My previous post had a much bigger reception than expected. I’m very happy with the discussions and would like to take this opportunity to share a few disagreements, since they were all very intelligent and don’t deserve to be lost on conversations.
I’m not quoting them exactly as written, because some of these were recurrent.
“I think FKR can be a text, even if not rules as we understand. I think your post is FKR, even.”
Unpacking this: by defining a text without rules (as understood specifically in the motto Play Worlds, Not Rules) as FKR, one means that the text is particularly useful for FKR playing in either philosophy and explanations (where my essay fits in, I believe), or as a setting book that may even present a list of principles and information oriented towards referee rulings (as per my suggestion in the essay).
Honestly, here we enter ontology and semantics in a way that I don’t think is practical for the overall point. Although I’m insistent that no text can be FKR as an object quality, personally, the inclusion of that note in the essay had a very specific objective, which was to problematize “FKR rulesets” and how their existence can dilute meaning and bring confusion. If someone tends to see texts that are specifically discussing FKR or are at some level thought with the intention of “playing the world” as FKR themselves, I’m not adamant on disagreeing. Not that I don’t think it’s an interesting subject, but because my aim with this point was elsewhere.
“I don’t see a problem with using diegetic.”
Me neither. Well, not exactly.
An important disclaimer is that film theory is my professional field, and a propensity to be nitpicky about it certainly comes from that background. Besides, I really wished to share Nick’s post, as I think it’s a very intelligent and well-composed piece, and I wanted to explain my use of “in-world” for a post where the concept of fictional world was central. So yes, to a certain extent I am rather against using the term diegetic and am even more disagreeable when that term is used to dismiss abstractions as not being diegetic (which even those who like to use the word will agree with me, since it stops being a vocabulary issue).
However, I think it’s fighting windmills to go against it, to some extent, and it isn’t a fundamental issue. Anyone who isn’t married to a pedantic self-image understands that terminology shift is a common occurrence in certain environments, and that it doesn’t necessarily represents a problem. Terminology shift in political discourse is a disaster (and always in service of power). Terminology shift in playing make-believe games that are not connected to the specifics of dramaturgy and film theory? Not a problem.
Sure, keeping academic terms to their meaning is something I consider important, but at this point “diegetic” is used in a very specific way in roleplaying discourse and everyone knows what the interlocutor means. I just prefer to use “in-world”.
“I agree with the points that they arose from, but I disagree with ‘Rules of engagement are built from the ground up during the campaign’ and ‘which ends up, together with the act of noting down rulings, creating a sizable rulebook for the referee, even if only a coin flip or such is the apparent mechanic in common terminology’.”
I do admit to prescriptivism there. I was going off based on my knowledge of campaigns that happened within a declared FKR framework and common advice I’ve seen in communities about how the conversational pattern develops with time. However, it doesn’t have to be so. I do think this point is important as to explaining to people that FKR isn’t a lawless land without principles or procedures, even if I committed a mistake by being so definitive about the method.
“I think your comment on referee’s knowledge can present a hurdle in itself to understanding, since nobody needs to keep themselves to the standards of Prussian officers.”
Fair. I really agree. I’m capable of admitting when I fucked up a bit (even if the person who raised this point certainly would object to me characterizing it as a fuck up). The referee arrives at Free Kriegsspiel as a specialist that can use wide knowledge on a subject to make judgment calls. I think my comment in that part of the essay (despite my later comment about newbie referees taking to FKR naturally) does imply a need of great knowledge about subjects.
I would like to say that I don’t think my mistake was due to the nature of the statement, but degree. I do think knowledge of the subject is a requirement, but doesn’t that apply to the whole field of roleplaying? Players must be aware of the concepts they are tackling, after all, to make informed decisions about how they want to proceed with play. In FKR, knowledge of setting is the main issue the referee must deal with.
However, there’s other elements at play. First, the players’ contribution with their own knowledge when an issue appears at play. Second, and more importantly, what is being aimed at is verisimilitude and not faithful recreation of the historical world (as pointed out by Halloween from Underground Adventures). Therefore, all that matters is what the group understands as being optimal for play and believable enough, instead of in-depth knowledge.
There are some further things I’d like to comment that weren’t a part of these discussions but came to mind.
My Motivation
I wrote the post as a way of self-dialogue, first. I have been associated with the FKR and part of communities around it, but I never quite defined my understanding of FKR in a complete manner nor why I would use that framework for a table. While the post’s general purpose was as another introductory text, the motivation was to argue with myself, analyze what issues and questions my imaginary self would raise in disagreement, and finding the answers.
I used the word “problematics” occasionally and didn’t provide a definition. To put it crudely, I refer to the process where a problem is presented (“how do I play in this setting?”), an answer is provided (“FKR”) and then we see what are the elements that constitute FKR as an answer and what further problems arrive from its use (“how to prevent the referee’s power-trip”, “how to reach an agreement about the fiction” etc.), and how the answer deals with it. My post raised various objections imagined by myself (and based on memory of watching discussions) and how they can be answered by technology the FKR community proposed. So basically, I wrote it as a way of tackling problematics as comprehensively as I could in this moment.
Is Defining FKR Gatekeeping?
No. Gatekeeping would be to declare that, unless someone follows all the tenants of FKR as I defined, they are not allowed to associate with it in any way and that whatever technology or principle they decide to mix with their own internal table culture is wrong because all those pieces can only work together. Yes, I stand by that FKR needs all the elements I listed in the first sections of that post to be FKR, but that doesn’t mean others are playing wrong, that they can’t learn with FKR, participate in the communities or whatever else. I have no gate to keep, nor does anyone else.
I’m adamant that, for productive deliberation to exist, an object must have a definition. I invited others to present counter-definitions at the beginning of that essay, and I stand by that invitation because I’m interested in them, and I also stand by the need for a definition, one that can be agreed on after further discussion. This desire is the reason why this post addressing some points that were raised by the essay was written.
A further note: if someone wants to present a different definition of FKR (and I do hope people do), I suggest that they follow a principle that was present in the original essay, if not completely spelled out: to define FKR, or any other object of play, it is needed to list all the composite elements that, when combined, create something that can’t be seen as just another thing under a different name. This is why the definition section listed so many elements and insisted that they should be read together as FKR, because the absence of even one element would mean FKR is not a distinct game philosophy from others.
“The referee is the rulebook? Isn’t that just Rule Zero? No sharing of authority? Isn’t that just traditional roleplaying? No system to define lens upon the setting? Isn’t that just freeform?”, and so on. I kept analyzing FKR and putting together elements that would make it stand out bigger than its parts, as the absence of even one of the elements I listed would make it be just another thing under a trendy name. I ask anyone who presents another analysis to follow the same and presents a definition that stands out from all other playing by joining the elements.
I also really want people to point out if they think my presentation doesn’t differentiate FKR (again, taking all the aspects together) from some other play philosophy. It would be really cool for discussion.
Roll to Doubt 