Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9669195" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No. I was responding to someone who had said that he wants, and I quote, "some possibility of DIY", and was rejecting very specifically PbtA games for (allegedly) not allowing that. Hence, I was talking about PbtA games, because Micah was.I disagree. I think they have plenty of potential. It's just not "sure, I guess you can disassemble it entirely and literally reinvent the entire thing, if you want?" level. Expecting every game to be a LEGO set isn't a fair standard.But your argument hinges on that being the difference--that the "easier to do" systems make it a walk in the park. But it isn't. In my experience, it's actually a lot harder with these allegedly-"easier" games, because they'll fight you tooth and nail in the testing phase. Since you cannot easily see the connections that are still there, you'll miss them over and over and over again, and may only find a serious problem months (or even years!) after you thought you'd squished them all.You're going to have to defend that claim, because I don't buy it. Being able to see where things go wrong before you get started is fundamentally encouraging, IMO and IME, because it means you know you'll avoid the bazillions of false starts you'd have to endure in a system where you have no bloody clue whether what you're doing is even remotely going to work.Like...your argument is literally saying that you're more encouraged to walk across a field with 95% of the hazards carefully labelled, than you are to walk across a field that has no labels whatsoever and which is filled with invisible land mines. I dunno about you, but I'm a hell of a lot more confident walking across a field that has the vast majority of the major hazards already labelled. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed safe--a few hazards might've been missed or overlooked--but you're going to have a MUCH easier time crossing that field than the one where literally every step could have a landmine and you won't know until it explodes!Or, to be more accurate, random guessing-and-checking, hoping you eventually stumble upon a workable solution.There are better ways to navigate a minefield than sending soldiers across it until they've stepped on almost all of the mines. Someone giving you a map of where most of the mines are known to be is not discouraging you from navigating that field. They're helping you--rather a lot, actually. By knowing where most of the mines are, you can focus on walking where they aren't--or you can try your hand at defusing them, forearmed with the awareness that you're doing something risky.Less, sure. I'm not certain about a lot less.Even if I grant that, it applies just as much to the minefield that you've got a map that shows the locations of most (but not all) of the mines.</blockquote>

Verification