Human Nature Question re: Marauders

[Ancestor]

Has anyone ever thought about the desertion point for marauders? Thinking about human self-interest, it's easy to think about the point that it's time to get out when the getting is good. But, it's one thing for a random band, it's another when a well organized gang who has been ruling the roost for a while gets punched in the face. Interested to hear how you all have played this. Thanks and cheers!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ancestor

Has anyone ever thought about the desertion point for marauders?

Like leaving the group? I've always envisioned most marauders as people with very few remaining options. They've left the organized military, and there's probably no going back at this point. They know what wolves do to sheep, so returning to civilian life isn't really on the table. So, they're kind of stuck. Essentially, they "maraud" to survive. There's probably a fair number of genuine sociopaths/psychopaths among the group too, so your "average" marauder is probably afraid to desert, knowing what could happen when they no longer enjoy the protection of being part of the in-crowd (kind of like how it's really hard to leave a street gang once you're in it). So yeah, I see it as very difficult for a marauder to desert.

Now, if a local military unit that's stronger than the marauders offers an amnesty, then some individuals who realize they've gotten in over their heads or have grown disillusioned would probably look for an opportunity to sneak away and rejoin civilization.

If we'te talking about encounters...

Well, one could use some sort of group morale mechanic for starters. For example, once X fellow marauders are wounded/killed, the survivors will break and run. I can't remember if v1 or 2.2 has a mechanic like that, but v4 does. Couple a grig oup morale number with individual morale number. If an individual marauder's morale dips below a certain point, they keep on running (i.e. leave the group).

-

[ChalkLine]

I frequently have marauders fragment when they get pushed hard, especially as some of the bandits probably never wanted to be in that sort of outfit anyway. I also have factions sometimes leave each other out to dry so they can get an advantage over each other.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Ancestor

Has anyone ever thought about the desertion point for marauders? Thinking about human self-interest, it's easy to think about the point that it's time to get out when the getting is good. But, it's one thing for a random band, it's another when a well organized gang who has been ruling the roost for a while gets punched in the face. Interested to hear how you all have played this. Thanks and cheers!

I use a version of TW2K13's COOLNESS UNDER FIRE (or CUF) rules modified for v2.2/Dark Conspiracy. Teg and the crew deserve full credit for coming up with a set of rules that are simple to use and elegant in their outcomes. So here's my mod of 93 Games studio's rules for V2.2 use.

First... I add the stat known as WILLPOWER. I take it from a skill in Dark Conspiracy and make it an ATTRIBUTE just like STR, AGL, CON, CHA, EDU, and INT. Will is a measure of MENTAL STRENGTH or determination. Since a person CAN be stubborn but cowardly, it is not the full measure of a person's bravery. It simply influences it.

COOLNESS UNDER FIRE (or CUF) is a stat rated from 1 to 10 (just like Attributes) and is determined by rolling a 1D10 and AVERAGING it with the PC's Willpower Attribute (rounding down). The PC gets to add a +1 to the roll IF they were combat arms. They may add +2 for elite units like the Airborne, SWAT, or Rangers and +3 for highly specialized units like the Navy SEALS or Delta. This CUF score is what determines how "brave" a character or NPC is.

HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS (per 93 Game's system):

Different "threats" generate a thing known as "threat conditions" and these threat conditions add up to create an element of "fear" during play. Some things (threats) that generate "treat conditions" (or TCs from now on) include...

Scratch wounds: 1 TC (per wound)
Light Wounds: 2 TC (per wound)
Serious Wounds: 3 TC (per wound)
Critical Wounds: 4 TC (per Wound)
Seeing a comrade wounded: one less TC than being wounded.
Being Attacked: 1 TC
Being Attacked with a melee weapon: +1 TC (in addition to being attacked)
Being Attacked with a firearm: +1 TC
Being shot at by multiple rounds +1 TC per ROF
Being targeted by explosives or autocannon rounds: +2 TC
Outnumbered 2 to 1: +1 TC
Outnumbered 3 to 1: +2 TC
Outnumbered 4 to 1: +3 and so forth
Attacked with Fire: +2 TC
Attacked with Gas: +3 TC
Dark Conspiracy Monsters FEAR FACTOR: This is a number indicating the number of "threat conditions" the mere sighting or encounter of a monster can cause to a PC. Seeing a Ghast or Big Foot can cause the immediate accumulation of TCs.

GOD CAN ALSO GIVETH STRENGTH:

The following events can REMOVE TCs from a PC or NPC...

