Read the thread. Stras is right.
Which is why I'm just gonna be a total jerk and also disagree.
Evidence suggests we absolutely *can* expect people to wade through hundreds of pages to get to "the good parts", despite that making no sense at all.
To me, that's fascinating.
Which is why I'm just gonna be a total jerk and also disagree.
Evidence suggests we absolutely *can* expect people to wade through hundreds of pages to get to "the good parts", despite that making no sense at all.
To me, that's fascinating.
It invokes the question of *why* people are willing to do that.
There are a few not-compelling reasons. There were times when that was the only option, sure, and even today it can be a habit in some circles. But those are the dull answers.
There are a few not-compelling reasons. There were times when that was the only option, sure, and even today it can be a habit in some circles. But those are the dull answers.
Another more interesting answer is that friction invests us. When things are harder to get into, we feel greater attachment because we have been through the gauntlet and *earned* knowledge.
That absolutely has a place in games. No question.
That absolutely has a place in games. No question.
An even more interesting question comes when we compare this to a novel. Novels can be pretty thick, and we can be risking a substantial chunk of time for a payoff that may or may not come. Especially if we could just as easily absorb, say, a comic book in a fraction of the time
We don't declare the comic book superior because of this. Rather, we seek different things. Immediacy offers value, but it does not offer the ONLY value.
Are games different?
Are games different?
I will turn to examples with the caveat: Any example might be wrong for you. That does not automatically invalidate it, so please think in terms of the general more than the specific.
The most obvious counterargument I can think of to Stras's point is the game Nobilis. This is not an easy read, and finding that crystal clear idea of what play looks like is elusive. But for those who have enjoyed it, it is tremendously rewarding.
A less hoity toity example can be found in almost any setting-heavy line. To a fan of the Forgotten Realms or the World of Darkenss, the core rulebook may merely be the *entry point* to the thing they seek.
For fans of games like Champions, complexity (which reduces accessibility) can be a large part of the appeal.
Now, to come back to Stras's point - these text still *benefit* from a clear message, and from a strong pitch, but what I want to call out is that while the pitch and the game *can* be the same thing (often to great effect) that need not be the case.
Oh, addendum - I really did not touch upon the social element of these things. Lots of social reasons to read something, and the social element may actually convey the pitch better than the game, but that's a bigger complexity than I'm up for tonight.
