anyway.



thread: 2013-06-20 : The Sundered Land

On 2013-07-12, Gordon wrote:

Well - “conflict” with dooming the pilgrim isn’t in my thoughts, at all.  I mean, I guess maybe it could be, in the conflict-can-be-productive sense. But getting on board with dooming the pilgrim is hardly the end of the story. Neccessary but by no means sufficient - and not (in my case) even the interesting part.  Becasue yeah, if I’m not going to try and doom that pilgrim, why play a game f’in named Doomed Pilgrim?

Or in the metaphor: of course not a goal that stops me from pursuing checkmate (though maybe I might, really, really rarely, discover that achieving checkmate creates issues).  But also: of course I have goals besides just checkmate.  Pretending I don’t is just, well, odd to imagine.  Chess is fun (or isn’t) because of those goals as well as because of the checkmate goal.

Re-reading the last few posts, maybe this: You say there’s nothing implied but unstated that goes into making Doomed Pilgrim playable. To which I say “True, but why do I care about something as basic as that?” I’d say there is MUCH implied but unstated that goes into making Doomed Pilgrim fun (stipulated: not in some “you hid it and if I don’t find it/know it/agree with it that sucks and the game sucks and you suck too” sense). 

To which you respond, um - not basic?  Not easy? (OK, that I agree with - kudos to you, sincere-like).  Or maybe disagree with how I’m seperating “playable” and “fun”?

Or perhaps your implied/unstated thing is important in a different way to a different target than me, and my implied/unstated thing is important to, well, not you.  Which is weird, because I would’ve expected you to be all about goals that include, but are in no way otherwise limited by, dooming the pilgrim.  But hey, this would hardly be the only way in which my expectations don’t match reality ...



 

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":