Tango Down (enemy incapacitated or killed): -1 TC
For each new ALLY who arrives at a fight in progress: -1 TC
A successful LEADERSHIP Check (Leadership + CHA): -1 TC
Successful Medical Treatment of Injury: -1 TC
Pain Killers: -1 TC
Use of mood-altering drugs (alcohol or psych meds): -1 TC
You have fire superiority (you have full auto vs semi): -1 TC

Once you have established the TCs being distributed, you apply them to the PC's CUF score. IF the PC or NPC's CUF score is exceeded, they are either (temporarily) SUPPRESSED or they must withdraw for a combat round. I give PCs the option to resist this by rolling their WILL + CUF on 1D20 or lower. The number of TCs that their CUF is exceeded by is subtracted from the total of the two scores.

IF the total TCs exceed TWICE the PC's or NPC's CUF score, they must roll the same WILL + CUF - excess TCs or lower to stay in the fight. A failure results in flight from the fight. In horror gameplay, IF they miss this roll Catastrophically, they freeze and just stand there screaming as the monster bears down on them.

During play, we use tokens to indicate TCs because they fluctuate so much.

That is pretty much the system from TW2K13 in a nutshell.

[Ancestor]

Thank you all, this gives me something to think about! I'm a V1/2 guy, didn't realize that there were other ways to address the encounter math outlined in 2013 and V4. Good information. Also appreciate the insight into how the bad guys might weigh options from that standpoint of human nature.

I'm currently running Red Star Lone Star and the PCs (highly augmented by both starting NPCs and some Mexican deserters who joined along the way) have just inflicted serious losses on Grady LaMarr's gang in the ruins of Corpus Christi. After wiping out a marauder patrol and a long range sniper kill on a minor boss at the entrance checkpoint, the group then executed a very successful ambush of the marauder QRF, destroying one M113 and one HMMWV. The group successfully breached the fortified entrance to the causeway and were pursuing the fleeing remnants of the TCP personnel across the causeway when we decided to break.

As I was planning the next session I just thought, wait a minute, the bad guys have lost approximately 10% of their manpower plus 1/2 of their military vehicle strength in a very short period of time. Are they really going to stand and fight or are they going to (1) run as a group or (2) fragment?

You guys gave me a lot of things to consider - I appreciate it!

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

I frequently have marauders fragment when they get pushed hard, especially as some of the bandits probably never wanted to be in that sort of outfit anyway. I also have factions sometimes leave each other out to dry so they can get an advantage over each other.

That and then the question: "What is a marauder really?"

Marauder is more of a foreign appellation. Most groups wouldn't call themselves that, unless you're looking for a fancy name for your military unit. Thus, marauder is more a catch-all term for bandits and raiders, possibly ex-military, but also could just an armed gang.

So, where do they come from and what did they do before? Marauders fill up a power vacuum and usually don't stay marauders for very long. It's a hazardous occupation, so you either establish an area where you can run a different, less dangerous scheme, or you become a roving party. Those usually end messy, once someone else claims the territory as theirs and achieves some local support.

Once marauders have their hide-outs known, they're usually hunted down pretty quickly. It's really a no-brainer for local power structures to do so: lines of communication and commerce become safer, local people happier and you get to show your strength, keep the weapons and re-distribute the possessions and stolen goods of the marauders.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That and then the question: "What is a marauder really?"

Marauder is more of a foreign appellation. Most groups wouldn't call themselves that, unless you're looking for a fancy name for your military unit. Thus, marauder is more a catch-all term for bandits and raiders, possibly ex-military, but also could just an armed gang.

So, where do they come from and what did they do before? Marauders fill up a power vacuum and usually don't stay marauders for very long. It's a hazardous occupation, so you either establish an area where you can run a different, less dangerous scheme, or you become a roving party. Those usually end messy, once someone else claims the territory as theirs and achieves some local support.

Once marauders have their hide-outs known, they're usually hunted down pretty quickly. It's really a no-brainer for local power structures to do so: lines of communication and commerce become safer, local people happier and you get to show your strength, keep the weapons and re-distribute the possessions and stolen goods of the marauders.

Absolutely.
I have an almost-finished scenario where you deal with marauders who are sure they are freedom fighters and even have a banner, a manifesto and a justification for everything shitty they do.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That and then the question: "What is a marauder really?"

Marauder is more of a foreign appellation. Most groups wouldn't call themselves that, unless you're looking for a fancy name for your military unit. Thus, marauder is more a catch-all term for bandits and raiders, possibly ex-military, but also could just an armed gang.

