Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8397136" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think that the idea of tying this (FKR) explicitly to a wargaming culture, as opposed being inspired by it, is not helpful. It is more useful for me to think of conceptual approaches; for example, in wargaming there was a long push-pull between rules-heavy (or rigid) systems and rules-lite (or free) systems.This same push-pull can be seen as reflected in TTRPGs as well. I would add that in my opinion, creating rules and systems that make the referee a Master of Ceremonies, or "just a player with different responsibilities in the narrative," is, to me, no different than creating rules and systems that "bind" or "limit" the referee.In addition, giving the referee active goals that depart from neutrality (or placing rules upon the referee that force decision making in certain directions) is certainly an interesting distinction.So you are correct- I don't think that AW (for example) "fails to live up to FK ethos". You're right- it's not trying to. What I would say is that AW (and similar games!) are, in fact, very similar in their overall goals to many FKR games, but achieving it from a different design process; they both seek to privilege story and fast play, but do so from a very different a priori belief in the design. Weirdly, in practice, I honestly don't think it matters that much.</blockquote>