers are eaten. The apefolk carefully monitor the edges of the forest and they make disturbing calls to each other from the forest to communicate and to frighten off others. In combat they use the forest to their advantage as much as possible, with simple traps and obstacles used to kill, slow and intimidate any who would violate their forest.
"Gorilla" warfare at its finest.
The environment can be the best weapon as long as the players don't feel you are intentionally giving them a hard time.
Not all players have been in rough country to understand its dangers.
It depends on the time-scale.
In the short term, knowledge of the terrain and the ability to strike-and-fade, target your opponent's vulnerable baggage train, and similarly make being a smaller and less mighty force quite tenable in resisting a greater one.
In the long term, your enemy can just send in heavily defended woodcutters, and attrit away your environment bit by bit.
And in the medium term, a moderately-leveled wizard doing a bombing run of Fireballs on a dry autumn night can do a lot of damage to your forest home. Now, if your barbarian tribe also has a strong druidic tradition, they have a much better chance of countering this, and also of making the ambushes even scarier, with wild-shaped druids being really amazing scouts...but a single druid allied with the incoming army could also go in as a heavily-advanced scout after the first major losses were taken, scout out the barbarian's defenses, and if they note any hidden settlements in their own prolonged scouting, making sure to report back via Message or Dream spells as to their exactly location, so when operation Fireball From Above starts, these settlements get hit first and hardest.
Basically, magic is a tactical element like terrain knowledge or numbers, and in most D&D worlds, the ability to marshall an actual army of fighting-men is pretty congruent with raising a few specialist casters. So, you should take into consideration who's got what magics, and what kind of magic-users just make certain historic tactics or strategies doomed on their face.
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
This all makes some sense...
And then you remember that you're playing 5e where the rapier is the ultimate weapon for all melee situations since (almost) all PCs
except Barbarians dump Str and pump Dex these days.
Guerilla warfare is good when you have terrain advantage, but generally showing Germans as some savage barbarians vs civilisation is I think gross overexaggeration.
They may be way behind Rome in this day and age, but still were overall quite civilised people able to produce various tools of warcraft, including armor, and Roman legionnaries were not full clad either.
Quote from: bat on May 17, 2021, 11:25:22 AM
I am making a deep forest situation in my Through Sunken Lands game in which vicious apefolk live deep in the forest and let no one pass through with the exception of very few, most trespassers are eaten. The apefolk carefully monitor the edges of the forest and they make disturbing calls to each other from the forest to communicate and to frighten off others. In combat they use the forest to their advantage as much as possible, with simple traps and obstacles used to kill, slow and intimidate any who would violate their forest.
Greetings!
Hey my friend! Carnivorous Ape Folk! I love that! All them weird sounds they make!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were. A phalanx is not. Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks. I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory. HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics. The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces. No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded. This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation. Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march. I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.
edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough, but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.
Quote from: SHARK on May 16, 2021, 07:34:53 PM
Greetings!
Dense forests full of savage barbarian tribes definitely serve as an obstacle for even large, advanced societies.
Do you have conflicts between civilized kingdoms and barbarian tribes in your campaigns?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yes. The good old picts from REH on the western border of Aquilonia, GURPS powered hyborian adventures game I run.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were. A phalanx is not. Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks. I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory. HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics. The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces. No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded. This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation. Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march. I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.
edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough, but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.
Greetings!
Excellent points, OGG!
Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.
Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.
Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 19, 2021, 11:45:24 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were. A phalanx is not. Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks. I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory. HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics. The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces. No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded. This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation. Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march. I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.
edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough, but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.
Greetings!
Excellent points, OGG!
Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.
Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.
Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Ceasar was a whole other animal. He NEVER would have marched his men into a forest he had no personal knowledge of, ever. He did get ambushed often and betrayed campaigning against the Gauls however, but he was a fantastic general who placed a high value on putting the best men as centurions and a good deal of confidence in their ability to react independently. So I can not say if he would have handled the ambush better, I can say he would have never been in the situation though. The wooded terrain alone, as I said offers NO advantage to barbarians. If anything it limits them to a degree because the barriers of heavy forest in anything close to even confrontations prevents surrounding a formation, and historically, that is what tended to break an ancient army (routes from being surrounded). Tight terrain does prevent centuries from being covered on their flanks, but Roman centurions were skilled at sealing a formation if temporarily flanked. Problem is as we are discussing, numbers and being surrounded means you get worn down and lose.
