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.
Dungeon World is a Story Now game, yes. If you play it in its described form the GM and players first engage at a 'session zero', at which point no setting exists at all (obviously the genre implies the kinds of elements that will be present). Players generate PCs, and the GM helps flesh out their backgrounds and whatnot. The initial setting elements will fall out of this process, so we will learn SOMETHING about the world, but we will also have the PC's classes, races, alignments, bonds, and whatever other things they get to select, which along with whatever they may have told the GM, will present said GM with some dramatic needs to work with. The halfling wants to steal enough money to get his sister out of prison. The Paladin wants to help get justice for the Halfling. The Barbarian wants to find a mighty weapon to wield. Whatever. From these things the GM then defines several 'fronts', which are basically threatening plot elements. He can then describe dangers and portents related to these fronts, and build some sketch maps that perhaps describe generally where the bugbear horde hunting ground is, or whatever. At that point play starts, the GM frames a scene that puts pressure on the PCs and references at least some of their dramatic needs.
The game rewards, with XP, players playing to their bonds, their alignment, etc. It is all really rather simple and elegant. There are a set of agenda statements and techniques involved in play, and it works quite well. According to the authors, most of what the GM does is just "what GM's have always done." but just in light of a clear and well-articulated set of tools and techniques. It is a pretty rules-light game too, really. None of the rules/systems actually tells you what you can or cannot do or how to do it, instead it is all oriented towards simply determining whether or not whatever you DID describe as your character's actions moved you in the direction you wanted, or not (IE there are no actual 'combat' rules, but you can swing at an orc and there's a rule for determining if you came out on top when you did that, or not, or somewhere in between).
Sure. Could be. It all reads as philosophy written by people who don't understand philosophy.
It is all rather logical. 'Simulation' according to RE consists of a game agenda which aims at producing a certain type of results, that is of emulating something. So in a Supers game if the agenda is simulationist, then the agenda would be say simulating the types of action scenes and story structure which arise in superhero comics. It is possible for a Simulationist agenda to be something like "depict action which realistically emulates the kinds of events that happen to soldiers fighting in a modern war." or something like that, which could indeed involve a lot of careful modeling of realistic events. That is just not what is meant by Simulationism, that's all, it is much broader.
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.
What I'm saying is, an FKR is probably aiming to produce narrative/outcomes that are close to realistic. I mean, this is why it is generally enacted in a manner similar to a LARP (not always, but there's an element of live action to Kriegspiel). That is, the objective involves allowing the world to 'play itself'. However, it is not a given that the goal is actually this kind of realism. The goal could be to emulate an emergency management team, for example. It is just normally there's a STRONG simulation element in K (and FK). Even if the participants are taking on the roles of, say, super heroes, the point is the action being of that genre.
The goal is to have fun playing the game by not focusing on the rules and instead focusing on the fictional world.
It depends on the iteration. FKR isn't single a game, it's a loose cluster of games, designs, designers, etc.
Yes, I understand this. I am simply saying that there may be different GNS agendas in different FKs.
Some can be as simply 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.
Sure, but 'immersion' and what is intended to come out of it are somewhat separate things. I mean, I think this kind of immersion probably caters to certain agendas well, and maybe others not so well, but that would be true of any particular approach to formulating an RPG.
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.
Sure, but that leaves a huge amount unsaid. What are the processes by which it is decided that, say, my character has been given some orders to go hunt down a replicant in the Garment District? Who physically arranges for such a place to exist and what is there? It seems implied in FKR that much of what goes on is live action, but given real-world constraints we cannot obviously play out every possible Blade Runner scenario in a realistic space. There could be quite a few variations of how some of these things are determined. Think of it this way, laser tag is pretty darn close, conceptually, to an FKR! It probably has a different agenda than an FKR that is centered on soap opera style romance!
