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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9536968" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm sorry Lanefan, but you seem to have lost the thread of the conversation here. The reason the sport-game thing was brought up was very specifically because someone made the claim that:1. Sports TTRPGs exist2. Sports TTRPGs allow the sport team you're running to lose matches3. Losing a match is equivalent to having a character die†4. Therefore, removing the ability to lose matches in a sport RPG is equivalent to removing death† as an obstacle in D&D-alike games5. Removing the ability to lose matches in a sport RPG would make playing them pointless6. Therefore, removing death† as an obstacle in D&D-alikes would make them pointless(Note, I have used "death†"/"die†" instead of just "death" for reasons explained below.)You have gone WAY, WAY far away from the argument originally made. I don't really have any desire to continue debating it with you as a result, because you're now arguing a completely different point, for completely different reasons, on a completely different analysis, where the one and only thing that is the same is the fact that you happen to be talking about sports RPGs. You aren't talking about losing games, you're talking about losing individual players from the team; you aren't talking about people ceasing to be able to participate, but rather identification or affiliation with the franchise; and you aren't talking about this in any way "proving" that removing (a very specific form of) death as a consequence, but rather trying to show that your perspective on things maps nicely to a view of building a football team (or whatever) and its management staff.My claims, WRT sport TTRPGs, have always been that #3 is blatantly false, hence why I brought up real-world sports teams that have lost almost to entire seasons' worth of games back-to-back, and yet the franchise continued. This proves via real-world counterexample that the comparison to death in D&D-alike TTRPGs does not hold in the way the person arguing claimed that it did. As a result, points #4 and #6 are also incorrect (the removal of "death†")And, again, because I apparently have to mention this every single time, I'm not talking about removing ALL death as a consequence. I'm removing one very specific form of death: that which is all three of random AND permanent AND irrevocable. Further, I am not (and have never been) suggesting that everyone should do this. Some people would benefit greatly from doing it. Some would absolutely hate it. My criticism is, and has always been, that it is the general problem with those who agree with you (not necessarily you yourself) that they want to force everyone to work by their standard, and yet disparage me (and those who agree with me) for trying to do that to them. I have never, not once, said this. I have, in one thread, tried to advocate that this would be helpful to a lot of people who believe it would instead be harmful to them. But I've never, not once, said that it would be universally better for all people. I would prefer, in the future, if your arguments thus didn't say or imply that I was trying to make a universal requirement for all D&D(-alike) players, but instead advocating for one playstyle among many.</blockquote>

Verification