System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

Given that there are, in fact, numerous other sources that discuss the specific issue of Free Kriegsspiel both in history (and the application to early TTRPGs) and its more recent application in indie games (usually referred to as FKR), it would probably be best to use the actual sources and definitions that the people themselves use. You could google it, or use one of any number of sources such as this one-


Things have changed since Ron Edwards exited the scene, and no community is static. I think people that are making and playing FKR games would prefer that you read their games and play them than just idly speculate as to what the games might be like using terminology many of them don't use.

Your entire section on FK(R) appears to completely miss the current conversation. IMO.

Some general observations after reading through what you kindly and helpfully posted:

The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster.

This is not to say that this idea is false, but I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism." I may trust my GM to run a game competently, but would I trust "Redpillskullviking" to do it for their table? That's how we get the FKR version of F.A.T.A.L.

There is also this bit that gave me pause:

FKR is a High-Trust play style. It's only going to work if you trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings.

Just because I "trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings" doesn't somehow mean that they are any of these things nor does it magically make them so. It only really seems to establish that I'm a trusing person, who may be more naive than anything else. My other issue herein is how this lends itself well to a "bait and switch" style of argumentation, such that criticisms of this FKR movement can easily pivot from criticisms of FKR to "I guess you don't trust your GM" or "I guess the GM was just a bad GM." By painting this as a "high-trust play style," it seems easy to dismiss critics as "low/no-trust critics" who don't trust their GM.

It plays worlds, not rules.

Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules." It's not so much whether or not I trust the GM in this case, but, the idea of "playing the world" feels like a smokescreen that is meant to obscure and romanicize what's actually going on behind it all.

I do find it interesting though that one article in that posting links to S John Ross, the creator of Risus RPG (1993), which is something of spiritual "kin" to games like FUDGE, Fate, or Cortex through its use of fiction first principles and fictional tags, clichés, descriptors, aspects, etc. (Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge has also been cited as an influence by at least Cam Banks.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Some general observations after reading through what you kindly and helpfully posted:

This is not to say that this idea is false, but I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism." I may trust my GM to run a game competently, but would I trust "Redpillskullviking" to do it for their table? That's how we get the FKR version of F.A.T.A.L.

There is also this bit that gave me pause:

Just because I "trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings" doesn't somehow mean that they are any of these things nor does it magically make them so. It only really seems to establish that I'm a trusing person, who may be more naive than anything else. My other issue herein is how this lends itself well to a "bait and switch" style of argumentation, such that criticisms of this FKR movement can easily pivot from criticisms of FKR to "I guess you don't trust your GM" or "I guess the GM was just a bad GM." By painting this as a "high-trust play style," it seems easy to dismiss critics as "low/no-trust critics" who don't trust their GM.

On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).

A high-trust play style usually emphasizes the need to trust the GM/arbiter, since that's a focal point of a lot of game design and discussion today. However, I don't think it's correct to view the trust in "high-trust" as unidirectional, flowing only from the players to the GM. Instead, IMO, I have found that high-trust only works when there is trust between all the participants.

It is necessary, but not sufficient, that the players trust the GM. There has to be a level of trust between the players, and the GM has to trust the players as well.

To put these airy concepts in more concrete terms-
Yes, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate fairly.
But the players also have to trust each other to not abuse the style of game.
And the GM has to trust the players to do likewise.

We usually focus on rules as constraining the GM, but the rules also constrain the players. To use a simple example, if the game only has the modifier for a character of strong, and it is a "realistic" game (one bound by normal physics and people), then a player who repeatedly says his character is "lifting buildings" and "punching through the core of the earth" is not playing within the parameters of the game. Yes, the GM can adjudicate that as not being within the fiction of the game, but ... the GM shouldn't have to make that call over and over again. For the game to function correctly, there has to be a level of trust from everyone.

This can be accomplished in a number of way- either the people know each other and have played together before, or you assume provide that level of trust until someone breaks it.

The fundamental difference between so-called rule-less games that focus on narrative and games with rules to move the narrative along is often just the difference between the use of norms and heuristics, as opposed to (slightly) more formal methods of decision-making.

Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.

Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules." It's not so much whether or not I trust the GM in this case, but, the idea of "playing the world" feels like a smokescreen that is meant to obscure and romanicize what's actually going on behind it all.

I don't think that's fair. Everyone names their own system in a way that they think is accurate, right? But then people who don't play that assume it's some kind of evil trick. For example, if you play "story now" does that mean that you are using a smokescreen to try and obscure what's going on, are saying other people aren't creating stories in RPGs? If you like old-school "skilled play" dungeon crawls, are you saying that no one else plays, or has skill? To use a recently germane example- if you have an FKR game, does that mean that you are following the dictates of General Verdy in teaching Prussian officers?

It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.

From my P.O.V., it can be a source of frustration that some people-
1. Choose to debate the terms (jargon) rather than focus on the underlying substance.
2. Believe that the enjoyment (EDIT- or even discussion) of other modes of play threatens their own style of play.

The combination of (1) and (2) tends to derail most conversations on this forum that try to discuss modes of play, as opposed to narrowly focused issues related to 5e ("Flanking- cool, or not cool?").

I do find it interesting though that one article in that posting links to S John Ross, the creator of Risus RPG (1993), which is something of spiritual "kin" to games like FUDGE, Fate, or Cortex through its use of fiction first principles and fictional tags, clichés, descriptors, aspects, etc. (Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge has also been cited as an influence by at least Cam Banks.)

Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything is related. Most of the conversations we have are echoes of previous conversations, and will be re-hashed again in the future.

 

[Aldarc]

On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).

