Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9000002" data-attributes="member: 71699">We might be talking past each other. Based on what others have said and analogies they introduced, I have been thinking about flexibility as a toolkit for designers. So flexibility in the sense of designability.Is it right to understand that you are thinking about flexibility for players (including GM)? I usually think of choice if TTRPG for play as being about whatever experience you're aiming to have, and don't think of flexibility as salient to that.It's erroneous to confine the kind of play designating itself FKR to what military types were trying to achieve more than a century ago. Yes, there are marked differences. Why should that matter?It's play: there's no teaching objective. The reason for the choice of label is that GM (and it can also be players) are living rulebooks for their chosen subject of play.I agree. I would also say that some of the most intense and satisfying RPG I've ever experienced has been what would now be called FKR. For me &quot;rules-light&quot; is a better label, because (like Messerspiel) we did have a few written rules and players put together character sheets.From my point of view, it's not a goal of FKR to teach or communicate rules. If one has that goal, as you imply a written ruleset is better. On goals, I feel that it has to be emphasised that what we're about is play. Hopscotch can't benefit from flexibility because when we play hopscotch our goal is to play hopscotch... not some other game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9000002, member: 71699"] We might be talking past each other. Based on what others have said and analogies they introduced, I have been thinking about flexibility as a toolkit for designers. So flexibility in the sense of designability. Is it right to understand that you are thinking about flexibility for players (including GM)? I usually think of choice if TTRPG for play as being about whatever experience you're aiming to have, and don't think of flexibility as salient to that. It's erroneous to confine the kind of play designating itself FKR to what military types were trying to achieve more than a century ago. Yes, there are marked differences. Why should that matter? It's play: there's no teaching objective. The reason for the choice of label is that GM (and it can also be players) are living rulebooks for their chosen subject of play. I agree. I would also say that some of the most intense and satisfying RPG I've ever experienced has been what would now be called FKR. For me "rules-light" is a better label, because (like Messerspiel) we did have a few written rules and players put together character sheets. From my point of view, it's not a goal of FKR to teach or communicate rules. If one has that goal, as you imply a written ruleset is better. On goals, I feel that it has to be emphasised that what we're about is play. Hopscotch can't benefit from flexibility because when we play hopscotch our goal is to play hopscotch... not some other game. [/QUOTE]

Verification