Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9256929" data-attributes="member: 42582">I read it. It asserts a contrast between FKR and principled and/or procedural freeform; but it seems to me that FKR is a special case of principled and/or procedural freeform: one in which the principles and procedures centre one participant - the GM/referee - in a distinctive fashion.If someone says it without being forced to, then presumably it is welcome, at least to them.That rule does not pertain to either principles or procedure. In the language of Baker as quoted in the blog you linked to, it is a rule that establishes a mediating cue - as it references the content of the fiction being created.I have played Cthulhu Dark.It has no rule for framing - it assumes that the GM will be using a classic CoC module, which dictates framing in a more-or-less &quot;trad&quot; fashion. (GUMSHOE scenarios could also be used, I'm sure.) I've never done this, but rather have used PbtA-ish framing principles (go where the action is; make the characters lives not boring; etc).It has rules for rolling dice and determining degrees of success, and the possibility of failure; but no rules for when to roll the dice, nor for what success and failure amount to. When I've played it, I've used BW-ish resolution principles: say 'yes' or roll the dice; fail forward.I agree it's not a complete game, but it's actually probably no more incomplete than 3rd ed RQ, or RM2 or RMSS: these don't really have framing rules either, and are fairly weak on when to roll the dice. RM at least is a bit more robust on consequences, even out of combat ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9256929, member: 42582"] I read it. It asserts a [I]contrast[/I] between FKR and principled and/or procedural freeform; but it seems to me that FKR is a special case of principled and/or procedural freeform: one in which the principles and procedures centre one participant - the GM/referee - in a distinctive fashion. If someone says it without being forced to, then presumably it is welcome, at least to them. That rule does not pertain to either principles or procedure. In the language of Baker as quoted in the blog you linked to, it is a rule that establishes a mediating cue - as it references the content of the fiction being created. I have played Cthulhu Dark. It has no rule for framing - it assumes that the GM will be using a classic CoC module, which dictates framing in a more-or-less "trad" fashion. (GUMSHOE scenarios could also be used, I'm sure.) I've never done this, but rather have used PbtA-ish framing principles (go where the action is; make the characters lives not boring; etc). It has rules for rolling dice and determining degrees of success, and the possibility of failure; but no rules for when to roll the dice, nor for what success and failure amount to. When I've played it, I've used BW-ish resolution principles: say 'yes' or roll the dice; fail forward. I agree it's not a complete game, but it's actually probably no more incomplete than 3rd ed RQ, or RM2 or RMSS: these don't really have framing rules either, and are fairly weak on when to roll the dice. RM at least is a bit more robust on consequences, even out of combat ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification