Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9028023" data-attributes="member: 7023840">[USER=6972053]@Numidius[/USER] I wanted to come back in briefly- thank you for the interesting post! One of the difficulties in discussing this particular issue is that it is, somewhat, formless. As I tried to explain in the OP, there isn't even a single 100% agreed-to definition as to the R in FKR stands for. I think of it best as an umbrella term to describe a certain approach to RPGs. Given that it is usually "indie" gamers, there will be differences in approach and opinion between them! While not a perfect analogy, you can compare it to "alternative" music, or, for that matter, "independent" cinema. When I think of FKR, and what it means to me, I think primarily of the usage of rules-lite systems- the concepts that go with "play the world, not the rules," and "invisible rulebooks," that inspired me to run multiple different types of rules-lite games and that also gave me inspiration to start creating my own ... rather demented ones (what other kind would I make!). In a way, this harkens back to the very original Braunstein-style games, such as the one Revolution-style game I excerpted in my post.That said, there are certainly other voices in the community. One of the things that I specifically discussed is that, in my opinion, FKR does not work as well for longer campaigns ... it lacks the scaffolding for that. Another word for scaffolding is, of course, rules. I think it is a common observation - I know I've made it in the past - that the difference between OD&D / early AD&D and later D&D is that early D&D wasn't designed; instead, the rules were simply the accumulated bespoke rulings over time. This, of course, is the standard trajectory in most systems- you start "rules lite," you accumulate more rules, eventually you have a lot of rules, and then you tear them down and start over. The process keeps on, keepin' on. What the post you are referring to is talking about is something different- referred to in both the 1e DMG and the OD&D LBBs. It's about ensuring that the DM is responsible for the rules- I think of it as a meta version of a really tall DM's screen! There are certainly advantages to this way of playing; it's very easy, for example, to on-board new players when they don't have to know the rules (this is how I first learned to play, back in the prehistory of the game). Players also tend to concentrate more on the fiction when they don't worry so much about the rules. From a certain perspective, the issue of whether it's an "invisible rulebook" because it's a DM heuristic or an "invisible rulebook" because the players don't know the rules you are using is somewhat academic. While I think people can (and do!) say that this falls under the "FKR" banner, to me this is much more about creating an OSR experience. Which is great! But, for example, there is little to differentiate "Play OSE, but don't let the players know any of the rule," as opposed to what this is describing. So while I support people finding their fun in whatever way they want (always!) I also think that it is helpful to understand that not everyone approaches this the same way- viewing this as only the relationship of the referee to the rules removes a lot of the interesting ideas that are percolating within the overall FKR-umbrella. If anything, I would argue that aspects of FKR as largely a reaction to the idea that, um rules matter. Yes, rules matter for many people ... but the concentration of first-order design leaves out the importance of second-order design, and FKR, if anything, is about the idea that play matters.</blockquote>

Verification