Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5993345" data-attributes="member: 27160">Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around &quot;winning&quot; or &quot;succeeding&quot;, have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call &quot;tic tac toe&quot; in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind.&nbsp;Based on my ignorance of Modern Warfare 3 I'm going to stop this thread here rather than gamble on making mistakes that Imaro disapproves of.&nbsp;Gambling can be fun, because you gamble on each hand or throw of the dice. Playing with loaded dice or a stacked deck are considerably less popular - and that's the analogy, here.&nbsp;Right - which is fun for short instances, not for life.&nbsp;If I ask someone &quot;have you always been a jerk?&quot; that's &quot;just asking a question&quot;. Asking a question doesn't preclude the question being a (possibly veiled) attack, even if the asker shrugs and looks innocent after asking.&nbsp;D&amp;D has systems whereby you collect experience points, go up levels and loot dungeons/find treasure. It always has had. Levels go up to high numbers (at least 10 or so). Expecting that at least some characters should go up levels and have long, successful careers as adventurers might not be automatically valid based merely on the fact that such systems exist, but the fact that these systems have been the core of every edition so far seems to suggest that it is intended. Given such an expectation, rolling a really substandard character seems like just a hurdle or a waste of game time until they get killed - which I can't really see being a &quot;fun&quot; element in any game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5993345, member: 27160"] Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around "winning" or "succeeding", have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call "tic tac toe" in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind. Based on my ignorance of Modern Warfare 3 I'm going to stop this thread here rather than gamble on making mistakes that Imaro disapproves of. Gambling can be fun, because you gamble on each hand or throw of the dice. Playing with loaded dice or a stacked deck are considerably less popular - and that's the analogy, here. Right - which is fun for short instances, not for life. If I ask someone "have you always been a jerk?" that's "just asking a question". Asking a question doesn't preclude the question being a (possibly veiled) attack, even if the asker shrugs and looks innocent after asking. D&D has systems whereby you collect experience points, go up levels and loot dungeons/find treasure. It always has had. Levels go up to high numbers (at least 10 or so). Expecting that at least some characters should go up levels and have long, successful careers as adventurers might not be automatically valid based merely on the fact that such systems exist, but the fact that these systems have been the core of every edition so far seems to suggest that it is intended. Given such an expectation, rolling a really substandard character seems like just a hurdle or a waste of game time until they get killed - which I can't really see being a "fun" element in any game. [/QUOTE]

Verification