D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

[hawkeyefan]

Try the link at the top of the OP.

you might also find this insteresting:

How I Run and Play an Ultralight Game

I take it for granted that I know how I run and have been running my games for a few years now according to the "free kriegsspiel/FKR" (henc...

d66kobolds.blogspot.com

Yeah, I’ve been looking into it a bit. I checked itch and found a whole bunch, including those on the list in the page you linked.

FKR on Itch

I’m familiar with a few of these actually, but unfamiliar with many more. I picked up a few to look at.

Some pretty interesting stuff, for sure.

 

[pemerton]

The reason why it can be good for the 1 ton weight to be the same difficulty to move in the gym and when crushing your loved one is consistency of the world. It is very difficult to know what is possible, if what is possible is always shifting with the scenario.

<snip>

I think in the end, it comes down to priorities and a willingness to embrace a bit of silliness in tropes.

I don't think silliness has anything to do with it. Prince Valiant is relatively light-hearted but not in any sense a silly game - but in the context of typical dice pools from 4 to 10+ dice, morale bonuses can add +1 or +2 dice.

Burning Wheel is (by default) neither light-hearted nor silly, but when I play my knight of a holy order I'm more likely to encounter a member of my family than a random stranger, because I have a +1D affiliation with my family which is a direct bonus die to my Circles checks (which by default are on 3 dice).

The way, as a player, I know what is possible is by having a good knowledge of how obstacles are set and how my dice pool is built.

 

[clearstream]

Try the link at the top of the OP.

you might also find this insteresting:

How I Run and Play an Ultralight Game

I take it for granted that I know how I run and have been running my games for a few years now according to the "free kriegsspiel/FKR" (henc...

d66kobolds.blogspot.com

The linked write up was helpful and confirmed where this seemed to be landing for me. The author used terms such as "ultralight", "diceless", and "systemless systems" to describe what they were doing. Decades ago I ran the first game of this type my large university RP group had seen. It was called Masters of Luck and Death and brought together ideas from Zelazny and a few others. Others in our group invented their own games inspired by it. Likely it was some of the best DMing I've done, albeit the burden of running it was so high I could sustain it for only one or two players each session. They ran very long, those sessions. The linked example notes a variant the author labels "improv", noting that by contrast the author still does a lot of prep. My game was in the improv category. I still have the two pages of notes that were our whole ruleset.

So I know this type of play. In no particular order -

• It is not rules free. Rather it is rules light. The rules don't have to be written down, but they often will be - in the form of notes players make about their characters, and notes a DM makes that establish some minimum of consistency.
• The most valuable rules to have are who the characters are and what they might do. What I found happens is that the play spins out from a few seeds in the form of statements about the characters that we've jotted down. That also allowed us to pick play back up again and continue in subsequent sessions. My two pages ranked some of the key powers in the world (the eponymous masters and mistresses) and what-beats-what, and each of my players kept one to several pages of notes about their character.
• You could run a wargame this way, but in the RP context it's not a wargame.
• It's less realistic and accurate than a game that has extensive rules. I don't know why people have the opposite conceit. What it gains is that everyone can immerse themselves fully in the emergent narrative. There's almost nothing coming between declaration and resolution. The play is flowing and enthralling. Given you have a great DM and group simpatico.
• Ideally, you have a thematic that you are really into. Probably true of all RP, but doubly true here. Your brain has to become a machine for spinning out the world. It feels a bit like writing.

Is it worth trying? I think so. It unfetters your self-expression. The group can enter a state of flow. In hindsight, the quality of your narrative isn't any higher than other forms of RP. Only you suspend disbelief a bit more profoundly.

I want to dispel one misconception. Ultralight, diceless or "systemless" RP doesn't pivot on if there are or are not rules. There are rules. Let's just get that out of the way. Those rules do serious work. More work than the individual rules of more extensive systems. Any noted down rules are seeds for spinning out the game world and will connect with an ever-shifting lattice of rules in your brain. Your game will perforce be unique, although it will share features with other games. (I assume such features is what the OP is interested in.)

5th edition has a radically different purpose and usefulness from diceless games. What D&D gave diceless games is simply the idea of defining characters who will live in an imaginary world, and we will play them. And that points to the breathtaking misapplication of "FK" to this movement. Kriegspiel and its free variant had no interest whatsoever in playing an imaginary character in an imaginary world.

 

[Aldarc]

Here's my personal take : The GM needs a mandate and not blanket authority for play to be functional. Authority must come with responsibility.

Uncle Ben, is that you?

