Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8397954" data-attributes="member: 16814">Going to disagree.&nbsp; 3e still has lots and lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust.&nbsp; Similarly, FKR has lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust.&nbsp; Both can lose trust very quickly.&nbsp; The difference really is that in 3e you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood rules of the game, and in FKR you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood...rules.... wait.&nbsp; It would appear that you lose trust in both by putting your thumb on the scales.&nbsp; No, the argument being made isn't that FKR requires more trust, but rather that the GM hiding information being used to adjudicate (via rules or via fiat) requires that players have faith that the GM is acting in good faith.&nbsp; This approach, ie hiding information, is not particularly associated with rules heavy or rules light systems, and there's variants of both that showcase little or lots of information hiding.What the argument is for D&amp;D FKR (and I do so hate this term because it's, again, so badly misaligned) is to have the GM as both the supposed trusted umpire for resolution, but also the architect behind the mysteries.&nbsp; Here you have to have faith (not really trust) that the GM is doing both fairly and for good purpose.&nbsp; This, though, is a specific application, and you don't have to have either, really.&nbsp; Looking at a game like Cthulhu Dark, for instance, screams for a very impartial GM with respect to scenario design if you're enabling neutral resolution GMing, or you can have neutral scenario design but then have to engage in non-neutral resolution GMing (because you have to stick to the scenario).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8397954, member: 16814"] Going to disagree. 3e still has lots and lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust. Similarly, FKR has lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust. Both can lose trust very quickly. The difference really is that in 3e you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood rules of the game, and in FKR you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood...rules.... wait. It would appear that you lose trust in both by putting your thumb on the scales. No, the argument being made isn't that FKR requires more trust, but rather that the GM hiding information being used to adjudicate (via rules or via fiat) requires that players have [U][I]faith[/I][/U] that the GM is acting in good faith. This approach, ie hiding information, is not particularly associated with rules heavy or rules light systems, and there's variants of both that showcase little or lots of information hiding. What the argument is for D&D FKR (and I do so hate this term because it's, again, so badly misaligned) is to have the GM as both the supposed trusted umpire for resolution, but also the architect behind the mysteries. Here you have to have faith (not really trust) that the GM is doing both fairly and for good purpose. This, though, is a specific application, and you don't have to have either, really. Looking at a game like Cthulhu Dark, for instance, screams for a very impartial GM with respect to scenario design if you're enabling neutral resolution GMing, or you can have neutral scenario design but then have to engage in non-neutral resolution GMing (because you have to stick to the scenario). [/QUOTE]

Verification