Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9256786" data-attributes="member: 71699">I was thinking about this today in relation to FKR. Some ultra-light game texts focus on the assignment of authority. Others are procedural such as Oz Browning's Messerspiel, an ultralight RPG inspired by BitD. Others like Graham Walmsley's Cthulhu Dark, go one step further and suggest procedures (similar to Messerspiel's) and content.Much conversation about ultralight or freeform focuses on trust, and when trust breaks down. The critical moment I've often observed, is how folk feel when someone says something unwelcome and unwanted without being forced to by rules. It takes trust and courage to manage this. So what rules may be doing iscompelling participants to say what they don't want to say (encouragement to do so), while

making it so that trust is sustained despite my saying &quot;the ogre tore your arm off&quot; (sustaining trust)Baker's remarks appear to me to speak very directly to ultralight rules, and raise important questions about just how those ideally those rules are directed? In agreement with Baker, it seems insufficient to me to write ones ultralight rules solely to deal with allocation of authority. The harder question is how we say what we don't want to say?!EDIT I have removed one example because I was reminded that the author promoted in unambiguous terms anti-semitic views.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9256786, member: 71699"] I was thinking about this today in relation to FKR. Some ultra-light game texts focus on the assignment of authority. Others are procedural such as Oz Browning's Messerspiel, an ultralight RPG inspired by BitD. Others like Graham Walmsley's Cthulhu Dark, go one step further and suggest procedures (similar to Messerspiel's) and content. Much conversation about ultralight or freeform focuses on trust, and when trust breaks down. The critical moment I've often observed, is how folk feel when someone says something unwelcome and unwanted [I]without being forced to by rules[/I]. It takes trust and courage to manage this. So what rules may be doing is [INDENT]compelling participants to say what they don't want to say (encouragement to do so), while[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]making it so that trust is sustained [I]despite [/I]my saying "the ogre tore your arm off" (sustaining trust)[/INDENT] Baker's remarks appear to me to speak very directly to ultralight rules, and raise important questions about just how those ideally those rules are directed? In agreement with Baker, it seems insufficient to me to write ones ultralight rules solely to deal with allocation of authority. The harder question is how we say what we don't want to say?! EDIT I have removed one example because I was reminded that the author promoted in unambiguous terms anti-semitic views. [/QUOTE]

Verification