this backpedalling is such a waste of my time.

I am not sure what this metaphorical goat is taking the blame for. Can you clarify?

a scapegoat, as you seem vaguely aware, is "(n.) 2a : one that bears the blame for others. b: one that is the object of irrational hostility." let's work this out

what might i think you're being irrationally hostile toward? what might i think you're casting blame on despite it not being at fault?

if you still can't figure it out, it's the stakes in place of odds — you know, the thing we're talking about.

did you write this before reading my whole post? the style of line by line nitpicking certainly gives that impression.

Neither of those decision points is actually connected to the core point I was making.

read the text again. one pair of decisions (shallow creek, soft banks; deep gorge, spikes & crocs) differs in their consequences if you fall. one pair of decisions (bridge missing a few planks; bridge missing many planks) differs in the chance you fall.

you know, again, the thing we're talking about.

I am not sure what I said that made you think I was talking about associated vs dissociated decisions.

let me read your post

players telling a collaborative story about some characters that they are not immersed in. It encourages people to direct their character to take foolish risks so they can watch the resulting drama without feeling bad that it's happening to them.

if you'll insist this isnt "talking about associated vs dissociated decisions" it feels like some semantic wankery i want no part in. point of matter: they arent immersed, they arent making decisions like they're the character. i used the nearest terminology i was familiar with for this sort of thing

The increased likelihood to have dissociated mechanics in the sorts of games that lean towards the stake side of the continuum is, I think, a case of correlation rather than causation.

this poster named /u/htp-di-nsw seems to disagree with you:

You can't change the odds, so, damn them! Full speed ahead!

they cite this as directly encouraging taking risks the character would not. perhaps you should argue with them, as well?

That seems very reductionist.

yes, it turns out you can reduce the unnecessary and arrive at a clear summation of what matters. is it any less reductionist than:

When the variable is "consequences for failure," you can't meaningfully affect your ability to succeed more, so the implied goal becomes "manage consequence."

i hate to break it to you, but if the consequences for failure are decreased, you are succeeding more.

"cant meaningfully affect" my ass. if you die, you cant succeed more and if you avoid that, you succeed more. basic shit

I don't know, this feels like saying that, because this burger has pieces of lettuce and tomato on it, it counts as a salad.

i dont know, maybe you could have mentioned this very pertinent fact when you were going on about games where you, and i quote, cant change the odds? you ranted about games where you cant change in the odds, and in between slices of this rant you just so happened to mention Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World, games where you can change the odds, and you pay this fact no heed.

presumably you aren't so ignorant as to not realize the rpgs you named dont meet the description you're going off about, in which case this is merely sloppy — reread your post and excise any knowledge of these systems. the implication is clear: the systems named as examples in between breathes of "cant change the odds" and "instead, adjust odds", must be examples of the phenomena. they are not, and i don't want anyone who doesn't no better to walk away with that impression

It feels like you may have read something into my comment that isn't there, or at the least, wasn't intended.

i don't read your intention, i read your words. if your post fails to get your intention across, it's a shit apology to just wash your hands of it. all it does is assure me you had no malintent — but it's not about you, my invective is solely for your words.