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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8427768" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think that's the right interpretation.Of all RPGs ever published, Apocalypse World has to be one of the clearest in telling the GM what the principles are that should govern what they say. And it doesn't require any reasoning about (eg) how hard a climb is, or how easy a person is to persuade. All it requires is building on established narrative trajectories.I think what is generating some of the controversy around FKR is the (apparent) denial that principles are needed, together with the assertion that the extrapolation is all about the causal logic of the fiction rather than its narrative trajectory. (That's why the comparison to the Prussian officer referee's experience keeps coming back around.)No matter how much I trust you - S'mon - I just don't have the same reason to think you can resolve my description of how I jumpstart a helicopter as I do to think you can resolve my description of how I draft an insurance contract that favours me over the other party! Yet FKR seems to call upon you to do both those things, whereas AW doesn't need you to do either.That I tend to agree with, if they're intended for outreach. (I'm not sure if they are.)I also think it would be helpful to see some more reflection on possible trajectories in play. For instance, one solution to the helicopter problem is to let me roll two dice rather than one when I try and jumpstart it if my descriptors include mechanic or helicopter pilot. (This is, literally in one case and in effect for the others, how Cthulhu Dark and Over the Edge and Risus handle it.) But to me at least, the boundary between thinking about what I might be good at given my descriptors, and playing "rules" rather than "the world" is not a bright line one. How do FKRers handle these pressures that seem like they might be latent in some of their approaches? Or the pressure to create stable if sometimes baroque subsystems that Gygax and Arneson clearly felt as part of their play-and-design process?Thinking about these things doesn't seem to me an admission of failure. And I think it would help outsiders orient themselves a bit more towards the implicit principles and systems at work in some of these games.</blockquote>

Verification