Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8241060" data-attributes="member: 29398">In part because their state at session 1, since frozen, might no longer make sense by session 5.For example, if Faction A is at war with Faction B as the start state (session 1) and the PCs wipe out Faction B in session 3 without ever hearing of Faction A, Faction A's starting condition no longer makes sense and needs updating.Another and IMO bigger issue: the passage of time.&nbsp; The starting conditions for everyone reflect the state of things on Day 1 of the campaign.&nbsp; By Day 63 in session five, those things have all had over two months to develop and change on their own, never mind what the PCs have done to them.&nbsp; Leaving them in stasis, as you suggest, is to me just another use of GM force - similar to a GM arbitrarily deciding that these four Ogres will be down whichever passage the party chooses to take after the next intersection.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8241060, member: 29398"] In part because their state at session 1, since frozen, might no longer make sense by session 5. For example, if Faction A is at war with Faction B as the start state (session 1) and the PCs wipe out Faction B in session 3 without ever hearing of Faction A, Faction A's starting condition no longer makes sense and needs updating. Another and IMO bigger issue: the passage of time. The starting conditions for everyone reflect the state of things on Day 1 of the campaign. By Day 63 in session five, those things have all had over two months to develop and change on their own, never mind what the PCs have done to them. Leaving them in stasis, as you suggest, is to me just another use of GM force - similar to a GM arbitrarily deciding that these four Ogres will be down whichever passage the party chooses to take after the next intersection. [/QUOTE]

Verification