Varus places WAY too much trust in his German-turned-Roman "friend" in this case. But generally barbarian ambushes of Romans on the march did not go terribly well for the barbarians. The main reason we remember this particular situation so well is that it is an extreme outlier. it was not close to the first time Romans were outnumbered and ambushed, it is the first time it had spectacular success. Gauls had victories in the past as well, but they were usually in pitched battles where they did not face the cream of the crop in Roman generalship (Romans had a system that theoretically trained men of quality to lead armies, but like anything else some people are much better than others than specific things).
I would also say the lore of barbarians being better one on one fighters is not exactly the case. Caesars legions for example were VERY much veterans, many having survived many wounds, many battles and having absolute faith in Caesar. They more than maybe others were also very, very serious in arms and tactics training combined with a decade(s) of actual battlefield experience. I would put most any of those guys any day of the week in a one on one against any barbarian. It is one of the reasons Pompey absolutely refused to allow his legions to charge Caesar when they met on the field, and attempted to have them stand and toss pilum much more than was standard Roman doctrine. He had good reason however, as once they clashed those veteran legions rolled over Pompey. So I would say a generalization is hard to make. A roman soldier was a full time, every day, all day soldier. A barbarian warrior largely had a great deal of other worries in his day to day life, but certainly could fight.
I will add this however, in my games the individual barbarian is every bit the trope of a muscular, virile powerhouse that civilized men never want to confront on even terms, even the picts who are smaller in stature than the Cimmerians or South Islanders are savage warriors and still tend to be tougher, stronger, and more determined than the average soldier they may come across.
I do prefer the REH vision of the barbarian for RPGs. His vision does have some connection to Roman and Greek ideas about what the Gauls and Germans were like though, as they did tend to be a bit larger and stronger than Romans and Greeks, and certainly were fierce. The biggest problems Barbarians armies seemed to have offered Roman forces though seemed to be from the tribes that had a decent investment in cavalry.
Fun fact, Celtic barbarians (such as the Gauls) did seem to have in some cases of "breaking" male thralls by a bit of prison style sodomy. Given Roman proclivities played up during some of their periods, I dont know how well that worked on them; Given how the Greek scholars were somewhat shocked at how often the barbarians indulged in pederasty though, maybe it worked? Like I said I prefer the REH version of ancient barbarians.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: SHARK on May 19, 2021, 11:45:24 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.
In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.
And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were. A phalanx is not. Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks. I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory. HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics. The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces. No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded. This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation. Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march. I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.
edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough, but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.
Greetings!
Excellent points, OGG!
Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.
Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.
Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Ceasar was a whole other animal. He NEVER would have marched his men into a forest he had no personal knowledge of, ever. He did get ambushed often and betrayed campaigning against the Gauls however, but he was a fantastic general who placed a high value on putting the best men as centurions and a good deal of confidence in their ability to react independently. So I can not say if he would have handled the ambush better, I can say he would have never been in the situation though. The wooded terrain alone, as I said offers NO advantage to barbarians. If anything it limits them to a degree because the barriers of heavy forest in anything close to even confrontations prevents surrounding a formation, and historically, that is what tended to break an ancient army (routes from being surrounded). Tight terrain does prevent centuries from being covered on their flanks, but Roman centurions were skilled at sealing a formation if temporarily flanked. Problem is as we are discussing, numbers and being surrounded means you get worn down and lose.
Varus places WAY too much trust in his German-turned-Roman "friend" in this case. But generally barbarian ambushes of Romans on the march did not go terribly well for the barbarians. The main reason we remember this particular situation so well is that it is an extreme outlier. it was not close to the first time Romans were outnumbered and ambushed, it is the first time it had spectacular success. Gauls had victories in the past as well, but they were usually in pitched battles where they did not face the cream of the crop in Roman generalship (Romans had a system that theoretically trained men of quality to lead armies, but like anything else some people are much better than others than specific things).
