Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8398325" data-attributes="member: 71699">One could differentiate between historical FK and so-called "FK" RPG. I'd call the latter appellation confusing, but then I didn't assign it. Perhaps the most generous position to take is that proponents of FK RPG have in mind something, that reminds them of or draws inspiration from FK.I agree with you. It doesn't have much in common at all. Not even the things its proponents seem to think are in common. Coming at this ontologically, what are the commonalities between games targeted as "FK"?Consider the promotion of DM as living embodiment of the rules in FK RPG discourse. In historical FK, the umpire was an expert in real world battles and the goal was to teach junior officers something about real world battle. I don't know if there are any proofs beyond conjecture that said expertise lead to realism, but I can speculate from playing wargames like De Bellis Multitudinus - which is a work of applied scholarship - that their expertise gave them at least a shot at realism.Setting aside how well a DM knows the air speed of an unladen swallow in this world, to step into an imagined world changes what is real. How fast can a dragon fly? What is the "realistic" answer to that? Given that the DM stands as expert in their world, if dragons fly at lightspeed, then that is what is real (in their world.) A rule in Cthulhu Dark is that if you fight any mythos creatures you will die. In my friend's Mayfly rules-light game, an orc lives each day as their first and last day of existence. Are either of those about realism? Or are they about establishing what is real?So that is the commonality - FK super-DM (FKR as one proponent puts it) gets to say what is real.Can we imagine a rules-light game that is at least as "free" and "realistic" as any other putatively FK game, but that distributes the DM's authority? Perhaps one player is a real life expert in physical contact sports and medieval reenactment combat, and they call the shots on combat. Another is a real life zoologist, and they decide how creatures behave. Is that game going to be less realistic? In the past we ran large scale wargaming sessions over a few days with multiple referees. I can conjecture that their combined wisdom and ability to consult with one another produced a more realistic result. Where is the evidence that sole-judgment leads to more realistic as real-world simulation (which I take to be the intent in historical FK) over distributed judgement? Or even that a set of rules such as DBM wouldn't produce a better result?The point is, realism is not at issue. Only what is real, is.</blockquote>

Verification