Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8398674" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here's a hypothetical example I posted in another thread:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Suppose that, in an actual free kriegsspiel scenario, some process (random roll; designer's stipulation; whatever) dictates that it is raining on the battlefield. Now the umpire is expected to use their knowledge of weather and terrain to determine the extent to which resultant mud bogs down the artillery.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Imagine transposing that sort of scenario into RPG adjudication: somehow or other it is established that it is raining; the PCs want to get from A to B in a hurry; and the GM - like a free kriegsspiel referee - tells the players that as a result of the inclement weather it will take such-and-such a time to do so</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Now let's say that one of the players is an experienced trekker, and responds <em>Hang on, I've walked such-and-such a trail when it was pouring rain for 6 hours and was carrying a 15 kg pack and it only took such-and-such a time for me; and my PC has a CON of 16! </em>I don't know how that sort of revealed failure of expertise was dealt with in the Prussian wargaming rooms; but in the context of a RPG the GM has an easy out: <em>the rain is heavier, and the muddy soil likewise heavier, than anything you experienced on your trek.</em> And now instead of the referee neutrally adjudicating the fiction, we've got the GM's adjudication establishing the fiction!</p><p></p><p>That's just one example, imagined as I said. But there are infinitely many parallels. The last one that I remember personally was in a tournament sci-fi game, when the adjudication was not about <em>how long will it take to get from A to B</em>, but <em>how long can we go without a supply of fresh oxygen?</em> Our group had at least one person with a high degree of technical qualification in that field, and we made calculations and plans on the basis of his rough estimates, only to have the GM pull the rug out from under us with an implausibly low stipulation of our maximum survival time.</p><p></p><p>A free kriegsspiel approach depends upon it <em>actually being the case </em>that the referee's rulings are <em>a good match with reality</em>. Otherwise we just have the GM making things up!</p><p></p><p>There's a long tradition of RPGing based around the GM making things up as they go along, but it's never been universally popular. Lewis Pulsipher ([USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER]) was expressing preference for a different sort of approach, closer to wargaming (ie based around predictable outcomes of tactics chosen) back in the late 70s and early 80s. In the context of travel times, this might mean having charts of rates of movement and effects for terrain and inclement weather (AD&D and B/X D&D have these; I haven't checked my copy of ODYD). In the context of surviving without oxygen, this might mean having rules for that (Classic Traveller has rules for what happens if the air purification system on a small craft breaks down, what happens if a vacc suit is damaged, etc).</p><p></p><p>This isn't about <em>trusting</em> or <em>not trusting </em>the referee. It's about what someone wants to experience as a RPG player.</p><p></p><p>In my current Classic Traveller game, the PCs wanted to cut through more than 3 km of ice using their ship's triple beam laser. There are no charts or rules for that, and we adjudicated it free kriegsspiel-style. But we didn't rely on my expertise as referee (I have none that's relevant!). As a group we Googled up some current results for cutting through ice with lasers, and we reached a consensual extrapolation from that. It doesn't really matter whether the conclusion we reached was realistic or not; the key thing is that everyone at the table agreed to it, understood where it came from, and was able to work around it as a result.</p><p></p><p>It's reflections like the above that make me agree with [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] that the FKRers are misdescribing things when they use <em>trust</em> to try and explain the particular role of the referee in their preferred sort of play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8398674, member: 42582"] Here's a hypothetical example I posted in another thread: [INDENT]Suppose that, in an actual free kriegsspiel scenario, some process (random roll; designer's stipulation; whatever) dictates that it is raining on the battlefield. Now the umpire is expected to use their knowledge of weather and terrain to determine the extent to which resultant mud bogs down the artillery. Imagine transposing that sort of scenario into RPG adjudication: somehow or other it is established that it is raining; the PCs want to get from A to B in a hurry; and the GM - like a free kriegsspiel referee - tells the players that as a result of the inclement weather it will take such-and-such a time to do so Now let's say that one of the players is an experienced trekker, and responds [I]Hang on, I've walked such-and-such a trail when it was pouring rain for 6 hours and was carrying a 15 kg pack and it only took such-and-such a time for me; and my PC has a CON of 16! [/I]I don't know how that sort of revealed failure of expertise was dealt with in the Prussian wargaming rooms; but in the context of a RPG the GM has an easy out: [I]the rain is heavier, and the muddy soil likewise heavier, than anything you experienced on your trek.[/I] And now instead of the referee neutrally adjudicating the fiction, we've got the GM's adjudication establishing the fiction![/INDENT] That's just one example, imagined as I said. But there are infinitely many parallels. The last one that I remember personally was in a tournament sci-fi game, when the adjudication was not about [I]how long will it take to get from A to B[/I], but [I]how long can we go without a supply of fresh oxygen?[/I] Our group had at least one person with a high degree of technical qualification in that field, and we made calculations and plans on the basis of his rough estimates, only to have the GM pull the rug out from under us with an implausibly low stipulation of our maximum survival time. A free kriegsspiel approach depends upon it [I]actually being the case [/I]that the referee's rulings are [I]a good match with reality[/I]. Otherwise we just have the GM making things up! There's a long tradition of RPGing based around the GM making things up as they go along, but it's never been universally popular. Lewis Pulsipher ([USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER]) was expressing preference for a different sort of approach, closer to wargaming (ie based around predictable outcomes of tactics chosen) back in the late 70s and early 80s. In the context of travel times, this might mean having charts of rates of movement and effects for terrain and inclement weather (AD&D and B/X D&D have these; I haven't checked my copy of ODYD). In the context of surviving without oxygen, this might mean having rules for that (Classic Traveller has rules for what happens if the air purification system on a small craft breaks down, what happens if a vacc suit is damaged, etc). This isn't about [I]trusting[/I] or [I]not trusting [/I]the referee. It's about what someone wants to experience as a RPG player. In my current Classic Traveller game, the PCs wanted to cut through more than 3 km of ice using their ship's triple beam laser. There are no charts or rules for that, and we adjudicated it free kriegsspiel-style. But we didn't rely on my expertise as referee (I have none that's relevant!). As a group we Googled up some current results for cutting through ice with lasers, and we reached a consensual extrapolation from that. It doesn't really matter whether the conclusion we reached was realistic or not; the key thing is that everyone at the table agreed to it, understood where it came from, and was able to work around it as a result. It's reflections like the above that make me agree with [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] that the FKRers are misdescribing things when they use [I]trust[/I] to try and explain the particular role of the referee in their preferred sort of play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
Top