Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
System matters and free kriegsspiel
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8397599" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>To put these airy concepts in more concrete terms-</p><p>Yes, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate fairly.</p><p>But the players also have to trust each other to not abuse the style of game.</p><p>And the GM has to trust the players to do likewise.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.</p><p></p><p>From my P.O.V., it can be a source of frustration that some people-</p><p>1. Choose to debate the terms (jargon) rather than focus on the underlying substance.</p><p>2. Believe that the enjoyment (EDIT- or even discussion) of other modes of play threatens their own style of play.</p><p></p><p>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?").</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8397599, 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
System matters and free kriegsspiel
Top