And as I mentioned in that thread, in practice I think this style of play works best not just with high trust of the DM, but when the gameplay involves a degree of collaboration and conversation, the kind advocated for in storygames. The difference I think is that storygames are skeptical that that style of high trust play is possible without specific mechanics that constrain the gm and empower players. But both story games and fkr are skeptical that complicated, extensive rulesets (e.g. pathfinder, prussian wargames) can enable emergent play and/or be truly managed without becoming a headache for most people.

While reading this and a few other posts, such as Ovinomancer's post in response to yours, a thought occurred to me in regards to storygames. In some regards this whole rulings and rules as well as this whole FKR vs. Story Game traditions feels a bit like of an odd dichotomy or point of contrast.

Apocalypse World, for example, came out of D. Vincent Baker designing (and then co-designing) a system with his wife Megan's preference for freeform RP in mind. Furthermore, it was designed, in part, in response to a common practice in the 3e era when people were engaging skill rolls first (e.g., "I roll for Perception!") rather than engaging the fiction first.

The rules for GMs in Apocalypse World are largely about when and how to make "rulings": making judgment calls about when player actions in the fiction "trigger" moves or deciding what is an appropriate soft or hard move for player rolls. (There are also "soft rules" in the game in the form of game guidelines and principles, which are meant to assist in rulings and facilitating play.)

Sometimes I see advocates of more crunchy editions/games remind people that dnd grew out of tactical wargames. While true, it's also interesting that such wargames have a long history of those who wanted more extensive and codified rulesets and those who reacted against that and wanted more gm arbitration to make the game go fastser.

PbtA constrains the GM/MC, but at the same time, the game feels lighter and quicker than D&D: e.g., "to do it, do it." The rules are robust, but at the same time there are far less rules in the way when compared to most editions of D&D. Should we be praising PbtA games for being closer adherents of FKR with an Umpire and a light system than D&D is?

Honestly, dare I say it, but could the "fiction first" principle that is nearly ubiquitous and highly emphasized in "story games" (e.g., PbtA, FitD, Fate, Cortex, etc.) may be more in spirit with FKR than D&D is?

The comparison with story games is just sort of a thought I had while reading/listening through some of the discussions around FKR. I think particularly interesting for me is this discussion starting at 39:22


(apologies if you are not a fan of Magpie games at the moment)

Not to discredit the fine people at Magpie and their grasp of games, but watching this video when it released, I remember wishing that Ben MIlton had brought in some of the "storygame" heavy weights (e.g., Vincent Baker, John Harper, Luke Crane, etc.) for this discussion. I would have been more interested in their thoughts, especially since several of them also have a solid grasp of OSR as well with games like Luke Crane's Torchbearer or John Harper's World of Dungeons.

Also, I find the entire argument that undergrids the high trust arguments to be essentially attempts to shame people so that they don't disagree, because the counter almost universally applied is to be sorry that the respondent doesn't trust their GM.

The accusation you mention here is sometimes veiled and sometimes not, but it does crop up quite often in these discussions. I do think that it's telling that some of the people who shame/gaslight people with the accusation of not trusting their GM then seem to explicitly showcase a lack of trust in their players. I'm skeptical if that's pure coincidence.

I will say that my own preferences formed not necessarily as a result of "bad GMs" in high trust games, but, rather, from seeing "good GMs" operate in games with alternative GM/player structures. They consequently formed as someone who game mastered "high trust games," and then found myself enjoying running as a GM these very same alternate GM/player structured games.

 

[pemerton]

@Aldarc's reply to @Malmuria reminded me of this analysis Vincent Baker gives of the Seduce/Manipulate move in AW (p 284):

For moves that let one PC directly attack or control another PC, it’s important to trade decision-making back and forth between the players. It’s especially important to give the victim decisions to make or the power to influence outcomes when the attacker wins:

Seduce or manipulate [basic]
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone
Then roll+hot
For an NPC
On a hit they ask you to promise something first [MC’s decision] And do it if you promise [player’s decision]
On a 7–9 they need some concrete assurance [MC’s decision] And do it if you provide some [player’s decision]
For a PC
On a 10+ both
On a 7–9 choose 1 [attacker’s decision]
• if they do it, they mark experience [defender’s decision]
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire [defender’s decision]
On a miss the MC can make as hard and direct a move as she likes [MC’s decision]​

Look through the moves, you’ll see this pattern over and over. Pass decision-making to the victim, the defender, the loser. Nobody should get to win and win, nobody should have to lose and get cut out of the action.​

This goes right back to that notion of "trust". The reason for the back-and-forth of decision-making isn't because no one trusts anyone. Just the opposite! It's about distributing the pleasure of contributing to the shared fiction.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

5th edition has a radically different purpose and usefulness from diceless games. .

This is an innacurate summation. I have also played many diceless games; the salient feature of FKR games is not that they are diceless. They often use dice.

