Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9025488" data-attributes="member: 7026594">And I think that's super common.&nbsp; I suppose one of the virtues of experimenting with FKR is figuring out to what extent you can treat stuff like combat and danger the way you normally treat social and exploration parts of the game.&nbsp; And whether it can be satisfying and liberating to do so.&nbsp; If the players and GM can get sufficiently on the same page, combat ideally could become as immersive as social roleplay often is.&nbsp; No enforced pause to roll and organize initiative, for example.&nbsp; Instead DM narrating with the same flow and sense of urgency as whatever prompted the situation to come to blows in the first place.Since you've got a designated GM thankfully it can't come down to &quot;I swing my sword and chop your head off&quot; followed by &quot;I shield it&quot; and then &quot;You can't keep doing that, there has to be a limit!&quot;&nbsp; Someone's been entrusted to be the arbiter and narrator.&nbsp; And it's not competitive like our childhood cops &amp; robbers games.Ben at Mazirian's garden was riffing on some more abstracted simple mechanics for combat a couple of years back.&nbsp; These are still no doubt more formalized and structured than you'd use in FKR, but I think are getting closer.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]http://maziriansgarden.blogspot.com/2021/04/injury-and-abstract-combat-round.html[/URL]I think Bacon Bits was challenging the assumption that they are necessary, or one of only two options.&nbsp; You can see in Overgeeked's responses that he was conceptualizing it as the only two options being &quot;dice&quot; or &quot;GM decides&quot;.&nbsp; Which is a totally understandable position to take based on most of our experience with D&amp;D. But Amber Diceless is a counterexample.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 9025488, member: 7026594"] And I think that's super common. I suppose one of the virtues of experimenting with FKR is figuring out to what extent you can treat stuff like combat and danger the way you normally treat social and exploration parts of the game. And whether it can be satisfying and liberating to do so. If the players and GM can get sufficiently on the same page, combat ideally could become as immersive as social roleplay often is. No enforced pause to roll and organize initiative, for example. Instead DM narrating with the same flow and sense of urgency as whatever prompted the situation to come to blows in the first place. Since you've got a designated GM thankfully it can't come down to "I swing my sword and chop your head off" followed by "I shield it" and then "You can't keep doing that, there has to be a limit!" Someone's been entrusted to be the arbiter and narrator. And it's not competitive like our childhood cops & robbers games. Ben at Mazirian's garden was riffing on some more abstracted simple mechanics for combat a couple of years back. These are still no doubt more formalized and structured than you'd use in FKR, but I think are getting closer. [URL unfurl="true"]http://maziriansgarden.blogspot.com/2021/04/injury-and-abstract-combat-round.html[/URL] I think Bacon Bits was challenging the assumption that they are necessary, or one of only two options. You can see in Overgeeked's responses that he was conceptualizing it as the only two options being "dice" or "GM decides". Which is a totally understandable position to take based on most of our experience with D&D. But Amber Diceless is a counterexample. [/QUOTE]

Verification