I would also say the lore of barbarians being better one on one fighters is not exactly the case. Caesars legions for example were VERY much veterans, many having survived many wounds, many battles and having absolute faith in Caesar. They more than maybe others were also very, very serious in arms and tactics training combined with a decade(s) of actual battlefield experience. I would put most any of those guys any day of the week in a one on one against any barbarian. It is one of the reasons Pompey absolutely refused to allow his legions to charge Caesar when they met on the field, and attempted to have them stand and toss pilum much more than was standard Roman doctrine. He had good reason however, as once they clashed those veteran legions rolled over Pompey. So I would say a generalization is hard to make. A roman soldier was a full time, every day, all day soldier. A barbarian warrior largely had a great deal of other worries in his day to day life, but certainly could fight.
Greetings!
For some odd reason, it isn't popularly known that
after Tuetoburg Forest Tiberius and then, Germanicus, laid waste to the entire German frontier, in battle after battle, and prosecuting deep raids into Germania, that extracted a ruthless and severe cost on the Germanic tribes. The Empire struck back, and extracted a great and terrible vengeance against the Germans, and achieved a powerful series of victories.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It is not that well known because it is similar to Hannibal's victory. It is not often the big bad empire took an L once they decided they needed a full time military and started expanding. Victory for Rome might as well be Monday, or Friday, just another day of the week. Getting a large setback.... well that makes the books so to speak.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 12:26:57 PM
It is not that well known because it is similar to Hannibal's victory. It is not often the big bad empire took an L once they decided they needed a full time military and started expanding. Victory for Rome might as well be Monday, or Friday, just another day of the week. Getting a large setback.... well that makes the books so to speak.
Greetings!
Yes, isn't that the truth, Ogg? Of course, the Empire would strike back and get its vengeance! ;D
I think that Rome's counter-attack along the German frontier--for several *years*--in some ways reminds me of the Roman counter-attack in Britain after Boudicca's Revolt. The Roman Governor is said to have slaughtered so many Britons, raped, burned, and absolutely plundered so much of Britain that the Roman Emperor had to check the Roman Governor. The Governor was honoured, and transferred to a different province. The Roman wrath in Britain was so severe and ruthless that it threatened the continued prosperity of the province as a whole, and for about a year, Roman legions marched throughout Britain, making everything an absolute wasteland. There were no restrictions, no restraints of any kind. Anything and anyone native to Britain, was ripe for Romans to slaughter, oppress, and terrorize as they desired.
Britain was a nice, quiet province for a long time after that terrible Roman vengeance.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Greentongue on May 17, 2021, 01:32:20 PM
"Gorilla" warfare at its finest.
The environment can be the best weapon as long as the players don't feel you are intentionally giving them a hard time.
Not all players have been in rough country to understand its dangers.
That is a great point. This is for my face to face game in Idaho, which doesn't mean everyone has gotten lost like I have in bad terrain, I am hoping to convey dread and terror over being railroaded into a box canyon. Fingers crossed! :P
Quote from: SHARK link=topic=43539.msg1172977#msg1172977
Greetings!
Hey my friend! Carnivorous Ape Folk! I love that! All them weird sounds they make!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I'm hoping to use weird sounds attributed to bigfoot from a recording made in California in the 70s that is very creepy.
I'll just say it, I feel it hanging in the air unsaid...your players will always, always, expect you to allow them to carry out tactics like this with their hirelings against npc forces but will always, always then get angry and a little catty when npc forces use these tactics on them. This is all before any folded portable hole bag holding arrows of spatial inversion or whatever.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 21, 2021, 07:07:22 AM
I'll just say it, I feel it hanging in the air unsaid...your players will always, always, expect you to allow them to carry out tactics like this with their hirelings against npc forces but will always, always then get angry and a little catty when npc forces use these tactics on them. This is all before any folded portable hole bag holding arrows of spatial inversion or whatever.
