The thing with Monopoly is that there is large element of chance. You can just as easily draw helpful cards and harmful ones. The fun is in risking the bad to get the good. Again, fun is not synonymous with reward. However, taking risks for potential reward can be fun. Games need not always reward, but should always be fun, otherwise they aren't very good games.Gizmo wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2017, 5:06 pmEven tickling, and ice-cream gets old. You get sick of it if you experience it without end. Games are meant to be fun, but not everything in a game is (or should be) meant to be fun. Just think of Monopoly... and the Go To Jail square. That's what I meant by 'things hopefully avoided' and 'not always under player control'.
It wasn't clear what you were implying. I actually addressed both interpretations in previous remarks: the robbery without recourse one and the fight-the-robbers one. I didn't really get a definite "yes, I'm talking about this one and not that one" from you. Wasn't trying to accuse you of holding to any particular stance, as I wasn't sure what your stance was.Gizmo wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2017, 5:06 pm?Games of chance can be fun because of the duality between loss and gain - with the chance of losing comes the chance of winning. However, for games of skill, probability may be a factor which affects the game, but the idea is that the player can mitigate circumstances through skill of play. If you allow a player's characters to be robbed without giving any recourse to defend against said robbery, then there is no skill in play and it is not a good game of chance either, because the player only has the chance to lose and not to gain from the event.
Do you mean that your take on the conversation was that I somewhere implied that the PC could randomly lose their wealth & inventory ~as with a pop-up menu saying "Surprise! ~You've Been Robbed!"... Like a chance card in Monopoly? I certainly did not.
Wasn't intended to be a jab, but to point out a parallel. If you're willing to accept an abstraction in one area of the game, then why not in others? Especially if it simplifies and reduces tedium. Presumably when a party loots dead monsters, the found treasure is not all literally gold pieces, but a variety of baubles, trinkets, coins, and gems, the value of which is represented as gold pieces. And, in a game where we don't worry about a character carrying three sets of plate armor back to Garth, while wearing a fourth, I don't think we need to worry about how the treasure is carried.Gizmo wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2017, 5:06 pmTrue, but unrelated to sentiment. The Berserkers quote was a jab; akin to the ever common "Realism, in a world with faeries & dragons? What talk is this!?"...
I really hope that I am misinterpreting you here. But, are you saying that the player should be forced to convert money into gems or perform a similar action just so that he or she appreciates more the fact the he or she wouldn't have to do that if the game did it automatically?Gizmo wrote: ↑April 1st, 2017, 9:53 pmI would say for the same reason bullet's aren't free. Most conveniences aren't free. Nothing that's free is valued ~because it's free; things only become valued when they become scarce and no longer free.What's wrong with getting a convenience for free? That sounds really convenient.
Or the game can choose to be simpler and simply ignore all of those concerns and not foist them on the player.Gizmo wrote: ↑April 1st, 2017, 9:53 pm If the player wants the PC to to have that much money on their person at all times, they should have to do what it takes to facilitate that (including defending it from theft). If the PC isn't strong enough to carry it, they should have to get stronger, have to discard something, have to trade it for lighter valuables, or have to get help carrying it.
Never bothered me in the BT series. Never bothered me in various Rogue-likes. Was a convenience and one for which I am grateful.
And, honestly I never even considered as a weightless, unstealable bag. Was simply the amount of purchasing power that the character had gained. No need to imagine it as anything tangible or literal.
The waste of a player's time is not very subjective.
This is shifting the argument and I am not even certain what you are or are not arguing for here. Handling money for the player in a simple, non-intrusive manner is very different than telling the player that they can do anything or that they can do no wrong. I am not sure how you would make such an inductive leap.
Making a player jump through hoops to perform a common task, such as money handling, is unwelcome complexity.