So, where do they come from and what did they do before? Marauders fill up a power vacuum and usually don't stay marauders for very long. It's a hazardous occupation, so you either establish an area where you can run a different, less dangerous scheme, or you become a roving party. Those usually end messy, once someone else claims the territory as theirs and achieves some local support.

Once marauders have their hide-outs known, they're usually hunted down pretty quickly. It's really a no-brainer for local power structures to do so: lines of communication and commerce become safer, local people happier and you get to show your strength, keep the weapons and re-distribute the possessions and stolen goods of the marauders.

The Twilight World, c.2000, is a pretty chaotic place, where power structures either don't exist, are spread exceedingly thin, and/or strained to the breaking point. In any failed state, marauders (call them what you will) tend to appear, and are extremely difficult to stamp out.

Take, for instance, 14th century Europe, especially France during the 100 Years War. Kings/national governments were too weak to eliminate or even control large "marauder" groups. Once a "Free Company", as the English called them (Condottieri, in Italian) had fulfilled its mercenary contract, or become dissatisfied with the terms, it often turned to banditry to support itself until the next contract could be secured (in France, demobilized mercs were called Écorcheurs- literally, "scorchers")- this could often take quite a bit of time. Free Companies would routinely ransom entire villages until paid off to leave. Villages that couldn't or wouldn't pay would be pillaged- the classic protection racket. This sort of thing was also pretty common during the 30 Years War.

In modern times, one sees this sort of thing in places like Somalia, where the line between insurgent, terrorist, and bandit is blurred almost beyond distinction. Mexico isn't quite a failed state, but there are large areas of the country where criminal groups or paramilitaries are the de facto local authority, and pretty much do what they like with impunity. This has been going on for a couple of decades now, and the Mexican gov't, even using the national military to supplement local and federal police forces, has so far failed to eliminate these myriad groups or bring them to heel.

In conclusion, I don't think the marauder problem described in T2k lore is at all overblown. I think marauders would be a persistent, endemic problem in warzones and failed states all over the world. Poland, for one, qualifies as both.

-

[unipus]

To me, what makes Poland an interesting setting for a campaign is its long history of mostly failed independence movements. It's been habitually occupied in some form or another by foreign nations for centuries, with only a few brief decades of actual independence -- and then a good chunk of that on a very short Soviet leash.

But there's a long history of both peaceful and armed resistance there. And I think it makes the line between "legitimate" local authority, resistance fighters, and Soviet (or other nation!) occupation very interesting in terms of motives. These are times of convenience and if you want to survive you probably don't want to rock the boat too much, but the band of spirited, ideologically motivated freedom fighters might over time find itself deviating from its higher morals just to survive. Or the other way... a marriage of convenience might exist between cutthroats and a political resistance movement. Or the occupying force that might engage them to root out loyalists. Or so on. Every group could have different motives and every individual within that group might be happy with those, or growing discontent. Most people tend to simply fall in line with whatever insane thing the local group that supports them does. This is why the first task of every insurgency is undermining the means of the powers-that-be to provide safety and infrastructure to its subjects. This definitely is happening now all over the world, mostly in isolated pockets, but the tactics are being applied equally everywhere including the US. A bigger challenge, I think, is to take a step back and recall how it would be done in a world without the internet or really ANY means of easy communications. Every group needs to recruit. How do they go about it? That alone can tell you a lot about their motives and means. And in turn, about their morale and breaking point.

[Tegyrius]

I think the line between straggler and marauder is going to be quite blurred.

Let's say you're a Soviet conscript in what was once a Category C unit. You've somehow survived the experience of fighting on a nuclear battlefield while carrying a weapon older than yourself. Your former national command authority is separate atoms drifting around the upper atmosphere. You're hundreds of kilometers from home and your schooling didn't include SERE or land navigation. Your officers are all dead, either from enemy action or, um, "enemy action." (Wasn't you. You're just trying to survive. But some of your comrades are a few weeks ahead of you on the desperation/ruthlessness curve.)

You haven't gotten a "good luck, you're on your own" message, but you know that's where you are, really. If a still-extant Soviet formation catches you, you'll be given a field trial and shot as a deserter - never mind the fact that in post-nuclear Soviet Union, army deserted you! You don't speak the local language, you don't know how to get home, you probably don't even know where you are (yes, yes, generally, you're in Poland, but which pile of rubble is that over there?). You have an artifact from the Kalashnikov Museum Collection, no rations, a full magazine, half a squad of fellow conscripts in similar straits, it's getting dark, and you're wearing a threadbare uniform that any given local may shoot you for wearing.

