gleichman wrote:
> Semi-deliberately? They didn't want to win, or didn't want to spend
> the effort to win?
The reasoning, if one can dignify it with that term, seems to have been:
extent to which it is a good idea to protect something depends on
cuteness of said something, e.g. puppies and kittens are high priority
things to protect, nuclear weapons facility is not cute, therefore we
need not bother to protect it, ignoring argument of one PC who had his
head screwed on the right way that said facility is vital strategic asset.
> I have had 'honest' total losses before with some secondary and new
> groups. I didn't run the outcome as it seemed rather pointless and the
> players have no investment anyway. The events of the campaign have
> their footnote (if that, few people notice the tree falling in the
> forest) in the timeline and that's that.
>
> Then we typically take a break from that setting and run something
> different for a while afterwards.
*nods* I keep forgetting there are people who run the same setting for
many campaigns; it must give one a very different outlook. I never run
more than one campaign in a given setting, always move on to a new one
for the next campaign whatever the outcome.
--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.
|
