You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8397553" data-attributes="member: 5142">Some general observations after reading through what you kindly and helpfully posted: This is not to say that this idea is false, but I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism." I may trust my GM to run a game competently, but would I trust "Redpillskullviking" to do it for their table? That's how we get the FKR version of F.A.T.A.L. There is also this bit that gave me pause: Just because I "trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings" doesn't somehow mean that they are any of these things nor does it magically make them so. It only really seems to establish that I'm a trusing person, who may be more naive than anything else. My other issue herein is how this lends itself well to a "bait and switch" style of argumentation, such that criticisms of this FKR movement can easily pivot from criticisms of FKR to "I guess you don't trust your GM" or "I guess the GM was just a bad GM." By painting this as a "high-trust play style," it seems easy to dismiss critics as "low/no-trust critics" who don't trust their GM. Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules." It's not so much whether or not I trust the GM in this case, but, the idea of "playing the world" feels like a smokescreen that is meant to obscure and romanicize what's actually going on behind it all.I do find it interesting though that one article in that posting links to S John Ross, the creator of Risus RPG (1993), which is something of spiritual "kin" to games like FUDGE, Fate, or Cortex through its use of fiction first principles and fictional tags, clichés, descriptors, aspects, etc. (Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge has also been cited as an influence by at least Cam Banks.)</blockquote>

Verification