Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5443035" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with this.As a general rule I go for &quot;not making a big deal about it&quot;. There are already a lot of elements of a heroic fantasy game that have to be more-or-less ignored if play is to proceed along typical lines - for example, social hierarchies that are pretty objectionable by modern standards, plus the whole &quot;super-hero&quot; conundrum of the heroes mostly fighting other super-baddies rather than doing &quot;real-world&quot; good things like improving food supplies, curing diseases etc.This is part of the &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; that players buy into in playing the game.Introducing economic and social consequences of heroics seems like a way to puncture that suspension of disbelief - in effect, it's undermining the foundational premises of heroic fantasy gaming, namely, that individual heroes fighting super-powered enemies can really make a difference in the world.Where, in my experience, blowback can work more consistently with that underlying premise is when the PC's heroics cause other supernatural enemies to pay attention to them. So if the PCs free the slaves, they then have to deal with (for example) Asmodeus deciding to step in to try and reestablish the &quot;natural&quot; order of hierarchy and domination. This introduces complications for heroism, without (in effect) telling the players that individual heroics are incapable of achieving good outcomes - because the solution to this sort of complication is even more individual heroics&nbsp; - now we have to wipe out Asmodeus too!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5443035, member: 42582"] I agree with this. As a general rule I go for "not making a big deal about it". There are already a lot of elements of a heroic fantasy game that have to be more-or-less ignored if play is to proceed along typical lines - for example, social hierarchies that are pretty objectionable by modern standards, plus the whole "super-hero" conundrum of the heroes mostly fighting other super-baddies rather than doing "real-world" good things like improving food supplies, curing diseases etc. This is part of the "suspension of disbelief" that players buy into in playing the game. Introducing economic and social consequences of heroics seems like a way to puncture that suspension of disbelief - in effect, it's undermining the foundational premises of heroic fantasy gaming, namely, that individual heroes fighting super-powered enemies can really make a difference in the world. Where, in my experience, blowback can work more consistently with that underlying premise is when the PC's heroics cause other supernatural enemies to pay attention to them. So if the PCs free the slaves, they then have to deal with (for example) Asmodeus deciding to step in to try and reestablish the "natural" order of hierarchy and domination. This introduces complications for heroism, without (in effect) telling the players that individual heroics are incapable of achieving good outcomes - because the solution to this sort of complication is [I]even more individual heroics[/I] - now we have to wipe out Asmodeus too! [/QUOTE]

Verification