Really, at this point, the list of available life paths for which you meet the prerequisites is pretty damn short.

- C.

[unipus]

Arguably, half of what you just described still puts the lowly Soviet private in a much better logistical and morale situation than the lowly US private. Sure, more of the local populace might want to murder you, but at least you could walk home if you had to. And you're pretty used to that kind of thing.

[Tegyrius]

The difference between PC and marauder may be a matter of degrees and perception, too.

- C.

[unipus]

Ha, true. The PCs in my campaign are pretty mercenary. So far, that's been fine but I'm definitely going to start throwing some much harder "hey, are we working for the bad guys?" dilemmas their way very soon.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I think the line between straggler and marauder is going to be quite blurred.

Let's say you're a Soviet conscript in what was once a Category C unit. You've somehow survived the experience of fighting on a nuclear battlefield while carrying a weapon older than yourself. Your former national command authority is separate atoms drifting around the upper atmosphere. You're hundreds of kilometers from home and your schooling didn't include SERE or land navigation. Your officers are all dead, either from enemy action or, um, "enemy action." (Wasn't you. You're just trying to survive. But some of your comrades are a few weeks ahead of you on the desperation/ruthlessness curve.)

You haven't gotten a "good luck, you're on your own" message, but you know that's where you are, really. If a still-extant Soviet formation catches you, you'll be given a field trial and shot as a deserter - never mind the fact that in post-nuclear Soviet Union, army deserted you! You don't speak the local language, you don't know how to get home, you probably don't even know where you are (yes, yes, generally, you're in Poland, but which pile of rubble is that over there?). You have an artifact from the Kalashnikov Museum Collection, no rations, a full magazine, half a squad of fellow conscripts in similar straits, it's getting dark, and you're wearing a threadbare uniform that any given local may shoot you for wearing.

Really, at this point, the list of available life paths for which you meet the prerequisites is pretty damn short.

- C.

Apart from the very weird fact that in my solo game it actually starts with the Soviet trooper saying the war deserted him and not the other way around the thing about Soviet deserters is actually western propaganda. During the worst time for it; Stalin's "not one step back" order only 2.7% of troops caught by blocking forces were shot according to the Soviet archives, actually less than the number the Nazis shot when their troops did it. They simply got sent back to their units.

The order was aimed not at the troops, you couldn't make their discipline any more draconian, it was aimed at officers and commissars (before the commissars were pulled out of the army in 1943) who weren't doing their jobs to the level demanded by Stavka. of course, it was usually Stalin's ridiculous orders that got them into a situation they couldn't solve. Even these soldiers weren't shot but it seems many were busted down to enlisted, especially the commissars.

So our lost and lorne frontovik wandering back from kalisz and not having a compass is just going to get hoovered up by the MVD and sent back to his unit or sent to a replacement depot.

[Raellus]

In some cases, marauder might be a part-time job, if you will. Take for instance, the infamous 2nd Lt. William Calley and the My Lai massacre. Imagine that it's 2000 and Calley is an officer in the US 5th ID. His unit is on patrol outside of the cantonment and massacres the civilian inhabitants of a Polish village. Rape and theft also occur during the "incident". This could be described as classic "marauder" behavior, could it not?

Calley and his unit return to their cantonment and report taking fire from a settlement, engaging an unknown number of PACT troops, and inflicting X number of enemy KIA/WIA. As long as his superiors don't dig too deep, or follow up on rumors/reports of atrocities, Calley and his troops, still officially part of the US 5th ID, get away with it. One might consider that part-time marauding.

Consider, also, the behavior of German troops in occupied territory (especially the USSR) during WW2, and Soviet troops in Germany in 1945. In both cases, atrocities against civilians were committed on a large scale and the respective militaries and governments either looked the other way or actively encouraged it. In 1945, even when the Soviet military issued orders that atrocities committed against German civilians cease, they continued more or less apace and unchecked. If a military unit is acting against orders, are they not marauders?

The line between official military units committing war crimes and "marauders" is very fine indeed.

-

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by unipus

To me, what makes Poland an interesting setting for a campaign is its long history of mostly failed independence movements. It's been habitually occupied in some form or another by foreign nations for centuries, with only a few brief decades of actual independence -- and then a good chunk of that on a very short Soviet leash.

