I don't think so. But, again, it is me answering, I don't blog about FKR.So Risus is not FKR?
See above my EDIT of last reply to you
Last edited:
I don't think so. But, again, it is me answering, I don't blog about FKR.So Risus is not FKR?
And I, myself Gm, would not run it as such, as an FKR "Play worlds... bla bla", if there were procedures to follow, rules to resolute, in place.Yes.
Edit: Yeah, I think so. If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.
This is like saying that since FKR play allows for a hard GM railroad (bad faith play), that the game is flawed and basing a theory of play around this. If people are engaging in bad faith play -- explicitly against the guidance, rules, and principles of play -- then this is not sufficient reason to blame the structure of the game for the experience.It's a really slick game. Fantastic really. One tagline is "powerful ambition & poor impulse control". You're playing a Coen brothers film, basically. But you need a group you can trust. Like a lot. It's very narrative heavy. There's no skills or stats. No task resolution. Conflict resolution is handled by playing through scenes. The short version is you: 1) pick a setting; 2) roll for connections and build a relationship web between the characters; 3) everyone takes turns being in the spotlight until the game resolves after so many scenes. That's a gross oversimplification of a really elegant game, but it's the only bit that's relevant.
Everyone takes turns being in the spotlight. You do that with scenes. When it's your turn, the scene is about your character. You get to pick whether you establish the scene or resolve the scene. If you establish, the table resolves; if you resolve, the table establishes. Establish meaning you decide the who, what, where, when, and why of the scene. Flashbacks, flashforwards, everyone's there naked in a sauna or everyone's bundled up tight in the back of a freezer truck bound for Alaska...as long as the scene is about the spotlight character. Resolve meaning decide how the scene ends in a positive or negative for the spotlight character. Very much a shared-authority, high-trust game. Sounds like an absolute dream on paper...unless you play with "that guy." And we did.
The trouble is there's no conflict resolution for what happens within scenes...except for this: "To be perfectly clear, you don’t set stakes as such (although it’s OK to say what you want), you don’t roll the die to determine an outcome, and the only limits on your description are those imposed by your friends on a social level − if they balk, figure it out together as players, with you (the player whose character is in the spotlight) having the final say."
So whoever is in the spotlight controls the scene, basically. Push comes to shove, the entire table disagrees...doesn't matter. The rules are clear: the spotlight player has the final say. They have carte blanche. So when the spotlight player decides their character is going to hack bits off of other players' characters...despite the entire rest of the table objecting...that's that. The other characters are now missing limbs. Period. That was the first spotlight scene for that player. The second went about the same...before we stopped. Mid game. Booted the guy and never played Fiasco again.
Yes, that absolutely was an example of bad faith play. But it's also perfectly within the rules. So I'm not interested in shared authority. Gimme a good, old-fashioned Referee/GM/DM any day. This was years ago, when the game was new. Thinking back, there's a lot of things we could have done. Put in a house rule about a table veto, now we know about things like X cards (which they did in 2E), so could use that...but I'm not into RPGs with lots of tchotchkes. I was over the moon about that game. It's perfectly in my wheelhouse of interests and I still use it as an idea generator. But I'm over the idea of shared authority, especially anything to the level of spotlight = DM.
Sounds like an absolute dream on paper...unless you play with "that guy." And we did.
So when the spotlight player decides their character is going to hack bits off of other players' characters...despite the entire rest of the table objecting...that's that. The other characters are now missing limbs. Period. That was the first spotlight scene for that player. The second went about the same...before we stopped. Mid game. Booted the guy and never played Fiasco again.
OK. I'm not sure if you count memory as looking up the sheet or not. PCs in Prince Valiant have rankings in Brawn, Presence and up to two-dozen skills. They also have equipment lists. And there are canonical resolution procedures.I'll try. Do players need to take into account extra diegetic, out of fiction stuff, looking at their char sheets, rules, follow procedures, in order to play the game?
If yes, then no FKR.
Upthread I posted an ostensibly FKR bloggers formalised set of someone-facing rules for playing AW-flavoured FKR: Apocalypse World, powered by ancient rulesIf your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.
As I posted upthread, Risus is very similar to OtE but with tighter editing, and replacing OtE's combat rules with a simpler, more universal, conflict resolution system that has some resemblance to Prince Valiant. In terms of rules systems it's no lighter than OtE without the combat rules (eg just use opposed checks and drop hit points altogether) or Prince Valiant.So Risus is not FKR? Or does its FKR status quantumly fluctuate based upon whether I am looking or not looking at my character sheet?
I had the same thought!Oh...
Over the Edge and FUDGE were explicit influences for Risus, Fate, and Cortex. This is one reason why I typically think of them as coming from a similar game philosophy that places an importance on fictional tags for establishing the character: e.g., Clichés (Risus), Aspects (Fate), and Distinctions (Cortex). So even if these games have different underlying architecture - Cortex (Savage Worlds), Fate (FUDGE), etc. - their fictional tags are an important part of how they understand character. One could, for example, potentially make a d20 based game that operates along similar game design philosophy and principles as Fate, Cortex, and Risus.As I posted upthread, Risus is very similar to OtE but with tighter editing, and replacing OtE's combat rules with a simpler, more universal, conflict resolution system that has some resemblance to Prince Valiant. In terms of rules systems it's no lighter than OtE without the combat rules (eg just use opposed checks and drop hit points altogether) or Prince Valiant.
I had the same thought!
A further comment on this: Prince Valiant is classic Greg Stafford design. So there is nothing like WotC D&D feats, or other quirky exception-based stuff that generates pure mechanical manipulation. (With one exception: players can get Gold Stars on their PC sheets that entitle them to a bonus die once per session.)If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.