> That's not the point. Character death is not mandated by the
mechanics,
> but by events in the game world, as 'modelled' (via its narrative)
by
> the game mechanics. Constrast this with the other domain mentioned,
Right. This is the central difference around which we continue to circle. This is the point at which I start mentioning "simulationism" again - to procede from a world cause to a mechanical realisation of the effect. This, I believe, is at odds with the structure of the system. As this difference of opinion appears immune to further exposition on either side, agreeing to disagree appears to be the way to go.
> where you're arguing that 'what happens to the character' should be
> for some theoretical reason _essentially indepentent_ of the game
> world. Not seeing the difference?
Yes. My assertion is that HW works on the latter premise.
> I can see why one might say this, if one were analysing it as an
> exercise in pure game design philosophy. As as practical matter, it
> was the only sane way to go, however. (Personally I'd have gone
> with less of the _specific_ non-Heortling bits, though...)
Agreed
Powered by hypermail