Ron Edwards wrote: Regarding race in RPGs, I think it's best to consider them forms of social cliques in combination with class - usually corresponding to high school stereotypes. "Clan" in later games served the same purpose. I really don't think race (in the D&D sense) has anything to do with ethnicity at all.

If it did, then we'd be seeing a lot of stress and hassle about race during play which would parallel the stress and hassle most role-players constantly experience about sex/gender (even if they deny or sugar-coat it).

Split from The hidden sex keyword?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Split from The hidden sex keyword?

Best,
Ron

Hi S'mon,

OK, first the race thing.

You say that your races corresponded to ethnic groups, but the real question is whether or not racial issues came up in play. And moreso than just the usual Gimli-Legolas chiding between two races. I mean, did anyone ever have to make a decision that would mean either supporting or betraying their race? Or something of that nature?

What I think Ron's saying, is that most people select a race in games like this based on the +1 to bows and infravision abilities that the race provides. They're not thinking of the character as coming from a different culture (or as coming from a culture at all, really), but as simply having some game abilities based on race.

To the extent that the characters are all the same race, then they do form that sort of clique that Ron is talking about. In the "Dwarf fighter, Human ranger, Halfling theif, and elf mage" which is pretty damn common, race becomes, again, just something to chide about. No real issues at work there. Does the dwarf actually ever get into fights with the elf over how the elves betrayed them at Kahar'gorm? Better, does the human distrust the Dwarf around gold? To the extend of being insulting about it? Does the GM work to make sure that things like this come up, either internally, or externally? I mean even if they're all fast friends, does a group of elfs every come up and ask their pal why he's hanging with such riff-raff? Actually give him such shit about it that he might consider betraying his friends?

Those are cultural issues - and the most cliche ones I could think of at that. "Real" ones would be much more interesting. Stuff like this is rare in most D&D games.

I think that even where it does exist that Kerstin's friend got it right - nobody is actually an elf, so they can't be directly insulted. What can happen, and I fret about this a lot, actually, is that the whole idea that one race can be superior to another can be upsetting to somebody who's been on the recieving end of false attitudes about races. To explain, say you say that elves are superior in your game (they are in mine), mechanically. They are smarter, quicker, and more beautiful than the other races in an objective sense. Aren't you saying, then, that this could be the case in our world?

Not that this is what one must be saying. In my game, elves are superior for thematic reasons having to do with magic and such, and are not a statement on my part in any way that there are humans who are intrinsically superior to any others in the real world. They are a "sci-fi" postulate like "what if there were an actually superior race?" The point being to explore this in the setting as different from our world.

But I don't make that explicit, hence I fret. And my game is, actually, all about differences in race and culture. So these things are going to come up in play.

But, then, I also deal with gender issues. Nobody is saying one shouldn't deal with racial issues, even direct ones like racism. Just that it should be a choice, in part the player's choice.

So, here's the thing with your game. I'll have to take your word for it, that there's no intent to have sexism in your game. That, like me looking at races, you're looking at gender with a clinical eye. And that this was formed by the previous contract with the other players. That's all fine.

Where you've not met the challenge, however, is in not adjusting the game to account for the new player. It would have been quite possible to keep your world as is, and simply have looked at other issues than the ones dealing with the setting's sexism. No matter how intrinsic you see this stuff to the setting, having things related to it come up in play in an uncomfortable way, is not automatic. It's an option.

Now, you also have no imperative to change for the other player - you'd be quite within your rights, I think, to continue to play exactly as you had. The problem is that you didn't consider that it might affect the new player. You don't have to change, but you do have to consider whether or not the issues that you are playing about will be fun for the players coming into the game. If you don't then want to change, you could at least tell the player in question that these were the issues at hand. So they could decide whether or not this was something that they were interested in.

Now, I'm being pretty hardline here, and it's more than possible that it just didn't occur to you that any of this might be problematic. You might even see Kerstin as over-reacting. Sometimes players just aren't a good fit for the game. Could be nobody's fault. Happens all the time. It's happened to me, for one.

But what might be good to take away from the experience is the idea that gender issues, race issues, any sort of issue might be problematic for some people to deal with in the way that you want to deal with it in your game. So in the future, just be cognizant of that up front. And then either compromise with the player, or agree with each other that it's not the game for them. Might avoid lots of heartburn all around.

