Timeline for How to Keep Stakes Non-Maximal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26 at 22:26 | comment | added | GMJoe | @vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica You're making the mistake of confusing character goal with player goal. Fate is built around keeping those two things separate: Characters are assumed not to know the game's mechanics, and so have no incentive to exploit them to their advantage. The politician doesn't continue a mental/social conflict after their opponent has conceded because they have no way of knowing that they are are able to manipulate the game's narrative in order to make that outcome occur. | |
| Oct 26 at 19:54 | comment | added | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | If feel like this misses the issue with these two conflicting points of a concession. The primary goal of a participant in those examples is pretty maximal if allowed to (e.g. it is in the interest of a political candidate to crush a rival's campaign; it may be a genuine goal of one student to pressure a hated rival into dropping out if the relations are vicious enough). So the question of 'why would the permitted primary goal be something less than the declared primary goal, and by what metric should it be reduced/limited/lessened' remains unanswered. | |
| Oct 26 at 12:46 | history | edited | Jadasc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Oct 26 at 12:22 | history | answered | Jadasc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |