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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8421240" data-attributes="member: 5142">I'm aware that this has been posted already, but if I may hack your post up a bit:I will admit that I am skeptical with the claim that "FKR uses table-centric design" when it also claims "FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks," especially  when in conjunction with the holistic perspective of the GM or players' role in the game. As such, "FKR uses table-centric design" may as well mean that it uses "GM-centric design." They may as well call FKR "the ultimate expression of the Cult of Rule 0 design."Plus what is really meant by "The rules are the servant, not the master of the game"? From what I can tell, the players are switching one master for another: i.e., the rules for the GM.An Autocrat is more efficient at governing than a Republic or a Democracy. The laws are kept minimal and are entirely invisible. The citizens should not need to know the laws to immerse themselves in their daily living. The citizens should trust their Autocratic leader to make consistent rulings. It's a high trust system of governance.This is not to cast aspersions on the DIY attitude of the hobby. I think that DIY is great. But I also don't think that this DIY or "high trust" attitude is somehow fundamentally at odds with the rest of the hobby that FKR seemingly frames as antithetical to its own perspective.This may be my least favorite point from FKR. It builds one massive uncritical assumption on another.It's the causal assumption regarding (1) the interaction between realism and rules, (2) that realism should be the "ultimate good" of roleplaying, and (3) giving the DM a lot of authority as the rules is the best way to achieve that. This is again not to mention the final assumption that "a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset" or the implication that faster is better.This says nothing necessarily about the extent that I agree with these assertions. But I think, much as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/system-matters-and-free-kriegsspiel.682620/page-15#post-8420849" target="_blank">said earlier</a>, that this tends to snub a lot of roleplaying games and not just the indie ones.Edit: I am curious whether there are two principles that are potentially at odds in this as well: the goal to "increase realism" with "play worlds not rules." Realism and world/genre simulation are not necessarily equivalent. How does one "increase realism" if one were playing the world of Marvel Superheroes? This assumption of causality is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for the FKR movement. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it. Again, especially since often so much of it fundamentally rests on "GM decides." Looking through subreddit threads on FKR shows that we're not the only people who are picking up on this issue or the whole "high trust" framing of FKR.To be clear, I don't think that less rules or more rules necessarily says anything about how much players can do. That seems like a somewhat shallow understanding of rules. It says nothing about the content of the rules, what the rules that are present achieve, or how they go about doing that.I generally think the amount of rules needed for a game depends on the game.Does the knowledge or fairness of players not count for anything? Are they incapable of applying clear, consistent rulings?The issue of framing this in terms of fun and "play worlds, not rules" has been talked about enough by others, IMHO. Or even the veiled condescension that frames very crunch RPGs like boardgames with the implication that players of these TTRPGs are rollplaying rules and not roleplaying worlds.I'm also skeptical of the claims of "tactical infinity" depending on the nature of the dice resolution system and the fact that so much of this rests on the whims of the GM, particularly when in conjunction with the underlying play principle that the minimalist design is being done to "increase realism." So the "tactical infinity" seems bound to the GM's idiomatic sense of reality.</blockquote>

Verification