Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5276581" data-attributes="member: 18280">Thankfully, having engaged in multiple conversations with given individuals, I am able to relate their statements in one conversation to their statements in other conversations.It is sort of neat to have continuity in this fashion!If you are unable to do so, I would imagine that it would make SoD particularly harsh.&nbsp; &quot;But, you heard about basilisks last adventure!&nbsp; Why didn't you know they could kill with a glance?!?!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;But that was last adventure!&nbsp; You didn't say it this adventure!&quot;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />It is not merely a statement founded on my previous experiences with such claims; it is a statement founded on my previous experience of many of the same claimants. If I, in a later thread, claimed that I wasn't pro-SoD while trying to make another point (that, say, only logically followed if I wasn't pro-SoD), wouldn't my posts in this thread make you think twice about my claim in the other?I should hope it would.Which makes which one wrongbadfun?I think you are reading a context that isn't there.AFAICT, this started with Doug McCrae's claim, upthread, that death was only okay in RP-light games.&nbsp;Merely observation, again.&nbsp; Many of the people saying they don't like SoD in this thread have previously discussed their dislike of D overall, and/or their support of fudging to prevent PC death.&nbsp;&nbsp; Failing to acknowledge that -- or even outright denying that -- may lead to unnecessary confusion about what is actually being objected to.&nbsp; I am not making a claim that this is a universal correspondence, but that it is a strong correspondence.Hence the observation that this conversation is a subset of the overarching &quot;How much plot protection should PCs have?&quot; discussion.&nbsp; Disambiguating in this way might make the conversation more fruitful.&nbsp; IMHO, anyway.&nbsp;RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5276581, member: 18280"] Thankfully, having engaged in multiple conversations with given individuals, I am able to relate their statements in one conversation to their statements in other conversations. It is sort of neat to have continuity in this fashion! If you are unable to do so, I would imagine that it would make SoD particularly harsh. "But, you heard about basilisks last adventure! Why didn't you know they could kill with a glance?!?!" "But that was last adventure! You didn't say it this adventure!" :lol: It is not merely a statement founded on my previous experiences with such claims; it is a statement founded on my previous experience of many of the same [B][I]claimants[/I][/B]. If I, in a later thread, claimed that I wasn't pro-SoD while trying to make another point (that, say, only logically followed if I wasn't pro-SoD), wouldn't my posts in this thread make you think twice about my claim in the other? I should hope it would. Which makes which one wrongbadfun? I think you are reading a context that isn't there. AFAICT, this started with Doug McCrae's claim, upthread, that death was only okay in RP-light games. Merely observation, again. Many of the people saying they don't like SoD in this thread have previously discussed their dislike of D overall, and/or their support of fudging to prevent PC death. Failing to acknowledge that -- or even outright denying that -- may lead to unnecessary confusion about what is actually being objected to. I am not making a claim that this is a universal correspondence, but that it is a strong correspondence. Hence the observation that this conversation is a subset of the overarching "How much plot protection should PCs have?" discussion. Disambiguating in this way might make the conversation more fruitful. IMHO, anyway. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification