D&D General FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would argue that FKR (and any other rules-light setup) requires a "shared understanding of the fiction" - something that well-written rules can provide instead. DnD doesn't require that we all 'get' how magic works in Toril. It simply tells us, in great detail.

I agree. But ... (in the words of that immortal Knight of the Round Table, Sir Mix-A-Lot, there's ALWAYS a big but ....)

There are a few ways of dealing with this.

First, I do think that it is harder to "play the world" if no one has any idea what the world is! In that, we are in complete agreement. For example, if you decide that the fiction you're going to run is Brideshead Revisited, and no one has read that book ... that's probably going to be an unrewarding experience. It will probably also be really difficult if only one person has ... I mean, the point of using FKR to emulate genre tropes (to emulate a world) does require at least some general understanding of the world. Or, put another way, do you know that friend you have that has no idea about Star Trek or science fiction?

Could they play Lasers & Feelings without any knowledge? Maybe? But it will probably won't be very fun for the.

However, we also have to remember that a lot of these games ... like D&D itself ... sprung forth without the prerequisite of knowledge! Arneson and his group were inventing that world on the fly, and that's okay.

Which gets to thrust of this- as long as there is a degree of trust between the participants, it's going to be okay. Really! I've ran enough of these to know that while it won't be perfect for everyone, it results in a rollicking good time for the people I play with.

Now, a slightly different issue is that of reliance- some people truly prefer having clear rules that are known in advance that they can rely on. And that's totally fine too! It's just a different way to approach a problem. As you correctly note, you don't have to have any shared understanding for magic in Toril- just rules. On the other hand, those rules also define the fiction of playing in Toril.

 

[Saracenus]

And then there is the board game Diplomacy... the ender of friendships, the maker of feelings hard, the backer of stabs, etc.

This board game has "rules" that are very light and has a win condition, but the only way to win is the betrayal of your word given... there is no randomness other than the chaos of "trust."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And then there is the board game Diplomacy... the ender of friendships, the maker of feelings hard, the backer of stabs, etc.

This board game has "rules" that are very light and has a win condition, but the only way to win is the betrayal of your word given... there is no randomness other than the chaos of "trust."

Saturday Morning: Hey everyone, it's so great we could get together for a gaming weekend. Let's play Diplomacy! That will be awesome and fun!

Sometime Sunday Morning, probably around 2am: I hate all of you and I'm not speaking to any of you for at least a month.

 

[Saracenus]

Been thinking about your original post and I think the closest I have gotten to a KSR experience has been the amazing games by Ben Robbins: Microscope, Kingdom, Follow, and Union. If you haven't seen or heard of these, go check them out @ Ben's Game Website - Lamemage

And since I haven't been to the page in a while, I didn't realize he just fired off a Kickstarter for a new one: In This World
Man, everything is becoming Metaversal...

 

[jmartkdr2]

I agree. But ... (in the words of that immortal Knight of the Round Table, Sir Mix-A-Lot, there's ALWAYS a big but ....)

There are a few ways of dealing with this.

First, I do think that it is harder to "play the world" if no one has any idea what the world is! In that, we are in complete agreement. For example, if you decide that the fiction you're going to run is Brideshead Revisited, and no one has read that book ... that's probably going to be an unrewarding experience. It will probably also be really difficult if only one person has ... I mean, the point of using FKR to emulate genre tropes (to emulate a world) does require at least some general understanding of the world. Or, put another way, do you know that friend you have that has no idea about Star Trek or science fiction?

Could they play Lasers & Feelings without any knowledge? Maybe? But it will probably won't be very fun for the.

However, we also have to remember that a lot of these games ... like D&D itself ... sprung forth without the prerequisite of knowledge! Arneson and his group were inventing that world on the fly, and that's okay.

Which gets to thrust of this- as long as there is a degree of trust between the participants, it's going to be okay. Really! I've ran enough of these to know that while it won't be perfect for everyone, it results in a rollicking good time for the people I play with.

Now, a slightly different issue is that of reliance- some people truly prefer having clear rules that are known in advance that they can rely on. And that's totally fine too! It's just a different way to approach a problem. As you correctly note, you don't have to have any shared understanding for magic in Toril- just rules. On the other hand, those rules also define the fiction of playing in Toril.

Put a third way: rules are one way to define the fiction. But I think they're the most definitive way, assuming the rules themselves are clear.

The more defined the game is, the less it depends on people being on the same page before the game shows up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Put a third way: rules are one way to define the fiction. But I think they're the most definitive way, assuming the rules themselves are clear.

The more defined the game is, the less it depends on people being on the same page before the game shows up.

Maybe. But then you get into the issue of "definitive."

The problem with using rules to define the fiction is that the fiction can't be defined by the rules. This is an age-old problem, just like they ran into with Kriegsspiel, and just like people ran into when they were statting up Gandalf, and just like you run into at every single rules-heavy game when there comes an occasion when the rules don't match the fiction - nor could they.

Turned around, I would say that the more the game relies on a set of rules, the less it can match any fiction. There is no such thing as a free lunch- rules are great and awesome especially when it comes to providing a shared framework, but rules have their own costs.

(Finally, given that I have never seen the rules debates in FKR that I regularly see in D&D and other games, I am not entirely sure that the statement that everyone will be on the same page is true in practice, or if we are simply ignoring issues related to clarity of rules- but that's a different issue).

In the end, people like what they like! As I wrote, FKR doesn't do a lot of things well, and if you like (for example) crunchy combat and spellcasting, it's definitely not for you.

 

[overgeeked]

Put a third way: rules are one way to define the fiction. But I think they're the most definitive way, assuming the rules themselves are clear.

The more defined the game is, the less it depends on people being on the same page before the game shows up.

Not really, no.

Rules and any other source for the fiction are basically the same in that regard. The rules being "definitive" rely on the players having read them, understood them, having the same interpretation of them as the GM, etc. Otherwise there will be game time spent "getting people on the same page" in regards to the rules. It doesn't matter what the source for the groups' understanding of the fiction is. All sources require the same leg work.

There's the further problem that, again, the fiction isn't defined by or limited to the rules of the game. That's what a lot of FKR referees and players are getting at when they say "play worlds, not rules". No rules set can possibly encompass everything. Thinking that they can limits the fiction to only what the rules account for, which inevitably cuts off literally everything else.

The fiction is wildly more broad than the rules (any rules) could possibly cover. So starting with fiction sources (rather than rules), gives the referee and players a more complete picture of what the gaming experience can and will encompass.

 

[LordEntrails]

3. In the end, I'm not sure it requires people with compatible personalities- but it absolutely requires people to game in good faith (don't be a jerk). Everyone. Personally, I find that to be an absolute prerequisite for all of my gaming ... but I also understand that not everyone is so lucky. I would probably add that FKR might not be an ideal system if you have people in your group that enjoy having disagreements about rules.

There is something all the players at the table need to agree with or be compatible about. And I don't think with the current group I play with we would have any personality issues with FKR, but there is a shift. Of mindset or something that as you say, isn't for everyone.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There is something all the players at the table need to agree with or be compatible about. And I don't think with the current group I play with we would have any personality issues with FKR, but there is a shift. Of mindset or something that as you say, isn't for everyone.

It definitely takes a shift, but it's also much easier that people think when they think about it- it's really one of those cases where you do!

I recommend taking any Rules Lite game and running it as a one-shot for your group. Which one? Any one! I've linked to a bunch in my posts- but there's a lot more. Heck, you're even welcome to try Disco Party Athletes grin.

Most of the time, people find that it's actually a lot easier than they were worried about.

 

[Mannahnin]

I recommend taking any Rules Lite game and running it as a one-shot for your group. Which one? Any one! I've linked to a bunch in my posts- but there's a lot more. Heck, you're even welcome to try Disco Party Athletes grin.

My most recent enjoyed was Definitely Wizards.