The Great War ended really on the ideal note for Poland. All three great powers that had partitioned the country were destroyed, leaving the Poles available to be a buffer state and hopefully a counterbalance to the big powers in the area. Of course Józef Piłsudski's dictatorship was not ideal, nor his behaviour in Ukraine during his Międzymorze otherwise known as the Intermarium strategy of conquering a broad swathe of middle Europe from the Baltic, Aegean and Black Seas including all the Baltic and Balkan States as well as Ukraine. The Entente must have thought they'd created a monster.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Raellus

(snip goodness for brevity)

The line between official military units committing war crimes and "marauders" is very fine indeed.

-

Well, there are actually clear rules on what you can and cannot do. I studied war crimes in uni¹ and in every case I could see there are two sorts; individual war crimes and command war crimes.

Individual war crimes are part of war, they are impossible to stop no matter how good your troops are. Every soldier is an individual subject to immense pressures and the removal of all forms of normalcy. These are the behaviours we usually talk about when we refer to 'marauders' in that they are cut off, isolated, thrown onto their own resources and lose their focus. Normally it is simply a solider out of supervision losing control.

Command war crimes are very different and they range from Calley at Pinkville to the Nazis and The Three Illegal Orders. In all cases they are overseen by the officer corps, the very people placed in position to prevent the crimes, and implemented, planned and carried out according to some agenda.

As you can see the position of the officer is always critical and it's something players don't need to address but NPCs should be put into focus with. The officer's behaviour falls on the "Complicit-Complacent Spectrum" and largely determines what sort of crime occurs and how the military and civilian authorities see it. Note that the officer might not always be on the same place in the spectrum but can slide around due to events.

The laws of warfare are actually fairly lenient towards soldiers stuck behind lines. For instance killing another soldier in an escape is not legally murder as it is if a civilian kills a soldier². However banditry was outlawed in the early modern era and every soldier knows it and engages in it at their own peril. The further east you go the worse the penalties.

¹Which is why you saw me get very heated about it back in the old days
² Yes, legally The French Resistance were civilian criminals but they have always been considered to have had mitigating circumstances

[Raellus]

To clarify, I meant in practice, more than in legal terms- de facto v. de jure. In other words, spirit of the law v the letter.

But still, the argument of "I was just following orders" hasn't held much water at Hague trials.

More to the point, aren't discussions of international law in a T2kU almost moot? Realistically, who is keeping score? In the field, I mean. There are few extant governments, c.2000, and those that do exist have very little reach. As a purely practical matter, in the field, who does or doesn't qualify as a "marauder" is more a subjective judgment than a legal one.

That's not to say that atrocities should be overlooked in the T2kU. Quite the opposite. As a player, I want to right wrongs and protect the vulnerable from predation. As a Ref, I hope my players want that too. If they don't, it's probably going to be a short campaign. If players act like marauders, and victimize the vulnerable, I'm walking away from the table/computer.

-

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Raellus

To clarify, I meant in practice, more than in legal terms- de facto v. de jure. In other words, spirit of the law v the letter.

But still, the argument of "I was just following orders" hasn't held much water at Hague trials.

More to the point, aren't discussions of international law in a T2kU almost moot? Realistically, who is keeping score? In the field, I mean. There are few extant governments, c.2000, and those that do exist have very little reach. As a purely practical matter, in the field, who does or doesn't qualify as a "marauder" is more a subjective judgment than a legal one.

That's not to say that atrocities should be overlooked in the T2kU. Quite the opposite. As a player, I want to right wrongs and protect the vulnerable from predation. As a Ref, I hope my players want that too. If they don't, it's probably going to be a short campaign. If players act like marauders, and victimize the vulnerable, I'm walking away from the table/computer.

-

That's a really good point and I think in my campaign it falls under 'everything changes with time and place'. So, if you're out in the wilds of the Mansurian Lakes the situation is very different to that of Lublin or Krakow.

I generally assume if there's a main force unit it follows the rules of warfare unless the story requires otherwise, because normally units that don't tend to disintegrate. This is where we get back to 'what is a marauder' in that I think many of them are simply units in the process of breaking down. Not all, or possibly even most units might do this.

I've been lucky, nearly all my players wanted to retain their humanity. A former player group had a bunch of Russians in a truck that they'd captured. In a hard firefight against bandits they found them giving them covering fire from bandit weapons they'd picked up because they understood that an enemy that behaved like a soldier was far preferable to a friend that behaved like a gangster.

