The mechanics are the medium through which players relinquish control of their roleplay. They're sort of what mediates roleplaying, I think, by providing a sort of arbitrary and neutral interface to both limit and move along characters.
I can roleplay all day and use real world knowledge to back up how my character can pick a lock, but if there's a mechanic that made me roll dice and I lost, I have to roleplay why that character just couldn't get the lock picked despite it all.
My main point though was more an allusion to game mechanics not needing to be overly specific or defined by manuals. But then again I like cooking up rulesets and customizing campaigns. Or rather I did in the Ye Olde times when I socialized.
Does that need a specifically developed diceroll mechanic though? Seems like there's a huge roleplaying narrative landscape that doesn't need to use specific gamerules for thinga like eldrich pregnancies. Or it'd be pretty easy to ad-hoc without making it a central theme of the underlying mechanics.
There are two kinds of meetings: decision meetings and update meetings. Update meetings are bullshit time sinks designed to validate the complete chain of command. Decision meetings are where something tangible is determined.
The former is the vast bulk of meetings. The latter is a rarity, and sometimes only possible after fully satiating the beast that is the former.
I don't think finding foreign nationals fighting in a war necessarily means their government regime is sending them.
There's a lot of foreign fighters in a lot of conflicts without representation or protection of their government, and I'd be curious if that case is different here.
The Saudis are separately at war in Yemen and against the Houthis and have been since I think 2015.
The Houthis have just endured a decade of fighting a US backed coalition, which isbwhy they've become increasingly capable of expanding their operations to interfere with shipping lanes unrelated to their direct civil war.
MIC knows it must sustain war and conflict and will always play all sides to keep the orpham crushing machine going.
If it stops, or even threatens to slow, well... stonks go down faster than any tarriff effect.
This has been the GOP ticket strat since before Trump. Bush wasn't masterminding war and invasion. Cheney was in coordination with the oligarchy back then.
I wonder if rescinding telework agreements has boosted Minnesota's economy? I still don't get that decision and I don't think any amount of tweet bangers anout Trump is going to improve that reality.
Okay, so you're talking about the 1890s-1920s "Progressive" Era of Prohibition and Sufferage.
Yeah, as that's what that time period is called: "Progressive Era".
Not the 1930s-70s New Deal / Great Society period of progressivism
No, I am not referring to the period following Prohibition Era and the Great Depression which was an intermediate (1920s-1930s) before New Deal.
If you're taking issue with the 'Progressive Era' being called 'Progressive' then sure. I get you then. It mostly just achived women's suffrage as a meaningful milestone, as I said.
The adhesive gave out before the glow on those things.