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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8415857" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Given that this sprang from this thread-[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-ds-evolution-rulings-rules-and-system-matters.682585/[/URL]I thought I'd comment briefly. But I would note the very small footnote at the bottom of the other post; there is a reason I mostly don't choose to engage.An issue that people have is that there can be too much argument about terms; we see this all the time. For example, it's hard to have a discussion about the playstyle most people refer to as "skilled play" if you end up with a bunch of people that immediately say, "But wait, other types of play are skilled too!" When using a defined term, you're trying to be helpful by defining, not be creating implied dichotomies. A similar issue arose here when trying to discuss FKR- immediately, you had people (many of whom apparently googled Free Kriegsspiel for the first time) simply argue, "Hey, did you know that there is a difference between the conventions of the 19th century Prussian Army and a roleplaying game? Let me expound upon the ways in which they are different, because that's super helpful!" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />At the most basic, FKR is just another in a long iteration in an eternal battle- more rules, or less rules. Trying to assert that one way is "better" or "worse" does little good- it's enough to point out that there tends to be a near-constant oscillation between the two. Rules- and by rules, I mean a published system of play, known to the participants, that provides a consistent method of adjudication ... has many advantages. But rules (and the increasing complexity of rules systems) also have disadvantages. This is somewhat orthogonal to another, slightly-related issue. And that's the issue of the creation of fiction and the decision-maker. FKR will fall on the "referee" (GM) mode, while other systems will tend to fall on the more "consensual" or "player-driven" mode. This doesn't tend to be a dichotomy, so much as a spectrum. Most FKR systems tend to be "high-trust" not just in terms of the player --> GM, but also GM --> player, and player --> player. Which means that while the GM has final authority, it is almost always within the scope of player-empowering heuristics. By the same token, rules-lite systems that are more collaborative still have the GM in a position that is different or separate from the players in terms of the fiction (with possible exceptions such as Fiasco, which is neither here nor there).To use an example that has been bandied about for a while, the rule-lite version of Cthulhu Dark makes this continuum explicit (here, "Keeper" = GM)-Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.Empower the Keeper, and this runs like FKR. Disempower the Keeper and make it more collaborative (or have additional rules regarding the fiction), and it might seem like a Fiction First system. Are they actually that different? Finally, and as an aside to Pemerton- I would bring up exactly what I wrote about Cthulhu Dark again:.... but for it {Cthulhu Dark} to work, it presupposes a number of things- that the table (the whole table) have a working knowledge of the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, that everyone at the table is familiar with RPGs and how they work, and that everyone at the table have a level of comfort with a specific type of narrative-oriented RPG.This is the same point that others are making about FKR; simply put, that the referee (GM) has to have a working knowledge of the "world" or "genre" or "trope" that is being played, and that the table is comfortable and familiar with the game. It is inescapable that this is the exact same thing others say about the knowledge required to run any kind of game; of course, we are not Prussian military officers running other Prussian military officers in campaigns (or in the military at all, as was Major David Wesley), just as we have never been to Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps. I think that therein lies the tension between more and less rules that we continually oscillate between; you have a minimalist rule set, and then graft on rules to settle disputes or because you want standardization or because players want to be able to rely on something or because you need an exception to the prior rule or because someone wants the game to be more realistic or for all sorts of other reasons, until you get to the point of having an overly-complicated ruleset, and then someone says, "Hey, we could make this simpler if we just get rid of all these rules!" and the whole process repeats. Again, all this IMO, YMMV, etc. I will bow out now, as I tend to find these conversations not overly productive. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification