Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5534094" data-attributes="member: 3820">I would add the rider of "if your players are also willing to embrace these things." Having broached the topic, I've seen remarkable pushback from some players who are wholly averse to the idea of entire cities being wiped out for the sake of an epic campaign: the appeal for these players is being able to play multiple campaigns in the same sustainable world, and there's not much love for the idea of one campaign winding up with fewer enjoyable toys* to play with for the sake of another campaign feeling properly dramatic.I would stress sweeping change over collateral damage, largely because collateral damage is a basically subtractive process, and some players prefer successful campaigns to be additive. You might have much better success hooking some groups if the promise is not "entire cities may be wiped out if you don't spend your dailies in a clever fashion," but "you may have the chance to build something colossal and beautiful." While subtracting large piles of bad guys along the way, of course.*(Assume for the sake of argument that for said players, a blasted field of rubble and bones, monsters prowling and a few survivors struggling to get by, is not as enjoyable a toy as a familiar city. Obviously for other players, the former is much preferable.)</blockquote>