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: 9544192" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I just don't really see why these two things are so separate. This applies to [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] as well. I don't understand why agency exclusively within behavior is absolutely sacrosanct, the player MUST always be able to play EXACTLY the kind of behavior they want, no matter how disruptive that might be, but their agency within selection is totally unimportant and not only can but should be thrust aside any and every time it might be disruptive to some other goal.That's where I see a disconnect. One side makes an aspect of player agency sacrosanct no matter how disruptive it might be, the other condemns an aspect of player agency specifically because it might, possibly, be disruptive. Why are behavioral disruptions sacrosanct, but character-selection disruptions anathema?High reward is worthless when you die after your second or third or fourth high risk.That's the problem. A given character isn't taking one high risk. They're taking high risk after high risk after high risk after...etc. The inevitable end of that is death by high risk. Playing it safe doesn't earn you the big bucks. But it does mean you last a hell of a lot longer.A 99% chance of making $1000 and a 1% chance of gruesome death, vs a 50% chance of making $1 billion dollars and a 50% chance of gruesdome death? After only five such consecutive risks, you have the same chance of dying in the first path as you do surviving in the second. Sure, you've only made $5000 as opposed to the theoretical $5,000,000,000 you could've made--literally a million times more!--but a billion dollars is worthless when you're dead.Tell me. If your well-loved friends of many years exhibit just one single behavior that isn't entirely the way you'd like, would you "let [them] go on [their] way" and instead seek out total strangers to bring in for stuff?Because that's literally what you're telling me to do here. These players aren't randos who responded to an ad. They're my good friends. I invited them into the game specifically because I like and appreciate their thoughts and tastes. That they are skittish and risk-averse is simply part of working with them to produce a good game. It is not, in any way, some kind of failing or problem with them that would induce me to dump them.Then that just reinforces the problem. People who backstab one another without a second thought are exactly the kind of people who do the thing that you find so annoying, leaving someone to die when sticking around another handful of rounds would mean no one dies.</blockquote>

Verification