Well, it isn't that simple! Players in most PbtA games are very active participants in the formulation of the world (setting). In Dungeon World the GM is told very explicitly that they will ask questions and use the answers. It isn't a hard mechanically governed aspect of play, but it is DEEPLY a part of the agenda! Beyond that, in most cases in PbtA games (again there are definitely exceptions here) the GM is pretty much entirely expected to frame ONLY scenes which address the dramatic needs of the characters, and there are generally mechanisms (like DW bonds and alignment amongst others) which specifically generate these things on purpose.
Sounds rather limited and messy. So I take it DW is the Story Now game? Yeah, that's not for me. I like the lighter and more flexible rules. But RPGs aren't stories. Games that try to force emulating story structure or dramatic whatever are kinda dull to me as they typically utterly fail. Mostly because everyone playing is supposed to have agency.
Odd, coming from you, since to you do quite a bit of it in promoting and discussing why you think FKR is a good thing.
Well, FKR is not an abstract theory. It's a style of play, style of game, and style of DMing.
Ok. There's pre-written setting material and the GM retains the power of No over PC action declarations, especially if they conflict with setting. Very little setting is initially revealed to players, but instead reveal by declaring actions that discover it. Play is mostly about this. And this is 100% fine.
I would disagree with this. It's not hard and fast, it depends. You can sandbox in a familiar setting or a completely new one. If you're focusing on exploration and hexcrawling, then sure. But not all sandboxes are exploration-focused hexcrawls.
No, that's straight up Sim, man. It's not about mechanics, although it can be, but your assertion that the GM is the best emulator of the world is 100% straight up Sim. This isn't at all a bad or negative thing. There's not a single thing wrong with running a Sim game. But if you're attempting to compare play to the model that has Story Now defined, then you need to also place other play within that model. And the play you advocate for is pure Sim. It's not Gamism at all, as you eschew that agenda strongly. It's certainly not Narrativism/Story Now, as you're absolutely clear about the authority structure of your play and what's expected from it. Sim not only is left, but actually clearly explains your play within its agenda.
I don't know enough of the theories to understand half of what you're saying here.
I don't know all the different models and definitions of 'simulationist', but that isn't the GNS definition, not at all. In fact it is basically the common misunderstanding of what GNS is saying about simulation.
Sure. Could be. It all reads as philosophy written by people who don't understand philosophy.
It is much closer, AFAIK, to what you are claiming is FKR. So, IMHO an FKR is a probably pretty simulationist, but I don't think we can assert that definitively without further characterization.
My understanding of Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance (FKR) is that it places primacy on the fictional world rather than the rules of any game system. That rules limit and restrict play rather than inform or aid play. Further, the heavier the rules the more they get between the players and the world. So, you remove as much of the rules as possible to get to only what you need. Typically something that fits on 3x5 card or a few short pages. Then, you engage with the world as if it were a real place and play your characters as if they were real people within that world.
Whatever that means as far as these theories go...great.
IOW what are the goals/victory conditions?
The goal is to have fun playing the game by not focusing on the rules and instead focusing on the fictional world.
What other rules are in place which govern resources, stance, etc.?
It depends on the iteration. FKR isn't single a game, it's a loose cluster of games, designs, designers, etc.
Some can be as simple as: when in conflict where the outcome is uncertain and success or failure would be interesting, make an opposed 2d6 roll. Higher roll wins. Negotiate ties.
That's the entire game. Some add on things like damage tracking, armor, defenses, etc. It's very much about getting rid of the cruft and clutter and immersing in the world.
I mean, we know its RP, but how much 'game' is there in there, and what is the balance between that and 'world', and can you say something is even a 'simulation' of anything at all if it lacks codified rules about that element?
The rules about the world, such as they are, typically consist of something like "we're playing Blade Runner with influences from the original novel it's based on, Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep. So go watch Blade Runner: Final Cut before we play and read the novel if you have time."
That's typically about it. The Referee decides they want to run a game in that world or the group decides they want to play in this world, go engage with it, and that will inform you about the setting and expectations.