I would recommend, again, not just trying to argue a point. Your experience playing diceless games years ago might provide some relevant context, but do you know what would likely be more valuable? Reading a few of the very short rule sets or even running one of these games prior to pontificating.

Or, you know, you could continue to try and dispel misconceptions about games you aren’t running.

 

[clearstream]

This is an innacurate summation. I have also played many diceless games; the salient feature of FKR games is not that they are diceless. They often use dice.

Your mistake the meaning of "diceless" in the context. It does not imply always without dice. In the post you quote from, note the second sentence.

I would recommend, again, not just trying to argue a point. Your experience playing diceless games years ago might provide some relevant context, but do you know what would likely be more valuable? Reading a few of the very short rule sets or even running one of these games prior to pontificating.

Interesting assumption.

Or, you know, you could continue to try and dispel misconceptions about games you aren’t running.

Do you have any substantive rebuttal, or is your focus to deny my right to speak? (As you have with other posters.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One of the main stumbling blocks to these discussions is the inference that thinking about or even advocating for the benefits of a particular style or type of game is implicitly or explicitly an attempt to privilege that style over others (onetruewayism and badwrongfun respectively). For me, I'm just interested in FKR as an idea that seems interesting and potentially fun, not as a way to rule out other options.

This is an unfortunate truism; if you aren't careful, we might have to name it Malmuria's law. As I wrote in the OP, you get the blame!

Ahem.

I think that there are some amazing discussions to be had when it comes to the newest, FKR games. The two topics that come to mind, and inspired the OP, were that these games go back to the roots of D&D (really, proto-D&D) with Arneson, and that the very recent movement is interesting in that it closely mirrors a completely different branch of modern indie games in many ways, while being distinct.

On the first, I personally find it fascinating only in that when people discuss the wargaming history of D&D, they only think about the rigid nature and tend to forget the free version from which D&D immediately sprang forth. The reason that the history is interesting is because, quite simply, that constant push and pull between rules codification and freedom for the arbiter is something we see replay over and over again within wargaming, RPGs, and a number of other areas.

To the second, it is always fascinating that you could have disparate design philosophies end up with outcomes as similar as, say, Cthulhu Dark (the lite pdf) and Any Planet is Earth.

Unfortunately, those discussions cannot be had. To discuss something on this forum is to be seen as advocating for it, and for many people, it is an invitation to argue against "it" (whatever "it" might be).

Meh. Anyway, I think that this type of intellectual approach and stirring of the waters when it comes to TTRPGs is good and necessary; like others, it will eventually be superseded by the next thing, but that's how progress is made. Take what you want from this, and leave the rest behind.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While reading this and a few other posts, such as Ovinomancer's post in response to yours, a thought occurred to me in regards to storygames. In some regards this whole rulings and rules as well as this whole FKR vs. Story Game traditions feels a bit like of an odd dichotomy or point of contrast.

The reason for this post is I was reflecting on what I see as a certain tension, if not irony, that underlies a few discussions. D&D, from the beginning to 5e's emphasis on "rulings, not rules," is a game that cries out to be FK, to be a game of players doing whatever they want with a neutral referee providing the results ... yet ends up encumbered by rules, cruft, and debates about RAW. As a reaction to this, you have many excellent games that arose from a more theoretical context- but instead of appropriating the positive aspects of FK, they instead devote themselves into various ways (either through explicit rules or norms) to create FK-like experiences that bind the referee, and specific rules for the situation that remain "general purpose."

Perhaps the inelegant phrasing obscured the point, but yes; that's exactly the point. The desired outcome is identical; there is only a difference in method.

Arguably, FKR games simply rely upon heuristics and social norms instead of formal rules for DM constraints.

Regardless, what is interesting is not the differences, but the similarities.

 

[Aldarc]

The reason for this post is I was reflecting on what I see as a certain tension, if not irony, that underlies a few discussions. D&D, from the beginning to 5e's emphasis on "rulings, not rules," is a game that cries out to be FK, to be a game of players doing whatever they want with a neutral referee providing the results ... yet ends up encumbered by rules, cruft, and debates about RAW. As a reaction to this, you have many excellent games that arose from a more theoretical context- but instead of appropriating the positive aspects of FK, they instead devote themselves into various ways (either through explicit rules or norms) to create FK-like experiences that bind the referee, and specific rules for the situation that remain "general purpose."

Perhaps the inelegant phrasing obscured the point, but yes; that's exactly the point. The desired outcome is identical; there is only a difference in method.

Arguably, FKR games simply rely upon heuristics and social norms instead of formal rules for DM constraints.

Regardless, what is interesting is not the differences, but the similarities.

I think that in the bold, emphasis mine, you are laying your thumb on the scale a bit too heavily, which is a distracting detriment to the overall point you are trying to make.