Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5442329" data-attributes="member: 8835">the &quot;off topic&quot; forum had a thread about whether Lincoln had a long term plan for freeing the slaves.&nbsp; It got shutdown.&nbsp; But it got me thinking about whether PCs/players have a plan for when they do heroic actions, like freeing all the slaves/overthrowing the BBEG.if your players are like me and my friends, when the DM presents you a big problem, we just go at it.&nbsp; Take out the villain, free the slaves.The ramifiications of newly freed people on the economic and social situation are far from our minds.We sure as heck aren't thinking on how the newly freed peoples are to govern themselves now that the entire chain of governance has been torn down.Maybe the DMs I play with (or myself), simply tend to gloss over that and determine that the newly freed people pick themselves up (as the PCs would) and form a more perfect union with a minimal of fuss unless it would be a new interesting plot point.Are there DMs who decide to get grim and gritty and make the situation worse for the people, thus &quot;punishing&quot; the players for confronting evil?I could see doing that now and then, as a change of pace, but it definitely discourages heroic behavior.&nbsp; It strikes too close to home, that you can't take out the evil head of a nation and everything is better in short order.&nbsp; That defeats escapism gaming, for sure.Anyway, without citing historically charged examples, what does everyone else think?Do you factor in serious negative consequences when the heroes do something heroic?&nbsp; Or do you make it resolve to &quot;happy&quot; ending most of the time?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5442329, member: 8835"] the "off topic" forum had a thread about whether Lincoln had a long term plan for freeing the slaves. It got shutdown. But it got me thinking about whether PCs/players have a plan for when they do heroic actions, like freeing all the slaves/overthrowing the BBEG. if your players are like me and my friends, when the DM presents you a big problem, we just go at it. Take out the villain, free the slaves. The ramifiications of newly freed people on the economic and social situation are far from our minds. We sure as heck aren't thinking on how the newly freed peoples are to govern themselves now that the entire chain of governance has been torn down. Maybe the DMs I play with (or myself), simply tend to gloss over that and determine that the newly freed people pick themselves up (as the PCs would) and form a more perfect union with a minimal of fuss unless it would be a new interesting plot point. Are there DMs who decide to get grim and gritty and make the situation worse for the people, thus "punishing" the players for confronting evil? I could see doing that now and then, as a change of pace, but it definitely discourages heroic behavior. It strikes too close to home, that you can't take out the evil head of a nation and everything is better in short order. That defeats escapism gaming, for sure. Anyway, without citing historically charged examples, what does everyone else think? Do you factor in serious negative consequences when the heroes do something heroic? Or do you make it resolve to "happy" ending most of the time? [/QUOTE]

Verification