Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7601052" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, sure.&nbsp; No hard feelings.My state in this thread is that I would be happy to discuss the difference between challenge to a player and challenge to a character, but I'm not sure anyone is interested in that.&nbsp; I have very much got the feeling that this is a continuation of several other arguments and that for the people who were involved in those other debates, this is mostly a proxy argument for whatever was being debated in those arguments.I don't really know what the position is of everyone in the thread.&nbsp; I don't know what side arguments that they were involved in.&nbsp; It's been a long thread and I haven't closely followed everyone's stance.&nbsp;&nbsp; At this point, it would require me taking notes to really know what all has been argued and what people believe.In general, I noticed that in the &quot;opposition to the idea camp&quot;, we had two mutually contradictory positions arise:1) Some argued that there was no such thing as &quot;challenge to character&quot;, and that every challenge was a challenge to player. 2) Some argued that while yes, there was such a thing as &quot;challenge to player&quot;, that challenges to the player violated the spirit of the game and that therefore every challenge ought properly be a &quot;challenge to character&quot;. Some seemed to be trying to argue those two points at the exact same time.There has been a significant and potentially interesting sub-thread that arose over what I call a game's proposition filter - that is to say, in what form must (or should) a character make declarations in play.&nbsp; And a potentially interesting discussion could be had over why a proposition filter is inherently tied to the notion of &quot;challenges to player&quot; and &quot;challenges to character&quot;.&nbsp; Given that I can point to cases in this thread where you have completely misunderstood my position, I think it's highly likely that the irony that you think is there isn't, and that's the reason I didn't get the humor.&nbsp; But, as I'm also someone that frequently doesn't get humor, maybe the irony is there and I'm just not seeing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7601052, member: 4937"] Ok, sure. No hard feelings. My state in this thread is that I would be happy to discuss the difference between challenge to a player and challenge to a character, but I'm not sure anyone is interested in that. I have very much got the feeling that this is a continuation of several other arguments and that for the people who were involved in those other debates, this is mostly a proxy argument for whatever was being debated in those arguments. I don't really know what the position is of everyone in the thread. I don't know what side arguments that they were involved in. It's been a long thread and I haven't closely followed everyone's stance. At this point, it would require me taking notes to really know what all has been argued and what people believe. In general, I noticed that in the "opposition to the idea camp", we had two mutually contradictory positions arise: 1) Some argued that there was no such thing as "challenge to character", and that every challenge was a challenge to player. 2) Some argued that while yes, there was such a thing as "challenge to player", that challenges to the player violated the spirit of the game and that therefore every challenge ought properly be a "challenge to character". Some seemed to be trying to argue those two points at the exact same time. There has been a significant and potentially interesting sub-thread that arose over what I call a game's proposition filter - that is to say, in what form must (or should) a character make declarations in play. And a potentially interesting discussion could be had over why a proposition filter is inherently tied to the notion of "challenges to player" and "challenges to character". Given that I can point to cases in this thread where you have completely misunderstood my position, I think it's highly likely that the irony that you think is there isn't, and that's the reason I didn't get the humor. But, as I'm also someone that frequently doesn't get humor, maybe the irony is there and I'm just not seeing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification