Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4858352" data-attributes="member: 3820">While I certainly agree with the idea of introducing dynamism, I'm gonna be the wet blanket and say that anything can be a bad idea, depending on implementation and context. There are parts of my world that I love, and although perhaps murdering my darlings might be dynamic — my wife loves them too. And she's not as fond of post-apocalyptic gaming as of protecting a beloved realm and becoming a hero to its people — she likes dynamic action, but it's secondary to social interaction and extensive supporting cast. So &quot;blow it up,&quot; for me, would translate in some instances to &quot;and chuckle about the looks on their faces as I fall asleep on the couch each night.&quot; If it were me, I'd want to blow up a careful mix of good stuff and bad stuff. Blow up enough good stuff for the PCs to care, but blowing up some of the bad stuff can be helpful, too. Corrupt institutions are good here, or grasping merchant houses or the like. At that point you give the PCs a chance to get involved in rebuilding something that they can be fairly certain will be an improvement over its previous incarnation. Replacing Mordenkainen is daunting (unless your PCs are the very ambitious sort). Setting up a new and more humane city council when the previous corrupt council was grazed to death by zombie cows is actually kind of encouraging. Once the band-aid work of reacting to Horrible Things is set right, rebuilding what were disliked institutions gives them a very positive impact on the world. They get to actively improve things beyond what the status quo was, something I find my players really love even more than restoring the previous one (or, worse, falling slightly short). Play it right, and you can even invoke some sympathy for the old negative institutions you blow up. &quot;They were a conniving bunch of bastards, but to become zombie cow cud... I almost feel sorry for them.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 4858352, member: 3820"] While I certainly agree with the idea of introducing dynamism, I'm gonna be the wet blanket and say that anything can be a bad idea, depending on implementation and context. There are parts of my world that I love, and although perhaps murdering my darlings might be dynamic — my wife loves them too. And she's not as fond of post-apocalyptic gaming as of protecting a beloved realm and becoming a hero to its people — she likes dynamic action, but it's secondary to social interaction and extensive supporting cast. So "blow it up," for me, would translate in some instances to "and chuckle about the looks on their faces as I fall asleep on the couch each night." If it were me, I'd want to blow up a careful mix of good stuff and bad stuff. Blow up enough good stuff for the PCs to care, but blowing up some of the bad stuff can be helpful, too. Corrupt institutions are good here, or grasping merchant houses or the like. At that point you give the PCs a chance to get involved in rebuilding something that they can be fairly certain will be an improvement over its previous incarnation. Replacing Mordenkainen is daunting (unless your PCs are the very ambitious sort). Setting up a new and more humane city council when the previous corrupt council was grazed to death by zombie cows is actually kind of encouraging. Once the band-aid work of reacting to Horrible Things is set right, rebuilding what were disliked institutions gives them a very positive impact on the world. They get to actively improve things beyond what the status quo was, something I find my players really love even more than restoring the previous one (or, worse, falling slightly short). Play it right, and you can even invoke some sympathy for the old negative institutions you blow up. "They were a conniving bunch of bastards, but to become zombie cow cud... I almost feel sorry for them." [/QUOTE]

Verification