Yeah, but the point, to me, is that if you want combat fiction-full, with diegetic, in-fiction harm and consequences, that is the way to go.“Sometimes roll a d6, eventually spending skill points” is considerably more systemitized than what I read in that blog!
I mean the below sincerely.
If I was going to come up with the douchiest satire of dysfunctional FKR play, it would be much friendlier to they FKR movement than what I read there.
That feels like somebody who hates FKR trolled them with a blog.
Yeah, but the point, to me, is that if you want combat fiction-full, with diegetic, in-fiction harm and consequences, that is the way to go.
FKRers say also: develop rules as you go if you need 'em, or borrow from the tons of existing rulesets.
But that looks very different from the completely unstructured freeform without descriptor restraint and extremely limited orienting aspects that I just read.
It's the attitude towards cubes-to-cloud that I'm unclear about, because it is sometimes called for but there is a least an intermittent hostility to systematisation, though not a uniform hostility. (The AW-flavoured FKR clearly has a systematic mechanical framework, of rolling dice whose size reflects fictional likelihoods of prevailing in a given sort of contest.)
Wow. That's a lot of jargon. If I understand all that, then yes, that looks right to me, save the bolded and italicized bit. Compelling implies deference to story, FKR doesn't do that. Emergant story rather than pushing for story structure, acts, etc. It goes for internal consistency according to genre expectations. So what makes for the most compelling story isn't a factor. Unless it is. Because, again, it's a playstyle not a singular game or system. So it will be different depending on the actual game played and the actual Referee running it. Along with the genre emulated and the players at the table.So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:
* GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)? GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.
* Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves.
* GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space.
And implies that the rules are on par with the world. Equal stature. As relevant as. They're not. The rules are at the end of the list of things that are important, if that. The goal is to get to character immersion and world immersion. Every time you engage mechanics that breaks immersion, takes you out of the shared delusion of the fiction, etc. So a push for the simplest rules possible, while still having rules, so you can deal with the rules as quickly as possible (minimizing breaking immersion), and move back to actual play (i.e. immersion in character and world).What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the and and the not here?
But you do. Your entire life has trained you to expect and accept certain things from a wide but limited list. In real life you wouldn't shrug off seeing a person lift off from the ground, unaided, and simply fly away. Nor would you be blasé about a person breaking off part of a building and throwing it. The "real world" is just as much a genre with genre rules and tropes and expectations as any other.I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step.
Right. But in real life you don't have an omniscient observer (Referee) to ask questions and no expectation of objective answers. Take the gastank. You can ask the Referee about how much gas is in the tank. You can ask the Referee about how far you'd estimate that car could go with about that much gas. This simulates you looking at your gas gauge and estimating how much gas is there and estimating how far you can go with what you have in the tank. But to gamers, that would drive them up the wall. "Why can't I know exactly how much gas is in the tank?" "Do you stop the car and precisely measure the amount of gas in the tank or are you eyeballing it and guessing?" "Why can't I know exactly how far I can go with what's left in the tank?" "Because you haven't driven it yet. You're estimating distance based on an estimate of gas. And there could be trouble ahead. There's no precision to be had." But that's exactly how it goes in real life. At best you can estimate based on past experience and your list of genre expectations. At no point is there an omniscient observer to tell you precise probabilities. It's an affect/conceit of gaming.But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc).
And that's the disconnect. In ultralight games, like most FKR games, there's already more rules than you'd expect in real life. There's already "something" there in FKR and ultralight games. It's just not enough for some. Because as gamers, we want more. More widgets to poke at and more buttons to press. Because it's a game. It has rules. But one of the goals of FKR is to shift the focus from game rules onto immersion and verisimilitude by pushing game play towards the "play loop" we use in real life.I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process. I'm there. But in a game, I have to have something...
