> > Maybe we've been talking past at other for the last message or 12;
> > if you think that there exist valid "pretexts" for cementing wealth
> > increases, why the arguments that the (seemingly only) "correct"
> > way to increase wealth is by "spend the HPs"?
> Umm, I think that the way the system works is to have the character
> as the active agent. It only measures the character, and what is
> explicitly stated about the character through such devices as the
> hundred words and keyword selection. So when the player spends an
> HP, the ACT, as it were, that occurs is that the character changes.
> This has no necessary relationship with anything that might be
> described as going on in the world during play.
That's self-evidently false, if one explicitly allows "cementing", since by definition that relates to "things that went on in the world during play".
> In each case, the system is not modelling the world;
This is a distinction you're created from this thread, that has very little to do with the actual substance of the issue.
> This is something the player has told the GM
> through their choice of system behaviour; by implication, the GM is
> actively obliged to inflict some equivalent misfortune on a player
> who acquires cows without "paying for them" in systematic terms.
"Without paying for them" is _also_ neither here nor there. If you cement a benefit, you clearly "pay" something, but what you _get_ for what you what you pay has to be related back to what happened during game-play, which is a connection you've spend many a K apparently denying.
Can you possibly explain to me how "cementing wealth" might work in your cosmology, as opposed to putting up bigger and better straw men about what it is the opposing camp aren't proposing?
Powered by hypermail