One of the things I'm having a constant internal debate about in my head is how graphic to make the war my game is about.
To present a bit of context: one of my players was aghast at seeing a public garroting in the game, which I did not really make all that graphic. I know it was partly that the player needed to understand that it was actually a fairly straightforward form of execution, but I could tell that my player group were disturbed and it required some out of character discussion before they were okay with it.
Now given this: how can I present a situation where their characters' country is being overrun with refugees, deserters, raiders, foragers and worse? I had planned to depict stuff that is somewhat usual, like the giants gradually stomping their way southward, orcs overruning places and such, but while I want it to be serious, I don't want my players having nightmares.
Any suggestions on how I can do this? I want a sense of the horrors of war without going overboard.
Well, partly, I suppose it depends on how many gorey details you put in. If you just tell them the giants are going X, then it's going to have a more removed, lighter tone. If you describe the details and aftermath, then you're going to create a grittier, more realistic portrayal of the war.
Also, since they won't see everything first-hand, you could have them get the worst stuff in colorless reports. A report that says giants are rampaging the countryside, while accurate, will be less powerful than being their seeing the guy dying who got stepped on.
I'm not sure you can portray the horrors of war half-heartedly, though. Maybe you can. But if your players are squimish, then maybe it's not a good idea anyway.
I believe this is first and foremost something that you should discuss with your players. Speak of your dilemma (preferably without giving any plot twists away, obviously) and take a position as a group.
To me, it seems that in the end all you can do is decide where you want to be on the continuum between extreme graphic violence and completely gloating over it. This is an issue between you and your players.
Túrin
As Túrin said, you have to know what your players really want and are able to do (without destroying their fun). There are many ways to tell disturbing stories about war and its aftermath without getting into graphic gore. Some examples below. But they might still be too much of a buzzkill for your group.
These are real-life stories drawn from the headlines in our local paper over just the past few months:
A woman (a girl, really) who received a letter from her boyfriend proposing marriage. Later that same day, the Colonel shows up at her house with the we-regret-to-inform-you letter - her boyfriend is dead.
A pregnant woman whose husband will never come home again.
A soldier whose bunkmate committed suicide in Iraq, who suffered emotional problems as a result. She was given medical discharge. A month later, blind drunk, she enters the freeway going the wrong way and collides head-on with a family. She's dead, two members of the family are critically injured.
And these are just the effects from thousands of miles away. You can only imagine what it would be like to have to live in the middle of this.
Of course, there are the other common things you see. Entire villages that have no men. War orphans. Looters and deserters. Refugee problems that lead to food shortages that lead to riots.
There's lots of nasty stuff around a war, and not all of it is gore. But any of it can be quite disturbing if it reaches you in the right way. You have to pitch the level of specifics and the degree of personal involvement of their characters to what the players want to handle. Do they even want to be disturbed or challenged in this way?
Suppose the players find a homestead that's been attacked - the family is dead but they find an infant hidden in the back who is still alive. What would they do? Can they return it to a relative, or bring it to an orphanage? Will they, can they, interrupt their mission to care for it?
Appreciate the thoughts, thank you all.
I think one of the things I will do is to put the more graphic stuff at a distance...have it told of and that sort of thing, but have the players find destroyed villages, have them meet peasants begging that justice be done, find abandoned children, possibly put them in a position to possibly rescue some people being kept by giants or ogres for the stewpot or in a slave coffle about to be taken for forced labour by Celtic or Orc warriors.
It sounds like a good plan, then.
Quote from: snakefing...
Of course, there are the other common things you see. Entire villages that have no men...
personally, this is a scenario i would avoid. even if the line between realism and immaturity
doesn't get blurred with a group of strong, youthful males entering an entirely female villiage, there's still a big risk of two players getting into a fight over a comment that was viewed as sexist.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand that last comment...
which part?
not knowing your playgroup, i can't really say they'll react to scenario A in manner A, but i can give some possible reactions to a scenario. in the scenario of a villiage populated entirely with women, i see two possible gamewrecking scenarios:
* burly male adventurers suddenly become surrounded with pent-up women that haven't seen their husbands in oh-so-long. bow-chicka-bow-wow.
* player (or PC) makes a comment on gender differences (either real or perceived), and another player gets offended. enter large disagreement, and possibly even verbal fight.
I can't even imagine that being a problem in my group...clearly it has happened to you though. I think I'll take the risk all the same.
honestly, that's never been a problem with any group i've been in, but not knowing your group, i have no way of knowing the probability of either of those problems.
to be fair, the first problem would be much more likely in any of the groups i've been in, but i can't say for sure; the scenario of a male-less villiage never happened in anything i've played or DM'ed.
Well the thing is the village wouldn't just be a 'village of women'. It wouldn't be some kind of huge slumber party. I'm picturing it more that most of the buildings are destroyed and sacked, and a handful of the village's women and children managed to run and hide and are hiding among the ruins. Not a very attractive sight in my opinion but rather a sad one.