Personally I'm all for compromise, but, again, no absolute imperative, especially if you're already running a successful game.

If you do find that you want to change this sort of thing in a game where it's established, well, yeah, it may not be easy to do. Often in this case, starting a new game is the neccessary "ritual" needed to alter the landscape. Again, however, the first step is social contract. Make sure that the player is actually respected by the group in an appropriate way first. If there's even one player who thinks of another as "That person who I deal with only in RPGs" you've got a problem.

Mike

Hello,

Folks might be interested in reviewing my points in Race in heroic fantasy and The class issue, which despite the title touches deeply on in-game race, if one recognizes that D&D character creation is always a matrix between race and class.

Best,
Ron

>>Hi S'mon,<<

Hi Mike. :)

>>OK, first the race thing.

You say that your races corresponded to ethnic groups, but the real question is whether or not racial issues came up in play. And moreso than just the usual Gimli-Legolas chiding between two races. I mean, did anyone ever have to make a decision that would mean either supporting or betraying their race? Or something of that nature? <<

Mm, as far as elves & dwarves go (the D&D races played by my Asian player), there was a strange situation where he didn't really want to play out his PCs' relations with their own race, so eg when I ran a dwarf-centric scenario he went into turtle mode and his dwarven paladin wouldn't relate to the dwarf clan who were looking to him to be their saviour-hero. He liked playing the outsider in human society rather than member of an in-game race. Maybe this changed in Stalkingblue's game after I left. If he had engaged with the scenario there would have been a choice as to where his loyalties lay, with the dwarves or with his human comrades-in-arms.
The setting is one where humans are in the overwhelming majority and most inter-ethnic conflicts are between different human races; quasi-Mongols, -Amerindians, -Europeans, -Scandinavians, -Arabs et al.

>>What I think Ron's saying, is that most people select a race in games like this based on the +1 to bows and infravision abilities that the race provides. They're not thinking of the character as coming from a different culture (or as coming from a culture at all, really), but as simply having some game abilities based on race.

To the extent that the characters are all the same race, then they do form that sort of clique that Ron is talking about. In the "Dwarf fighter, Human ranger, Halfling theif, and elf mage" which is pretty damn common, race becomes, again, just something to chide about. No real issues at work there. Does the dwarf actually ever get into fights with the elf over how the elves betrayed them at Kahar'gorm? Better, does the human distrust the Dwarf around gold? To the extend of being insulting about it? Does the GM work to make sure that things like this come up, either internally, or externally? I mean even if they're all fast friends, does a group of elfs every come up and ask their pal why he's hanging with such riff-raff? Actually give him such shit about it that he might consider betraying his friends? <<

Normally only the one player IMC played nonhumans; human NPCs would often regard his PCs as strange and exotic, but being a high-level D&D game they'd be unlikely to insult him! Discrimination would be the subtle discrimination of being less likely to be taken seriously and given eg noble titles or military command, the same kind of subtle discrimination female PCs faced and the female players found objectionable.

>>Those are cultural issues - and the most cliche ones I could think of at that. "Real" ones would be much more interesting. Stuff like this is rare in most D&D games. <<

I certainly wasn't seeking to emphasise racial or inter-sex conflict in this campaign.

>>I think that even where it does exist that Kerstin's friend got it right - nobody is actually an elf, so they can't be directly insulted. What can happen, and I fret about this a lot, actually, is that the whole idea that one race can be superior to another can be upsetting to somebody who's been on the recieving end of false attitudes about races. To explain, say you say that elves are superior in your game (they are in mine), mechanically. They are smarter, quicker, and more beautiful than the other races in an objective sense. Aren't you saying, then, that this could be the case in our world? <<

Well the D&D 3e race mod stats I use are 'balanced' anyway; despite which IMC there's a general assumption among elves that elves are superior, and humans have something of an inferiority complex around elves "They think they're so great...".
I don't use stat mods for human races or by gender IMC for PCs, I don't see the (game) value in that, but in creating NPCs human males typically have higher STR than females, with overlap (certainly a human female Fighter is typically much stronger than a human male Wizard), Mongali (Mongol) NPCs, renowned for their toughness, typically have good CON, Trafalgic Norsemen are big and have good STR, etc. So I have differences in average stats by gender and race (which I think corresponds to the situation IRL, but even if it didn't it's a fantasy trope I'm happy to stick with), but this is not something that directly affects PCs; the Norse PC doesn't get a STR bonus and the female PC doesn't get a STR penalty.

