"Russell Wallace" <russell.no.spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:kuj7i.19991$j7.373705@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Sadly not all that uncommon of a way of thinking today.
Frankly I'd look for a different group while attempting to keep your one
rational player.
> *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.
Warren and I are the two old-timers that I recall who focus on a single
setting, Warren more than I as I have a handful that I switch between
(even
if they are all the same setting- just different points on the timeline).
Yes, it's very different than how most people I've encountered online
play.
And it requires a number of different approaches.
|
