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: 8417128" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think adhering to genre conventions is a much better way to put it, and a more reasonable goal. But typically it's phrased as something along the lines of "FKR strips out most of the rules to increase realism". Now, I can understand that perhaps realism here is meant as shorthand for some kind of internal consistency within the fictional world. But at the same time there are groups of folks who consider genre and realism as being diametrically opposed.I don't tend to look at them that way myself, but it comes up often enough that I tend to focus on the words being used in any example.I don't disagree with this part of it at all. I prefer slimmer rules systems myself. I think most games tend to expect each play group to make things work for them.If we're talking about a game that's to be designed, then I would say to address this in the game's methods and principles for play and GMing. I'm a big fan of games that offer these kinds of goals that, although they are not rules in the mechanical sense, are rules in that they are guidelines for how to play and/or GM. I think these can go a long way toward preventing players from subverting the rules in some way.For a game that already exists, if the players and GM want to slim things down, then they can do that. However, I agree that can be a tall order depending on how many rules there are, and how they all interact. Making a change in one area can impact how others work, and that may not be immediately obvious. I don't think it's impossible, and I think that the idea of "rulings not rules" of the OSR and 5E D&D kind of touch on this. I think a less severe version of "removing rules from the player side of the screen" may simply to be to give the GM the ability to say no. "No, you can't do that no matter how many 100s you roll" (or whatever counter may be necessary). The appeal to genre conventions should probably suffice here; one would hope folks are on the same page in this regard, but if not and a player wants to try something that clearly defies genre logic, having the GM be able to deny the action is a pretty simple way to get the job done.To me, that's where the "high trust" thing seems odd....not because I don't think it's a good goal, or that FKR games don't try to focus on that, but because if there is high trust between GM and players, then these kinds of attempts to bend the rules by the players seem less likely.I think removing the rules from the player side or playing solo mode are both examples of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that such extreme measures are necessary, though I understand why they may appeal to any given person.</blockquote>

Verification