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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5196184" data-attributes="member: 18280">No, not at all limited to bodily harm.  And the minute you suggest non-physical risks are actual risks, the distinction between PC and player begins to get a bit hazy.  Does character death entail an emotional risk?  Certainly it does.  Etc., etc. Financial risks certainly exist -- gambling, playing for ownership of collectible cards, etc. -- as does reputation risk. The distinction here has nothing to do with bodily harm. It has to do with risk to the characters vs. risk to the players.Not at all.  If I say, "A is B" and you say "A is not B", either I am mistaken or I am lying.  If I say "A is sometimes B" and you say "A is sometimes not B", there is nothing logically incompatible with those statements.Several people in this thread, and elsewhere, have suggested that there is a cost associated with character death.  They are either mistaken, or lying, or neither mistaken or lying.  If they are neither mistaken or lying, then the statement "there is no cost associated with character death" is, itself, incorrect.  If there is a cost associated with character death, which must be paid in the event of said death, then there is a risk involved with character death.There is also a risk involved with losing a magic sword.  But saying losing a magic sword is risky is one thing, and saying that this somehow mitigates against the risk of character death is another.Again, a game that entails the possible risk of character death and the same risk of losing a magic sword as a game in which the only risk is losing a magic sword objectively has more risk.  A + B > B, so long as both numbers have a positive value.One may, of course, have a game in which the risk of death or losing a magic sword exists, but is substantially less than that of a game where losing a magic sword is almost a certainty.  In this case, the second game (without PC death) may have greater risk.But if that second game introduced any chance of PC death, without making any other change, it would also, by definition, be increasing the risk.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Surely you must be joking?I am not "invoking their authority" -- I am pointing out that your question was answered before it was asked.RC</blockquote>

Verification