Officers depend on their status and instinctive deference to control behaviour. Obviously this has zero effect within a player group but NPCs see it as vital, especially eastern troops where officers and senior NPCs have blurred lines. In all sources I've read about officers leading troops out of tight conditions they consistently emphasise how important it was to juggle morale but more importantly control. NPC troops will appreciate an officer that has a plan, thinks nimbly and values their troops. Given this they are far more likely to behave during privation, loss and adverse situations.
Probably the singular best example of this is Captain Bligh sailing a tiny boat across a vast ocean with a crew that rapidly fell apart due to stress to the point that he had one guy in a longboat under arrest. Each man said it was his leadership, firm command and strong plan that got them through.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Absolutely.
I have an almost-finished scenario where you deal with marauders who are sure they are freedom fighters and even have a banner, a manifesto and a justification for everything shitty they do.

That the level of dedication, worthy for several great evenings. You're players are very lucky!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Ancestor

Thank you all, this gives me something to think about! I'm a V1/2 guy, didn't realize that there were other ways to address the encounter math outlined in 2013 and V4. Good information. Also appreciate the insight into how the bad guys might weigh options from that standpoint of human nature.

I'm currently running Red Star Lone Star and the PCs (highly augmented by both starting NPCs and some Mexican deserters who joined along the way) have just inflicted serious losses on Grady LaMarr's gang in the ruins of Corpus Christi. After wiping out a marauder patrol and a long range sniper kill on a minor boss at the entrance checkpoint, the group then executed a very successful ambush of the marauder QRF, destroying one M113 and one HMMWV. The group successfully breached the fortified entrance to the causeway and were pursuing the fleeing remnants of the TCP personnel across the causeway when we decided to break.

As I was planning the next session I just thought, wait a minute, the bad guys have lost approximately 10% of their manpower plus 1/2 of their military vehicle strength in a very short period of time. Are they really going to stand and fight or are they going to (1) run as a group or (2) fragment?

You guys gave me a lot of things to consider - I appreciate it!

This is where that LEADERSHIP skill officers and high-ranking NCOs get comes into play. In my V2.2 rules, the commander would roll a test of [Leadership Skill + CHA] with the difficulty set by the casualties taken to hold the band together and get the men to regroup. I use...

Less than 10% Casualties = EASY (X2) test of that skill.
10% Casualties = ROUTINE (X1.5) test of the skill.
11% to 20% Casualties = AVERAGE (X1) test of the skill.
21% to 30% Casualties = FAIRLY DIFFICULT (X0.75) test of the skill.
31% to 50% Casualties = DIFFICULT (X0.5) test of skill.
51% to 75% Casualties = FORMIDABLE (X0.25) test of skill.
76% or more Casualties = IMPOSSIBLE (X0.1) test of skill.

As you can see, I have adopted the old Traveller the RPG skill difficulty levels to give more variety to my task checks.

[Raellus]

Cool system, Swag.

4e has a Command skill, and a connected Unit Morale score. The latter is used, along with CUF, to determine if/when a PC is Suppressed. Unit Morale is primarily meant for PC parties but could easily be modifed and applied to enemy units to determine if/when a marauder group breaks and retreats or scatters.

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Cool system, Swag.

4e has a Command skill, and a connected Unit Morale score. The latter is used, along with CUF, to determine if/when a PC is Suppressed. Unit Morale is primarily meant for PC parties but could easily be modifed and applied to enemy units to determine if/when a marauder group breaks and retreats or scatters.

-

I would also allow anyone with the Psychology Skill to make such a check but I would make it one Level Of Difficulty HARDER (ie Routine becomes Average). The PCs have all of these Skills so we need to make them of some use during play.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

The difference between PC and marauder may be a matter of degrees and perception, too.

- C.

The PCs in my last campaign switched to hyper-ruthless mode frighteningly quickly.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Targan

The PCs in my last campaign switched to hyper-ruthless mode frighteningly quickly.

My PCs are capable of ferocity but I always try and run inside the law by a wide margin. The place is bad enough without me adding to it.

A lot of war crimes are about power, the culprit feels powerless due to the war and tries victimise someone to make themselves feel better. I don't think I want to spend my Saturday afternoon pretending to be that guy.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

A lot of war crimes are about power, the culprit feels powerless due to the war and tries victimise someone to make themselves feel better. I don't think I want to spend my Saturday afternoon pretending to be that guy.

That sums it up quite nicely. I don't want my sparse hobby time to feel like I binge watch LiveLeaks neither.