Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9028210" data-attributes="member: 6690965">This is an interesting perspective that gives me a little more insight into why this might be desirable. I really don't like the idea of trying to play a game that I don't know the rules to. In fact, I'd argue constraining the world down to a system of rules that every actually follows is the primary appeal of games as an activity for me. Most descriptions of FKR I've run across do read quite a lot like &quot;I really wish my players didn't know the rules and would stop asking me about them,&quot; which honestly sounds less like a fun time and more like a No Exit style of hell purpose built for me. &quot;Play the world, not the rules&quot; is less a freeing motto, and more a reminder that the actual world is a frustrating place.What I find interesting though is that I generally want to solve the same problems that I think FKR is aimed at. I'd like players to achieve, as [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] is putting it, &quot;Groundedness &amp; Simulation&quot; where the events of the game more or less make naturalistic (or perhaps more precisely &quot;mechanical&quot;) sense, follow from causes, and results are determined procedurally. The difference is that I've always viewed resolving that as a design question, something that should sit inside the rules, and from which failures should be hunted down and pruned away. What interests me is how much that ultimately seems to rely on design by accumulation; I'd rather like to see a bunch of rules documents worked up over years of playing games as starting places.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9028210, member: 6690965"] This is an interesting perspective that gives me a little more insight into why this might be desirable. I really don't like the idea of trying to play a game that I don't know the rules to. In fact, I'd argue constraining the world down to a system of rules that every actually follows is the primary appeal of games as an activity for me. Most descriptions of FKR I've run across do read quite a lot like "I really wish my players didn't know the rules and would stop asking me about them," which honestly sounds less like a fun time and more like a No Exit style of hell purpose built for me. "Play the world, not the rules" is less a freeing motto, and more a reminder that the actual world is a frustrating place. What I find interesting though is that I generally want to solve the same problems that I think FKR is aimed at. I'd like players to achieve, as [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] is putting it, "Groundedness & Simulation" where the events of the game more or less make naturalistic (or perhaps more precisely "mechanical") sense, follow from causes, and results are determined procedurally. The difference is that I've always viewed resolving that as a design question, something that should sit inside the rules, and from which failures should be hunted down and pruned away. What interests me is how much that ultimately seems to rely on design by accumulation; I'd rather like to see a bunch of rules documents worked up over years of playing games as starting places. [/QUOTE]

Verification