NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8397599" data-attributes="member: 7023840">On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).A high-trust play style usually emphasizes the need to trust the GM/arbiter, since that's a focal point of a lot of game design and discussion today. However, I don't think it's correct to view the trust in "high-trust" as unidirectional, flowing only from the players to the GM. Instead, IMO, I have found that high-trust only works when there is trust between all the participants.It is necessary, but not sufficient, that the players trust the GM. There has to be a level of trust between the players, and the GM has to trust the players as well.To put these airy concepts in more concrete terms-Yes, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate fairly.But the players also have to trust each other to not abuse the style of game.And the GM has to trust the players to do likewise.We usually focus on rules as constraining the GM, but the rules also constrain the players. To use a simple example, if the game only has the modifier for a character of strong, and it is a "realistic" game (one bound by normal physics and people), then a player who repeatedly says his character is "lifting buildings" and "punching through the core of the earth" is not playing within the parameters of the game. Yes, the GM can adjudicate that as not being within the fiction of the game, but ... the GM shouldn't have to make that call over and over again. For the game to function correctly, there has to be a level of trust from everyone.This can be accomplished in a number of way- either the people know each other and have played together before, or you assume provide that level of trust until someone breaks it.The fundamental difference between so-called rule-less games that focus on narrative and games with rules to move the narrative along is often just the difference between the use of norms and heuristics, as opposed to (slightly) more formal methods of decision-making.Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.I don't think that's fair. Everyone names their own system in a way that they think is accurate, right? But then people who don't play that assume it's some kind of evil trick. For example, if you play "story now" does that mean that you are using a smokescreen to try and obscure what's going on, are saying other people aren't creating stories in RPGs? If you like old-school "skilled play" dungeon crawls, are you saying that no one else plays, or has skill? To use a recently germane example- if you have an FKR game, does that mean that you are following the dictates of General Verdy  in teaching Prussian officers?It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.From my P.O.V., it can be a source of frustration that some people-1. Choose to debate the terms (jargon) rather than focus on the underlying substance.2. Believe that the enjoyment (EDIT- or even discussion) of other modes of play threatens their own style of play.The combination of (1) and (2) tends to derail most conversations on this forum that try to discuss modes of play, as opposed to narrowly focused issues related to 5e ("Flanking- cool, or not cool?").Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything is related. Most of the conversations we have are echoes of previous conversations, and will be re-hashed again in the future.</blockquote>

Verification