Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8155491" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I do not believe you to be dishonest or a douche.  Ideologically-entrenched is a good descriptor - though it's one that also seems to flow both ways.  That's been implied of me more time in this thread than I can count.I am part of the gaming community as well.  My experience there isn't the same as yours.That said I'll give one example of something similar to what you are saying.  There was a battletech game in development some years ago.  They were good about discussing development decisions with the community and one particular one got a loud vocal minority of players quite upset.  They were going to implement a cone of fire instead of pinpoint accuracy.  They made much the same argument - that such a mechanic would impede skilled play and tried to use that to push the game in a direction they preferred.  But they were wrong.  One can become skilled at cone of fire play.  The larger more silent majority made this counter argument and ended up winning out.In action RPG's that function on a loot system (Diablo 2 for example) with very low drop rates of the best items sometimes you will see RNGesus invoked.  This isn't an assertion about distilling skilled play, its about the game offering extremely low chances to find particular items.It's more my experience that the typical gamer understands that when there's chance involved in a game it's a result of an RNG.I'm not sure the difference in a neutral "fortune resolution" and RNG as used in game development.  Those appear to me to be mostly interchangeable terms.I'm not saying it isn't, but how so?I do not believe you were being intellectually dishonest though.  I believe that your understanding of the consequences is preventing you from really considering the possibility that you are wrong about this one thing - as the consequences of being wrong here are quite large.  Close enough.  I actually don't agree that it explicitly violates Czege, just something fairly close to it.I don't see anything but fiat in the player's attempt to author the fiction via proposal.  Perhaps you mean something more particular by FIAT than that?I would counter that if one cannot call a player authoring the fiction as authorship that we likely have bigger problems.I mean the fiction does have to have an author correct?  If not then how did it come into being?  Surely you wouldn't call the RNG the author of the fiction?  So who is the author of the fiction in the scenario where the players proposal becomes the shared fiction via a successful roll?What of coming up with an obstacle and saying i'll bypass it if I roll X or better on this die?</blockquote>

Verification