Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8421129" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm also wondering about the realities of &quot;trust (high especially)&quot; undergirding this whole thing.I agree that it feels like a marketing word as a stand-in for another concept or another thing.In that way it feels a lot like &quot;fun&quot; as a guiding principle in TTRPGing.&nbsp; Its simultaneously sufficiently opaque so as to be indecipherable and wholly pervasive as a concept which underwrites the zoomed out goal of all TTRPG play and all social contracts that participants enter into to play at all.&nbsp; And, frustrating as all hell to me, it might be weaponized by someone who wants to avoid analysis (either via a Kafka Trap or a Motte and Bailey advance and retreat defense) of play/design.Here is what I think the word &quot;trust (high in particular&quot; might be doing in an FKR sense:&quot;High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition &lt;and then append one or both of &quot;because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior&quot; and/or &quot;because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion&gt;.&quot;That is a mouthful yes.&nbsp; But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play.&nbsp; All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes).&nbsp; Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&amp;D 4e are absolutely &quot;high trust&quot; games.&nbsp; A GM can UTTERLY SUCK at running those games and a GM can be brilliant.&nbsp; A player (or host of them) can UTTERLY SUCK at playing those games and a player (or host of them) can be brilliant.However, &quot;high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition &lt;for reasons x and/or y&gt;?&quot;&nbsp; That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&amp;D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the &quot;acquiescence to GM&quot; component of the Venn Diagram).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8421129, member: 6696971"] I'm also wondering about the realities of "trust (high especially)" undergirding this whole thing. I agree that it feels like a marketing word as a stand-in for another concept or another thing. In that way it feels a lot like "fun" as a guiding principle in TTRPGing. Its simultaneously sufficiently opaque so as to be indecipherable and wholly pervasive as a concept which underwrites the zoomed out goal of all TTRPG play and all social contracts that participants enter into to play at all. And, frustrating as all hell to me, it might be weaponized by someone who wants to avoid analysis (either via a Kafka Trap or a Motte and Bailey advance and retreat defense) of play/design. Here is what I think the word "trust (high in particular" might be doing in an FKR sense: "High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>." That is a mouthful yes. But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play. All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes). Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games. A GM can UTTERLY SUCK at running those games and a GM can be brilliant. A player (or host of them) can UTTERLY SUCK at playing those games and a player (or host of them) can be brilliant. However, "high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <for reasons x and/or y>?" That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the "acquiescence to GM" component of the Venn Diagram). [/QUOTE]

Verification