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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8416248" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Not at all. I'm engaging in the conversation. But I'm going to challenge some of the assertions.You could have one of the two ready an action to swap places with the other on that PCs turn. And while yes, two people can maneuver around each other in a kitchen while cooking, we might look at that differently if the two of them were trying to kill one another.But that is beside the point. I agree with you that some of the rules in D&D are needlessly complex. Or suffer from a purely game based turn structure being applied to them.I don't think it's the problem that we're disagreeing about so much as what to do about the problem.I think this is likely where we may see the true failing of this FKR approach. I don't think that it's unrealistic at all to assume two people standing in a 10 foot doorway can stop someone from moving through. I'm not saying it would be impossible....but I don't think the idea "contradicts reality".But, if you said to me anyone can freely move through that space without consequence, I'd say that's a better example of contradicting reality. Still not total contradiction, though....because there's potentially lots of factors at play that would make it more or less likely.This is why there are rules.We have something that informs the skill of the two guards, we have something that informs the skill of the person trying to get past them, we may have something about the terrain or surface or other environmental factor. These things affect the chances.Not sharing them with the players seems more about freeing the GM up to just make stuff up on the spot. Which may be fine....we all do this occasionally. But as an overall default approach it doesn't seem to lend itself to consistency.I've seen "high-trust" be mentioned a lot and while I understand why it has been, I don't quite see it that way. It's more about "high-acceptance" of the GM's determinations rather than ever understanding things fully as a player.Because there's no need to put that all on them? The more you put on them, the more that trust is tested, and the more likely they'll fail at some point. Which hey, we all do from time to time no matter what game, but I don't see the need to open it up so much. Especially not for a payoff that I'm not really convinced is of much use.Well, I want rules to be visible as a GM as well. And I didn't say they needed to be....I said a system could be both visible and flexible. So you offered an example of one that is both. So I guess we agree here?I'm not arguing in favor of complexity.Sure it is. The drawback with having codified rules in the context of FKR is that the players may get into the habit of engaging the rules rather than the fiction that the rules are meant to represent. But that's not always a problem, and when it is, there are other ways to solve it. And allowing for GM judgment to be used when the rules are either silent on something or else actively create a strange situation is not something unique to FKR. It's present to some degree in just about every RPG I can think of.That's a pretty bold assertion. Most players I know actively want to understand the rules.Or find a system that basically achieves this without the need to obscure it from the players? That'd be my preference. And I have played in this way at a few points in my RPG career....we never would have called it FKR, but my group definitely played a few games with as little knowledge on the players' part as possible. It added a little something here and there....uncertainty and similar.....but not enough to justify.Well, a few of the games on the FKR list that was shared incorporated elements of Blades, so that's interesting. Blades is very much about fiction first, and works in a way that pretty much allows a player to declare any conceivable action for their PC in the same way that FKR seems to want. Then the GM has to use their judgment to determine the level of risk and potential consequences for failure, and then the dice are used to determine success.So in my opinion, the core mechanic of Blades largely does exactly what FKR sets out to do. But it does so in a way that actively involves the player and is fully transparent to all the participants at the table.I don't think they're nearly the opposites that you seem to think.</blockquote>

Verification