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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8421972" data-attributes="member: 6779310">From many of the proponents, it sure comes across that way.The reality is that the proponents posting most obviously are typically going to be at the extremesThat neutrality is in the instructions is irrelevant to the question of agency and autonomy.A biased as hell confrontational GM who methodologically always produces "balanced encounters"  and follows the procedures of the game presents a strong amount of player agency, since they can know the odds, and can make informed decisions.A totally neutral GM who is capricious with results prevents agency every bit as much as the Rules Lawyer GM enables it; the capricious GM, making neutral but unpredictable decisions means no choice of action is an informed one.A totally neutral GM who follows a routine protocol for resolution is the best case for agency: the action will be reacted to by procedure, and players will learn the procedure over time, growing allowed autonomy into true collaborative agencyIt's becoming less and less common to have rule 0 be GM authority to change anything...]In some, the authority shifts to the group as a whole.In others, the rule 0 is "Don't be a dick" or equivalent.A few are written from a "the rules are the rules, and if you're not following them, you're playing somethign other than (name of game)"Yup.FKR is, as far as I can tell, the illusion of rules. Several of the discussions linked to by [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] are ones I've been involved in. They're not a cogent presentation any... and in fact are different aspects of FKR proponents.Jim Parson on RPGG is one such - he's a a rules-super-light, roll-seldom, encourage player contribution type. He's one corner of the FKR plateau. (He recently mentioned that he uses D&D magic because it's easier than freeforming it.)One of the guys on odd74.proboards.com is of the "rules are a framework for when the GM doesn't have a ready decision" type, and a different person advocates similar on RPGG.There are those using rules more consistently such as dropping everything in D&D 5E except the basic rolling mechanic and character generation (including ignoring the mechanical class abilities)There are guys who go roll-heavy, almost never using "yes", and GM ultra-authority mode. There are guys doing roll-heavy, rules light, high player narrative authority play. (Mario Silva on RPGG, for example.)Watching Mario and Jim go round each other is amusing to me in an academic sense. And while I do respect both, I'd never want to play under either of them; I'm not capable of the trust needed for Jim's table, and have a hard enough time understanding Mario when I've time to parse and reparse his text.... Because I see rules as a social contract.THe play cycle is more nuanced than the 3-line version which has been a macguffin in the discussion above... The play cycle I've seen advocated hasn't been cogently presented, but I'll try to present it:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM describes situation</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player decides to and describes action prior to success.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM makes decision on saying yes.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">if GM does not say yes, GM decides which rule to use, if any</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If the rule doesn't prescribe a roll, or no rule is appropriate, the GM invents one.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM narrates the conclusion of the action, and results.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Return to 1</li> </ol>The successful GMs posting about such style play all seem to require a trust-heavy environment. Jim himself notes that he runs a high trust table - and that trust is two way - he has to trust his players to stay in genre and setting, and they have to trust him to not be a jerk and to be fair and consistent.</blockquote>

Verification