Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8993691" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think that sounds right. Honestly, it is going to probably look a heck of a lot like endless applications of the Dungeon World 'Defy Danger' move.Yeah, if you have  these in mind then I would say you are effectively inventing your own PbtA and so you will be starting at that sort of 'moveless core', which also lacks the other 'glue back to fiction' pieces like harm, etc. Presumably you would invent versions of those suitable to your needs, though I'm guessing nowadays most authors can start with an existing game that is fairly close to what they want vs 'cold design'.Yes, I know what the acronym stands for. I have no idea why they think their games are any more referential of actual Free Kriegsspiel than any other RPG though. FK is not about 'less is more', and it could care less about 'empowering'. FK was about presenting situations that were true to life such that engaging with them in the game exercises would prepare the participants for the real thing. Referees in FK generally had available to them LARGE rule books which they were expected to know and understand, and to employ. The absolute power of the referee was intended to free them from silly things like corner cases and allow them to extrapolate onto situations not already covered. It also COULD provide a way to adjudicate in a situation where a player selected an entirely novel approach. What the people creating these 'revolutionary' games really need to reference is the Braunstein, which is a bit different thing in that it is composed of ENTIRELY situations which allow for novel approaches and is more free form in some respects. However Braunstein, from what I understand not having played one, DO have potentially very thorough rules and systems for the areas they are focused on. Like the 'Banania' scenarios that Wesely & Arneson ran had a bunch of rules about elections and public sentiment, etc. This is much like FK, which generally deals with military campaigns and has extensive logistics rules and such. Now, maybe the 'Brownstone' Wild West scenario was different, I don't know. We can judge though from Blackmoor that these things were not necessarily 'rules lite' for the time, as D&D itself is essentially just Gygax's gloss of Arneson's actual campaign rules!As such I don't believe that what Messerspiel is doing has much to do with the above. I get why they think it does, but I think the two are pretty divergent actually.I think they almost always come into a game with someone else who has already learned these things. I won't say NOBODY ever masters D&D 'cold', I've seen it, but I've also seen instances where that lead to some VERY idiosyncratic interpretations! I think basically if you read all of 5e in a fairly loose way, which most people are likely to do, they will generally pick up a certain set of ideas about play that are pretty close to 'trad' and the pieces will fit together for them. It just strikes me as a bit of a slipshod approach when you could instead do something like what DW does. Its not like people can't drift DW either, they do it all the time and I can tell you there are various posters on this very thread who have pretty divergent opinions as to how it 'should' be played, or who have done different things with it.</blockquote>

Verification