Author: Mithras (---.btinternet.com)
Date: 09-15-2001 13:24
I'm working on a game set in a nasty combat zone at the moment. The fact the real-world soldiers committed atrocities in this setting is not the reason I've chosen to do the game. But it is a big, big part of the rules and mechanics. It has to be. In this particular theatre of war the soldiers did horrible things. They had freedom, much as your standard D&D PC has. They had firepower and freedom, so often they went too far, they lorded it over the people they were trying to protect. There were atrocities, some tiny and everyday, some awful and huge and world-shaking.
In essence this game (as a by product of design) basically lets the players have the freedom you mention. Yes, if you don't like the look of the villager, shot him. You're bored while on patrol? See if you can shoot those boys herding cows in that field. These are both real examples from that war. They sound like the actions of an angry ass kicking D&D group. I've GMed players like that.
Morally, then, I was in a quandry. So I looked to the history books. These soldiers couldn't do these things with impunity. There were tremendous psychological problems. And so, as a balance, a penalty for the PCs, the more atrocities they see or commit, the greater their breakdown. Ultimate freedom of action has its price and that price is sanity.
"Oh my god you just mowed down little children!! Make some kind of roll to flip out..." That would have been my reaction to the situation you described. You need sanity rules! You need a penalty, not just 'the city watch turn up' but something deeper, longer lasting and ultimately crippling.
Mithras
http://www.geocities.com/mithrapolis
The Ladder - A super-lite, super-fast generic game
MARS - Hard SF exploration on the Red Planet
Zenobia - Epic Fantasy Adventure in the Roman Era
Zaibatsu - Japanese Cyberpunk, William Gibson-style!
|
|
