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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8993452" data-attributes="member: 71699">So in this case participants are deciding on the fly what will count as "doing the thing", what success does ("the thing"), what success with complication does ("the thing" and "complication" probably described by GM), and what failure does (probably trouble described by GM.) The dice method is employed according to written principles, introduction to fiction, and who PCs will be.For a group who have their own principles, fiction and PCs in mind, the dice method alone may be sufficient.FKR stands for Free Kriegspiel Revolution and you'll see rulesets like Messerspiel which is "ultra-light roleplay inspired by Blades in the Dark". There is a relatively small but passionate group of RPGers who find a game text like Messerspiel not only sufficient, but empowering. The Invisible Rulebooks, Less Rules To Do More, and Worlds, Not Rules talk over some of the purposes folk have in mind for FKR.If one picks up a ruleset like D&D and can't see what to do with it, then it makes sense to want the principles etc to be written out. Notwithstanding concerns expressed in this thread, that doesn't seem to be a widely felt shortfall. Perhaps because folk seldom come to games in a state of cultural tabula rasa. Their form of life helps them grasp the implied meaning. So for me, when I read those concerns, some seem more connected with ideals and preferences while others seem more fundamental to how I define RPG. Potentially forming a hierachicy, from high-level (applicable to all or nearly-all RPG) to lower-level (applicable to some modes, purposes-for, or families of RPGs), as follows.1. If we define RPG as we have elsewhere, as ongoing authorship of common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in, with linkage between fiction and system, thena) an example high-level principle might be one at the core of AW - given one wants to supply momentum to the drafting and revising via the linkage between fiction and system, it makes sense to structure methods accordingly (fail-forward describes an approach)b) an example lower-level principle might be - given one disfavours participant-decides, then it makes sense to have rules that delimit decisions (if one is comfortable with or even prefers participant-decides, one wouldn't want to constrain that... much as FKR advocates)c) another might be - given one favours a designer's fiction, one wants an explanation of that fiction (although I think here, one's wants could go further, e.g. to see that fiction explicated in the game mechanics)d) another could be - given one disfavours unwritten principles, one wants written principles (which is perhaps a special case of b)[USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] in part this addresses your point. It is of no avail to teach skills specific to sushi making to a cook who prefers to create fondue. If for a group it is satisfying and empowering to avoid written constraints, then it won't necessarily improve their play to teach them how to use written constraints. That group might well understand the difference, and have made a choice that suits their purposes for play.</blockquote>

Verification