NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8425375" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So here's the disconnect, in my opinion.You have a few people here (mostly [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] [USER=6972053]@Numidius[/USER] [USER=71235]@niklinna[/USER]  and myself ... I apologize if I missed anyone) articulating that we think that there are some interesting ideas in "FKR." Some of us are viewing it in terms of interesting ideas, some are running the rules-lite games that are considered FKR, some are adopting some of the principles for use in their own games (such as stripped down D&D as advocated by some FKR/OSR proponents). None of us (AFAIK) are "leaders" or "central figures" or "speakers of the orthodoxy" of FKR. Just curious gamers trying stuff out that seems interesting. From my P.O.V., for the most part (not completely, not totally, but for the most part) the disconnect is coming because we have a group of people trying to share the things that they find interesting and valuable. And the skepticism is coming from people that are trying to "define" it. We end up close to the wine post![URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/system-matters-and-free-kriegsspiel.682620/page-24#post-8424761[/URL]So it's an endless redux- first, there was an argument over what Free Kriegspiel (not even FKR) is. Then people were uncomfortable because some people (apparently? I'm unclear on this) who mentioned FKR elsewhere also mentioned OSR, or had other opinions that were bad. Now it's an issue that disparate examples of play, or disparate examples of the game itself, have to be justified as being the "one true way" of FKR. Which no one can do, because the term is just an umbrella term that doesn't have a single game, or even a single "style of play" to it.To give you a few examples-A. You have the OSR/OD&D/FKR crossover. Darkworm Colt's blog (Norbert Matusch) is an example of this. It's people that use the term to try and re-create a neo-Arnesonian approach to the game. I think it's interesting, but that's not my cup of Mad Hatter tea. B. Then you have the playing the fiction, DM-adjucation approach. The original "play worlds, not rules" blog post linked to (d66 Classless Kobolds aka Jim Parkin).C. Next, you have the broader swath of people using "FKR" as an umbrella term for inspiration to create rules-lite systems that are ... well, I want to say fiction-first, but I don't want to accidentally trample over a definition and cause problems. We can say that the narrative concepts matter more than numbers on a character sheet and rules abstractions.The thing is, other than a shared interest in rules-lite systems (which I believe [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] would say are incomplete systems, and knowingly so!), there's little to connect a lot of them. Does an FKR game provide for little, some, or significant amount of player authorship of the narrative? Yes! Does an FKR game allow a player to override the referee? Maybe! Does an FKR game depend on actual experience, genre knowledge, or just willingness to move the narrative along? You betcha!I get that it's frustrating trying to pin this down. In a way, it would be like someone saying that D&D in general is cool, and then the problem being that you get multiple people arguing about OD&D, 4e, 2e, 5e, 1e, 3e, and pointing to all the different ways people play them and what other people say about it. And, of course, someone will then say, "Hey, y'all BASIC!" It's not just a single thing- and people can (and do) have multiple interpretations.To the extent you keep asking about the rules or the method of play, you are going to get frustrated. What I am taking from FKR, and the "FKR" (really, a philosophy regarding rules-lite games) is different than what others might take. And that's okay! IMO.</blockquote>

Verification