But we don't need to do that. We don't need to regulate and encode anything beyond the genre expectations and if we can't decide based on the fiction, roll 2d6. If something needs to be encoded, like say the quantity of food a horse eats in a day, instead of looking in a rule book for the answer (D&D5E says it's four pounds, btw) you look to real life as much as possible and then only if it's relevant. Does it matter right now, in this moment, exactly how much food a horse eats? If not, then it doesn't matter. Horses need to eat 1-2% of their body weight in roughage a day, for what it's worth. Unless you're talking about really small breeds of horses, they need more than four pounds of food a day. And that's part of the problem. As gamers we default to the rules rather than reality...when we have objective reality all around us to default back to. (When/if objective reality is a valid reference point, it might not always be...such as space opera, etc.) That creates cognitive dissonance with people who know more about a particular subject than the writers of the rules. It breaks their immersion. So rather than codify a quick but wrong answer in the rules, don't. If it matters enough that you would want to stop the game and take time to look it up in the rule book...take the time to look it up for real. Especially now. Hello internet. If it's about genre, reference the genre. If it's mechanical, roll 2d6. I've been doing this hobby for about 37 years. I have played a lot of games with a lot of gamers across the country in various environments, and I've yet to come across a single rule in any game that is justified in being more complicated than "roll 2d6, higher is better." Genre emulating rules are a bit different. Like Doctor Who's pitch perfect initiative rules. Actions occur in the following order: talkers, movers, doers, fighters. Or Cthulhu Dark's "if you fight monsters, you die."so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff.
You're not wrong. It's a misalignment of expectations. You expect a lot of mechanical rules you can read prior to play. That's simply not what FKR wants to deliver. FKR points to genre tropes and particular pieces of fiction as the rules to use. If you want to assimilate rules prior to play, find out what the genre or piece of fiction, fact, or history you're playing is...and binge some stuff. So questions like "how do I climb a wall?" aren't answered with "on page 25 you'll find the DCs for climbing various surfaces" instead you'll get "it depends on the genre and circumstances in play at the time you want to climb a wall." How do you climb a wall? You tell the Referee that you climb the wall. They will make a decision based on the relevant circumstances in the moment if it's an automatic success, automatic failure, or you need to roll. If their decision sounds off to you, ask them. They'll explain their reasoning. It's a feature, not a bug.So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).
So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?
For what it's worth, a lot of that sounds atrocious to me as well.Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that? I’m struggling to distinguish what I just read from some kind of Calvinball Conch Passing hybrid. That is not what I anticipated from engaging in this thread nor from reading a few systems/blogs.
Yeah, that's a jerk Referee. For me a better response is "you can try". I'm not a fan players asking permission. Don't do that. If you're asking clarifying questions, that's great. You can do whatever a person with your character's capabilities could do in this situation. If you're asking if you can poke someone in the eye, I'll assume you mean "am I physically capable of performing this action" rather than "mother may I". I've found that players try to guess what they assume the Referee wants them to do by asking the permission questions. Like hoping the Referee will reveal what the "right answer" is based on response to the permission question.GM: If you ask me stuff, you can’t do it. Just DO it. Maybe it’ll work.
Think of it like Fate's aspects only instead of the player having to spend a Fate point to get a benefit, the benefit is persistent. If you describe your character in a way that suggests they can climb, then they can climb. If you describe your character as an office drone who's a shut in couch potato, not so much.The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player.
Why would it? What about describing your character as 'climby' involves defining the characteristics of a wall you might climb?So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question...
Exactly like most games with mechanical weight to how climby your character is. If you have STR18/+4 and expertise in athletics that only tells you about your character...relative to other characters...but tells you exactly zero about the difficulty of climbing walls.just about my character relative to other characters.
Exactly like most games with mechanical weight to how climby your character is. You still have to ask the D&D DM those questions. The only difference is you have the rulebook to look at to estimate what you assume your DCs will be. But you still have to ask in the moment how difficult this wall is at this time in the fiction.Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.