>>Not that this is what one must be saying. In my game, elves are superior for thematic reasons having to do with magic and such, and are not a statement on my part in any way that there are humans who are intrinsically superior to any others in the real world. They are a "sci-fi" postulate like "what if there were an actually superior race?" The point being to explore this in the setting as different from our world. <<

As far as I'm aware there are differences between individuals IRL in terms of various characteristics, and there are differences in average strength, weight, height et al between genders and between different racial groups (with the proviso that race is a cultural construct often-but-not-always connected to differences in physical appearance resulting from
differing genes; some real-world 'racial' distinctions have no genetic basis). And different genes make different people smarter, stronger, healthier etc than others. This doesn't say anything significant about the moral value of an individual, though.

>>But I don't make that explicit, hence I fret. And my game is, actually, all about differences in race and culture. So these things are going to come up in play. <<

I haven't fretted in the past, and my game hasn't traditionally been about differences in race & culture, except insofar as they affect politics, which is a focus of the game.

>>But, then, I also deal with gender issues. Nobody is saying one shouldn't deal with racial issues, even direct ones like racism. Just that it should be a choice, in part the player's choice.

So, here's the thing with your game. I'll have to take your word for it, that there's no intent to have sexism in your game. <<

I think by Stalkingblue's definition of what constitutes sexism, you could argue that there was intentional sexism since there were sexist cultures and NPCs who were the product of those cultures. Although I don't think that was the whole problem; it was disturbing how when the female players' PCs met a very cool and powerful female NPC the soon-to-be Empress Zalindra, a powerful wizard who was also a master politician and (at least) the second-most politically powerful person on the planet, they seemed unable to relate to her or appreciate who she was and what she was doing (sounding them out as potential allies). I think maybe one of the male players had previously inculcated in them such a skewed view of this NPC and of my campaign world in general that they were unable to look past preconceptions.

>>That, like me looking at races, you're looking at gender with a clinical eye. And that this was formed by the previous contract with the other players. That's all fine. <<

Well, I think maybe some of the other male players had attitudes that could be characterised as more sexist than my own; eg if they saw a powerful female NPC they'd dismiss her as unimportant or look for the man pulling her strings. With hindsight I could have done a lot more to correct this and maybe made my female players happier.

>>Where you've not met the challenge, however, is in not adjusting the game to account for the new player. It would have been quite possible to keep your world as is, and simply have looked at other issues than the ones dealing with the setting's sexism. No matter how intrinsic you see this stuff to the setting, having things related to it come up in play in an uncomfortable way, is not automatic. It's an option.

Now, you also have no imperative to change for the other player - you'd be quite within your rights, I think, to continue to play exactly as you had. The problem is that you didn't consider that it might affect the new player. You don't have to change, but you do have to consider whether or not the issues that you are playing about will be fun for the players coming into the game. If you don't then want to change, you could at least tell the player in question that these were the issues at hand. So they could decide whether or not this was something that they were interested in.<<

I think I could have done more to present the world in a different light without violating its integrity. Kerstin was unhappy I wouldn't place her satisfaction as a player above the world's integrity as an existing setting. I don't think the two necessarily needed to be in conflict though.

>>Now, I'm being pretty hardline here, and it's more than possible that it just didn't occur to you that any of this might be problematic. You might even see Kerstin as over-reacting. Sometimes players just aren't a good fit for the game. Could be nobody's fault. Happens all the time. It's happened to me, for one. <<

By the time matters came out in the open it seemed it was too late for remedial action, there was a breakdown in trust and general ill-feeling. Kerstin is a demanding player which can be good or bad. If she tends to over-react it's at least partly due to prior unwelcome experiences.

>>But what might be good to take away from the experience is the idea that gender issues, race issues, any sort of issue might be problematic for some people to deal with in the way that you want to deal with it in your game. So in the future, just be cognizant of that up front. And then either compromise with the player, or agree with each other that it's not the game for them. Might avoid lots of heartburn all around. <<

Funnily enough, I think it was the lack of any explicit intent to deal with gender issues (I don't think race issues raised a real problem in this game) that seems to have been the problem. And incompatible players. Gender & race issues were part of the ass-u-me'd background to the setting.

