Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9309701" data-attributes="member: 18">Calling it a &quot;complexity issue&quot; feels like a real cop-out to me.Plenty of games are as or more complex than BitD/FitD, but they're explained just fine. I think it's more of an attitudinal issue from the writers that stems from the not-very-good writing/explanations in the original BitD creating a sort of &quot;funnel&quot; effect where only people who were able to parse that and get a game they liked out of it* actually created FitD games, and continue the tradition of not writing about their own games very well/clearly. I also straight-up don't buy the &quot;don't want you to feel restricted&quot; angle - BitD was extremely prescriptive in its writing (far more so than most games), and most FitD games are pretty prescriptive too in my experience. Being prescriptive is fine, but you need to explain your game and intended gameplay well if you're going to be like that, imho.Also &quot;good at one narrow thing and doesn't work well outside that&quot; is a perfect description for every FitD game I've seen, especially BitD, so I'm not sure that's a point of difference from PtbA at all. Indeed I'd say it's a point of similarity. To be fair it's true for most RPGs of all systems.* = Seemingly usually by ignoring the RAW and apparent RAI and coming up with their own, divergent, rules interpretations and systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9309701, member: 18"] Calling it a "complexity issue" feels like a real cop-out to me. Plenty of games are as or more complex than BitD/FitD, but they're explained just fine. I think it's more of an attitudinal issue from the writers that stems from the not-very-good writing/explanations in the original BitD creating a sort of "funnel" effect where only people who were able to parse that and get a game they liked out of it* actually created FitD games, and continue the tradition of not writing about their own games very well/clearly. I also straight-up don't buy the "don't want you to feel restricted" angle - BitD was extremely prescriptive in its writing (far more so than most games), and most FitD games are pretty prescriptive too in my experience. Being prescriptive is fine, but you need to explain your game and intended gameplay well if you're going to be like that, imho. Also "good at one narrow thing and doesn't work well outside that" is a perfect description for every FitD game I've seen, especially BitD, so I'm not sure that's a point of difference from PtbA at all. Indeed I'd say it's a point of similarity. To be fair it's true for most RPGs of all systems. * = Seemingly usually by ignoring the RAW and apparent RAI and coming up with their own, divergent, rules interpretations and systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification