Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9085369" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Well, since some cleric wandered by and cast resurrection on this thread, I guess I'll re-address this. While the original 1800s Prussian wargame did move to a centralized and experienced neutral adjudicator (as opposed to using a complex ruleset), that's not what modern FKR is about. To reiterate three examples from the OP-1. Perfected.We both roll dice.If you roll high, your view of reality prevails. -Player authors the fiction.If I roll high, my view of reality prevails. -DM authors the fiction.If we're close, we negotiate. -Shared authority over the fiction.2. Cthulhu Dark (lite rules).Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions. These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.Translated- who has authority? It's up to the group. Maybe the Keeper (DM) will decide everything. Maybe it's shared authority. Figure it out.3. Disco Party Athletes (that's the game I made for Iron DM)The mechanics are in the (spoiler), but roughly translate to the player choosing the ability to apply, and rolling dice. If the player succeeds on the roll, the players describes what happens (authors the fiction). Otherwise, the DM describes what happens (authors the fiction). There's some collateral mechanics as well. You're welcome to look at it.Again, there's a lot of FKR games that are DM-centric in terms of authority, and I provided an example of that as well (Dark Empires, or some default "Playing the World" examples). But I devoted an entire section of the OP to this issue-D. Some of the links you have below talk about "high trust." Is this just the "big con" for DMs to do whatever they want?Nope. "High trust" means that everyone at the table trusts each other- the players trust the referee to make fair rulings, the referee and players trust each other to engage in the fiction in good faith, and so on. If you looked at the various games I've linked to (or even looked at Perfected ....) you will notice that FKR games don't have a unified view of authority....The one theme going through is that there is trust at the table; this is what I often refer to as the assumption that everyone is playing in good faith, but has also been stated, more colorfully by Mike Mornard, as The Rules can't fix stupid, and they can't fix a*h**.</blockquote>

Verification