>>Personally I'm all for compromise, but, again, no absolute imperative, especially if you're already running a successful game. <<

It's definitely something I'll look out for more in future. There was definitely a disconnect in that I didn't realise that a mildly sexist *(by real-world historical standards) game-world culture, combined with odd attitudes of some players would be a big problem for my female players.
I understand better now why modern (1990s & later) fantasy game settings tend to assume absolute sexual equality in the core cultures. They provide an escape from perceived sexist environments IRL.

>>If you do find that you want to change this sort of thing in a game where it's established, well, yeah, it may not be easy to do. Often in this case, starting a new game is the neccessary "ritual" needed to alter the landscape. Again, however, the first step is social contract. Make sure that the player is actually respected by the group in an appropriate way first. If there's even one player who thinks of another as "That person who I deal with only in RPGs" you've got a problem.

Mike<<

Yup, good advice, thanks. :)

-Simon

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Folks might be interested in reviewing my points in Race in heroic fantasy and The class issue, which despite the title touches deeply on in-game race, if one recognizes that D&D character creation is always a matrix between race and class.

Best,
Ron

S'mon wrote: I think I could have done more to present the world in a different light without violating its integrity. Kerstin was unhappy I wouldn't place her satisfaction as a player above the world's integrity as an existing setting. I don't think the two necessarily needed to be in conflict though.

Funnily enough, I think it was the lack of any explicit intent to deal with gender issues (I don't think race issues raised a real problem in this game) that seems to have been the problem. And incompatible players. Gender & race issues were part of the ass-u-me'd background to the setting.

I understand better now why modern (1990s & later) fantasy game settings tend to assume absolute sexual equality in the core cultures. They provide an escape from perceived sexist environments IRL.

Hi S'mon,

I think the thread on Veils and Lines might be a good read as well:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1782

It is a very big social contract issue to involve issues that occur in reality in anyway. Given the standard rules and setting for D&D, very few people come into it expecting to deal with anything other than gender neutrality- just as much as I don't expect to see rape in a Pokemon cartoon.

That said, the decision to include, race, gender, or any sort of real world conflict onto a fantasy setting has to be done with buy-in from everyone in the group, and careful treading expecially with regards to where people's comfort levels are. I would say it is utterly necessary to let any new players know what sort of issues are involved beforehand. Drawing the Lines and locating the Veils before play is vital.

But, a more basic issue to look at is that, by deciding to put those issues into your setting, you, as an individual, as a participant of the group, you yourself, are saying something with that bit of input. You're saying you want these issues to be a factor of play. Just as stories or movies are have "points" being made by the author(s), each person's input is a form of authorship, a form of making a statement about something.

In some groups, the issues of race/gender/human conflict are used by the group to address it thematically, much as many stories have throughout history. In other groups, it is a statement on the human condition in regards to history.

But regardless of the method in which the issues are being used, whoever inputs on those issues, on what they mean, or how they were historically or are today, is making a statement. Not the characters, not the setting, not the dice- the people at the table are making these statements. Now, the statement being made by the character isn't necessarily what the player believes, but the player is making a statement about characters(and fictionally, people) who DO believe that.*

Now if only one person gets input rights to define those issues, you have a monologue, and at worst, a preaching of an ideology or world view. If everyone has input at the table, a dialogue and presentation of many views can form, but if only one person does- it's easy to see how people's toes can get stepped on. No one likes to be told what to believe, and no one likes to be left out of the opportunity to comment or input.

Regardless of right or wrong- these are issues that prop up very often with "GM's world, you play in it" sort of set ups.

Beyond all that, as a participant in the group, each person expresses approval and disapproval, sometimes verbally, sometimes non-verbally. Granted, much of these cues can be misread, but over periods of time, people usually can read them fairly correctly, though few consciously recognize them. Regardless of how neutral you want to present the issues, people can and will start to pick up on your approval/disapproval cues especially in regards TO those issues. It's a skill humans develop socially to protect themselves and manuever through our society. You might want to take a look at some of the ways you present these issues and if your cues are misleading folks.