Not mine. I nip that in the bud any time it even hints at making an appearance. It's either one of two things: I did something they want to copy because of how nasty it was or they tried something kind of questionable from a rules/setting perspective. In the first case, I tell them flat out that the opponents will be a range of incredibly stupid to fiendishly clever and it is up to the players to take that into account when deciding who to mess with. In the second case, I stop the game and ask them if they want the world/setting to work the way they are about to make it work. Because if it works that way, moderately clever NPCs are going to use the same tricks. Sometimes they decide that is OK. Sometimes they pause and decide that they don't want NPCs springing that gambit on them at some later time.
In this way, we come to a consensus over time about what is kosher and what is not.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 21, 2021, 07:07:22 AM
I'll just say it, I feel it hanging in the air unsaid...your players will always, always, expect you to allow them to carry out tactics like this with their hirelings against npc forces but will always, always then get angry and a little catty when npc forces use these tactics on them. This is all before any folded portable hole bag holding arrows of spatial inversion or whatever.
Greetings!
Yes, Slipshot, the players are certain to always want to employ the coolest and most brutally effective tactics against their enemies! *laughing* But yes, they certainly take a dim view when such tactics are used against them and their own forces, don't they?
I sometimes remind my players, "Gang, these enemies you face are not morons. They are quite skilled in warfare and taking care of business--especially here, in their homeland!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:48:25 AM
Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 21, 2021, 07:07:22 AM
I'll just say it, I feel it hanging in the air unsaid...your players will always, always, expect you to allow them to carry out tactics like this with their hirelings against npc forces but will always, always then get angry and a little catty when npc forces use these tactics on them. This is all before any folded portable hole bag holding arrows of spatial inversion or whatever.
Greetings!
Yes, Slipshot, the players are certain to always want to employ the coolest and most brutally effective tactics against their enemies! *laughing* But yes, they certainly take a dim view when such tactics are used against them and their own forces, don't they?
I sometimes remind my players, "Gang, these enemies you face are not morons. They are quite skilled in warfare and taking care of business--especially here, in their homeland!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Show don't tell--sometimes the best reminder is to just have the bad guys destroy the PCs in combat leading to a rout or (more likely, since "PCs don't run" idiocy tends to be common) a TPK.
Then discover that PCs tend to have a form of ancestral/inherited memory as each benefits from the prior experiences of the player. Unfortunately, sometimes that works against them too if previous DMs have been too lenient.
Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:48:25 AM
Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 21, 2021, 07:07:22 AM
I'll just say it, I feel it hanging in the air unsaid...your players will always, always, expect you to allow them to carry out tactics like this with their hirelings against npc forces but will always, always then get angry and a little catty when npc forces use these tactics on them. This is all before any folded portable hole bag holding arrows of spatial inversion or whatever.
Greetings!
Yes, Slipshot, the players are certain to always want to employ the coolest and most brutally effective tactics against their enemies! *laughing* But yes, they certainly take a dim view when such tactics are used against them and their own forces, don't they?
I sometimes remind my players, "Gang, these enemies you face are not morons. They are quite skilled in warfare and taking care of business--especially here, in their homeland!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah, I've had that happen. Had to be real careful as a player about busting out some of the nastier magic tricks because I knew our GM was going to take notes. Definitely didn't want him getting any ideas!
Something else to consider, if you're playing a fantasy game: those forests may not be occupied solely by barbarians.
Elves. Dryads. Nymphs. Fey. Treants. Green dragons. Plenty of nonhuman allies to make an invading force squirm.
What if the barbarian tribes are being guided by a reclusive green dragon who prefers NOT to be interrupted by damnable Roman expies? Or perhaps there's a tradition among such forest barbarians of their young men paying homage (and perhaps a bit more) to the fey queen who rules the deepest woods?
So a bit late to the Party but here are my two cencts.
So the Romans gave the Forest in the South of Germany the name Nigra Silva which translates to Black Forest or in German Schwarzwald. And they didn´t chose the Name because they shed Tears of Joy when entering the Forest, more so because they feared it.
And so in Games which involved some deep and dark Forests I always gave the "Invaders" a Moral penalty to mirror this feeling.