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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8415688" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure what you mean buy a formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative. In Classic Traveller, a player whose PC is in the appropriate fictional position (eg gun drawn while standing across the room from someone else) can declare I shoot them. And then the rules tell us what throw to make (modified by weapon skill, body armour, etc) and if a hit occurs how to determine the damage dealt, and based on the damage dealt how to tell whether the person who is shot falls unconscious or dies. Is that a formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative?I know of two alternatives to rules like this.One is the conch-passing that [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] has referred to upthread.The other is that everything the players say is mere suggestion, and the GM narrates everything that actually occurs in the fiction based on what they think appropriate/logical.From what I have read of FKRing, it is a bit unclear whether or not there are supposed to be any rules like the Classic Traveller ones for shooting. I certainly don't see any suggestion about conch-passing. I do see a lot of emphasis on the GM being the one who decides what happens - and no discussion of the idea of table consensus or even hearing the opinions of the players.If we include hearing the opinions of the players plus rules like the Classic Traveller rules for shooting someone, then Apocalypse World seems to count as a FKR game! Which I don't think is what is intended.As you've probably already worked out, I find this comparison very implausible.The reason a Prussian officer can master, and apply, the "logic" of military engagements is because those are real events that occur in the real world according to real and (sometimes) knowable causal principles. The world is both a constraint (on the reasonableness and the truth of belief) and a source (of evidence, of belief, of habit and learning). The world of a made up setting, and a genre, don't serve as either constraint or source in anything like the same way.The Prussian army (as I understand it) learned a lot about the minutiae of artillery deployments between Jena and the Franco-Prussian War. The free kriegsspiel referee has the benefit of all that knowledge: in experience; in training; in whatever charts and tables are available; in the commentary and advice of fellow officers.Conversely, who would trust one of those 1806 Prussian officers as a referee? Clearly their conception of what might be achieved via manoeuvre and artillery was flawed!, as their defeat shows.The GM of a RPG is typically neither applying knowledge nor displaying ignorance. They are making things up. It just strikes me as being in a completely different ballpark.</blockquote>

Verification