In the abusive horror stories that folks hear about- the unspoken part is not just that characters get raped out of the blue, but also that the people at the table are giving approval cues about it. It is not treated as a horrible thing, it is a thrill. It is not the characters in game that the person being abused is upset about- its the people at the table. Just in the same way if you kept reading approval cues from someone who talks about incest, or eating people, or whatever taboo turns your belly- you'd be creeped out by them. Now imagine getting approval cues while people describe such fantasies to you... same deal.

Overall- I can't comment on the specifics of your game. I wasn't there, I don't know any of the group. But I can say that there are communication issues involved, and it would do well to check the issue of Lines and Veils, group input, and whether your personal cues are being clearly transmitted.

Chris

*Much in the same way Amistad is not a pro-slavery movie, negative portrayal has its place.

Just a side note -- I just stumbled on this series of threads.

Has correlating race to culture been discussed here? I have something of a problem with treating them as equivalent. Or should that be in a different thread?

Bankuei wrote: Hi S'mon,

I think the thread on Veils and Lines might be a good read as well:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1782

It is a very big social contract issue to involve issues that occur in reality in anyway.

As far as expressing approval of objectionable things IMC - there was the pretty female NPC in frequent need of rescuing, a fantasy cliche which could be taken as female = helpless. In the Conan game the female PCs got to rescue handsome young male NPCs, which went down a lot better. :)

Mike wrote:
>>Plausibility doesn't require that we look at everything that the setting implies. The setting has humans, who presumable have to defecate, but nobody ever narrates that. Does that mean that defecation doesn't happen, and that the setting is implausible? No. We merely narrate what we're interested in, and do not narrate that in which we're not interested. Anyone who claims that some specific sort of action has to be narrated or their suspension of disbelief fails isn't thinking clearly, or has an agenda. <<

I hesitated to address this example, but... :)
Normally the need for defecation doesn't come up in play, but if the PCs hole themselves up in a dungeon room for several days to heal up, I will explain that the stench is going to get pretty bad in there... likewise when PCs are travelling in the wilderness I'll assume they occasionally go behind the nearest tree, so if they were eg being shadowed by an invisible assassin he might choose that moment to strike. Or I might describe how a PC Ranger comes across orc 'spoor'. So although defecation isn't described its existence can have in-game effects. Likewise with sexist/gender-differentating or racist worldviews of NPCs within the game setting, although this could be overstated, and not all NPCs will have the same views, eg the Bloodhammer Knights think only men (human males) can be Knights, while the Blue Light wizards don't see any difference in ability between genders, treating both equally, and the church of Carthea only accepts women as clerics.

>>Further, it can also be a political statement. As far back as first edition Traveller, we have an example of a game that was completely egalitarian, and seemed to be saying that in the future equality would be taken for granted. There have been articles written about why this assumption was put into the game. <<

I think sex (& sentient species) equality taken for granted gives a setting a science-fictiony feel, just as gender & racial discrimination gives a medieval-fantasy feel. Although I agree this was a radical move for Traveller in the '70s - there were no female soldiers in Star Wars, and not much of a role for women in 1960s Star Trek. "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" did have female fighter pilots, though. :)

S'mon wrote: Normally the need for defecation doesn't come up in play, but if the PCs hole themselves up in a dungeon room for several days to heal up, I will explain that the stench is going to get pretty bad in there...

Or I might describe how a PC Ranger comes across orc 'spoor'. So although defecation isn't described its existence can have in-game effects.

I think sex (& sentient species) equality taken for granted gives a setting a science-fictiony feel, just as gender & racial discrimination gives a medieval-fantasy feel.

Hi S'mon,

I referred to that thread as a good indication of what a group needs to pay attention to as far as touchy issues and social contract. Specifically how to figure out amongst your own group what lines are too far and where people's comfort zones lay. The same issues as far as comfort zones for violence, sex, also apply to gender issues, culture, etc. It's also important to have open dialogue and make sure that it is known that there is space for people to dialogue if they find something objectionable or uncomfortable.

To reiterate a very important point:

If any element or theme appears in any roleplaying game, it is because one or more participants have decided it worth exploring and have introduced it to play.

What Mike and I are both pointing out is that regardless of what particular elements you(individually, and collectively, as a group) decide to create, it did not magically appear from nowhere. Even if the elements are part of the game text, or the rules, the fact is, each group chooses what elements to keep, ignore, or change. There is a human element to this.

