Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4127253" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, yes, in a certain sense, that's true.&nbsp; In a certain sense, Obi Wan Kenobi wasn't lying when he said Darth Vader murdered Luke's father, but in any common ordinary sense of the word what he said wasn't true.&nbsp; There is a real qualitative difference between losing your imaginary in game house, and losing your real house and I shouldn't think that I'd have to explain that.&nbsp; Obviously if I believe that the possibility of player character death is necessary to make the game interesting, it doesn't follow that I believe that the possibility of player death is necessary to make the game interesting.&nbsp; Exciting, sure, but I don't feel the need to put up real stakes like that to enjoy a game.&nbsp; The game stakes are enough.So you are saying that the need to start a game over is qualitatively the same as gambling your own house or your own life?&nbsp; Moreover, my point, which you have missed, is that indeed a TPK is a ridiculously severe penalty.&nbsp; However, as much as noone wants to see a TPK, the possibility of a TPK is introduced as soon as we allow character 'death' (where character 'death' means you can no longer play as that character without intervention by another player). That level of risk is available in Monopoly.&nbsp; You can be put out of the game, be unable to continue to play, and the game goes on without you.&nbsp; I don't think people who play Monopoly are mentally ill, but thanks for the typical claim that not only am I wrong but that there must be something 'wrong' with me if I don't agree with you.&nbsp; A game where you can't actually suffer character death, is equivalent to a game of monopoly where no one can actually go bankrupt.&nbsp; A game where you can suffer character death is not equivalent to one where you are betting your real house.&nbsp; Please, keep digging yourself into a logical hole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4127253, member: 4937"] Well, yes, [i]in a certain sense[/i], that's true. [i]In a certain sense[/i], Obi Wan Kenobi wasn't lying when he said Darth Vader murdered Luke's father, but in any common ordinary sense of the word what he said wasn't true. There is a real qualitative difference between losing your imaginary in game house, and losing your real house and I shouldn't think that I'd have to explain that. Obviously if I believe that the possibility of player character death is necessary to make the game interesting, it doesn't follow that I believe that the possibility of player death is necessary to make the game interesting. Exciting, sure, but I don't feel the need to put up real stakes like that to enjoy a game. The game stakes are enough. So you are saying that the need to start a game over is qualitatively the same as gambling your own house or your own life? Moreover, my point, which you have missed, is that indeed a TPK is a ridiculously severe penalty. However, as much as noone wants to see a TPK, the possibility of a TPK is introduced as soon as we allow character 'death' (where character 'death' means you can no longer play as that character without intervention by another player). That level of risk is available in Monopoly. You can be put out of the game, be unable to continue to play, and the game goes on without you. I don't think people who play Monopoly are mentally ill, but thanks for the typical claim that not only am I wrong but that there must be something 'wrong' with me if I don't agree with you. A game where you can't actually suffer character death, is equivalent to a game of monopoly where no one can actually go bankrupt. A game where you can suffer character death is not equivalent to one where you are betting your real house. Please, keep digging yourself into a logical hole. [/QUOTE]

Verification