As I said before- if elements appear that someone finds inappropriate or offensive, it is the people at the table who are responsible. Even if folks are being misread or miscommunication is happening, it is also the responsibility of the folks at the table to clear it up. It is important to recognize that even if you agree with the message presented in a theme(say, "Racism is bad"), doesn't mean you want to have it in your escapism on a regular basis(I can only watch Serafina when really grounded).

Also, recognize that whenever a conflict arises like this, there are only so many ways it could have possibly occurred(note, this is not about your group, but any group that these conflicts may arise in):

1) Possible Valid Concerns

• Elements were introduced that one or more people weren't prepared for- this means lines and veils need to be made clear before play
• One or more parties are producing cues that show approval/disapproval in a manner that is distressing other members of the group.
• One or more parties are making statements that others find offensive, either in or out of game.

2) Possible Other Concerns

• Producing such a high level of miscommunication as to appear to be any of the above valid concerns(any and/or everybody could be responsible for this).
• Failure to open communication for others to feedback on what is and isn't offensive
• Failure to recognize one's own cues being given off

Now, check this out- the key point of ALL of this is communication. Period. Communication over what themes are comfortable or not, communication over approval/disapproval in game, out of game, by all sides of the table, etc. Roleplaying games are games of communication- you say what happens. Elements and themes appear in game because somebody has communicated it.

The point for us, is that no one here, except the people at your table knows what concerns have arisen, and no one here can find out and/or produce a diagnosis nor an answer, other than you and your group, and that's if you want to. If the issue is miscommunication, then you should look into fixing it. If the issue is actually giving off approval/disapproval cues, consciously or not, regardless of whether they reflect your genuine feelings or beliefs, or not, it is up to you and your group to fix them, if you want to.

Like any other sorts of concerns that arise between friends, family, or coworkers, this kind of stuff means really dialoguing about you as individuals, not your characters, not your setting, not in-game events, and not the rules. It is just like talking about heavy subjects, gender, race, religion, politics. It means taking the effort to drudge up strong feelings and sometimes ugly aspects of yourself and your friends, and therefore is a lot of work.

And there is no reason to do so, other than if you feel its worthwhile. Understand by doing so, it entails some serious looks, and serious changes to the way you and your friends interact and treat each other. By not doing so, also understand that real issues and miscommunication can and will happen again, and if people decide that they don't want to accept those problems, then they can and will leave, holding whatever views they do.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: You might want to take a look at some of the ways you present these issues and if your cues are misleading folks.

Mike Holmes wrote: [Heck, you can ignore the effects of weapons on combat. You can ignore combat entirely.

GM: There's an orc ahead.
Player: I kill it.
GM: OK, in the next room you come in cleaning the blood off of your sword, and find a pool.

There is nothing, nothing at all, that one "must" explore. It's all entirely optional.

S'mon wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: [Heck, you can ignore the effects of weapons on combat. You can ignore combat entirely.

GM: There's an orc ahead.
Player: I kill it.
GM: OK, in the next room you come in cleaning the blood off of your sword, and find a pool.

There is nothing, nothing at all, that one "must" explore. It's all entirely optional.

Actually, this was something I loved about Heroquest when we playtested it. :)

I think rolling a d20 and adding some mods to see if you kill the orc or not is in many cases a big improvement on trying to use a miniatures- battle-game-disguised-as-an-RPG for dramatic roleplaying.

quot;Mike Holmes]
Actually, this was something I loved about Heroquest when we playtested it. :)

I think rolling a d20 and adding some mods to see if you kill the orc or not is in many cases a big improvement on trying to use a miniatures- battle-game-disguised-as-an-RPG for dramatic roleplaying.

Mike Holmes wrote: I hate the term handwaving. It implies that one is being dismissive of the event or rules or something. It's part of the HQ rules (and those of every other game as well) that the narrator decides when to apply the resolution system.

S'mon wrote: I agree, but I think some D&D (and presumably other RPG) players might dispute this.

The thing you can do in HQ, which you would be lynched for in any D&D game I have ever heard of, is:

Ok, (die roll), your army of 30,000 loses. While fleeing from the scene of your defeat, ...

soru

soru wrote: The thing you can do in HQ, which you would be lynched for in any D&D game I have ever heard of, is:

Ok, (die roll), your army of 30,000 loses. While fleeing from the scene of your defeat, ...

soru