A high-trust play style usually emphasizes the need to trust the GM/arbiter, since that's a focal point of a lot of game design and discussion today. However, I don't think it's correct to view the trust in "high-trust" as unidirectional, flowing only from the players to the GM. Instead, IMO, I have found that high-trust only works when there is trust between all the participants.

It is necessary, but not sufficient, that the players trust the GM. There has to be a level of trust between the players, and the GM has to trust the players as well.

To put these airy concepts in more concrete terms-
Yes, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate fairly.
But the players also have to trust each other to not abuse the style of game.
And the GM has to trust the players to do likewise.

My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR.

We usually focus on rules as constraining the GM, but the rules also constrain the players. To use a simple example, if the game only has the modifier for a character of strong, and it is a "realistic" game (one bound by normal physics and people), then a player who repeatedly says his character is "lifting buildings" and "punching through the core of the earth" is not playing within the parameters of the game. Yes, the GM can adjudicate that as not being within the fiction of the game, but ... the GM shouldn't have to make that call over and over again. For the game to function correctly, there has to be a level of trust from everyone.

Are you trying to describe FKR or games like Fate and Cortex? Because these are similar criticisms that often D&D people lay at the feet of Fate's Aspects or Cortex's Distinctions. Again, these are primarily "fiction first" games. So what exactly about FKR is "high trust" any more than playing Fate?

This can be accomplished in a number of way- either the people know each other and have played together before, or you assume provide that level of trust until someone breaks it.

The fundamental difference between so-called rule-less games that focus on narrative and games with rules to move the narrative along is often just the difference between the use of norms and heuristics, as opposed to (slightly) more formal methods of decision-making.

Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.

I'm not sure if your argument is helping, @Snarf Zagyg, because it feels a bit like it is aggrandizing FKR as "higher trust than other games."

I don't think that's fair. Everyone names their own system in a way that they think is accurate, right? But then people who don't play that assume it's some kind of evil trick. For example, if you play "story now" does that mean that you are using a smokescreen to try and obscure what's going on, are saying other people aren't creating stories in RPGs? If you like old-school "skilled play" dungeon crawls, are you saying that no one else plays, or has skill? To use a recently germane example- if you have an FKR game, does that mean that you are following the dictates of General Verdy in teaching Prussian officers?

It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.

From my P.O.V., it can be a source of frustration that some people-
1. Choose to debate the terms (jargon) rather than focus on the underlying substance.
2. Believe that the enjoyment (EDIT- or even discussion) of other modes of play threatens their own style of play.

The combination of (1) and (2) tends to derail most conversations on this forum that try to discuss modes of play, as opposed to narrowly focused issues related to 5e ("Flanking- cool, or not cool?").

"It plays worlds, not rules" feels less like a term or name and more like marketing speak. I'm just not a fan of "marketing speak" when it comes to these things. It doesn't feel accurate. It again feels like a highly romanticized smokescreen for playing the GM, who mediates between the world and the players. Am I really playing the world when it all has to be filtered entirely through the GM?

I certainly have criticisms of "story now" as a term too. But I use it because of the lack of viable alternatives and otherwise it becomes a discussion about definitions and terms, which you have also said in another thread is something of a fool's errand. Plus, what is meant by "skilled play" is its own rabbit hole of discussion that has been hashed and rehashed in a number of threads.

Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything is related. Most of the conversations we have are echoes of previous conversations, and will be re-hashed again in the future.

You're preaching to a guy writing his dissertation (partially) on Ecclesiastes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR.

There are numerous sources to read; I just linked to one that has links to others.

But I would go back to what I said before- the reason it is discussed is because it's ... what people today discuss. If you come from (for example) a 3e/Pf/4e background, the issue of the GM's authority is probably something you've been thinking about.

On the other hand, when was the last time you read or thought about issues of player trust? I don't want to say never, or rarely, or any other qualifier that might cause someone else to say, "Ak-shually, there is an entire school of RPG Theory from Oslo devoted to it ..." but it's not ... common. It's almost always assumed or implied.

Same here. Whether you want to look at it as "tactical infinity" or some other term, it's about the participants trusting each other. But yes, a salient feature is the unfettered discretion of the GM to adjudicate the fiction.

Are you trying to describe FKR or games like Fate and Cortex? Because these are similar criticisms that often D&D people lay at the feet of Fate's Aspects or Cortex's Distinctions. Again, these are primarily "fiction first" games. So what exactly about FKR is "high trust" any more than playing Fate?

Many games are "high trust." Defining TTRPG boundaries is like defining genres. What makes something "noir."

That there are overlaps is to be expected!

I'm not sure if your argument is helping, @Snarf Zagyg, because it feels a bit like it is aggrandizing FKR as "higher trust than other games."

No. To the extent it reads as such, it wasn't intended that way. I re-read what I wrote, and I honestly am not sure how you understood that from the excerpted section?

"It plays worlds, not rules" feels less like a term or name and more like marketing speak. I'm just not a fan of "marketing speak" when it comes to these things. It doesn't feel accurate. It again feels like a highly romanticized smokescreen for playing the GM, who mediates between the world and the players. Am I really playing the world when it all has to be filtered entirely through the GM?

I certainly have criticisms of "story now" as a term too. But I use it because of the lack of viable alternatives and otherwise it becomes a discussion about definitions and terms, which you have also said in another thread is something of a fool's errand. Plus, what is meant by "skilled play" is its own rabbit hole of discussion that has been hashed and rehashed in a number of threads.

Again, you are welcome to have your feelings about terms. But it's not a productive conversation to argue about what it's called, instead of what it is.

Since I am not the one who named any of these terms, I am also not the best one to discuss that point with. I would suggest taking it up with the people who use the term, but I think we both know that it is unlikely to go well.

You're preaching to a guy writing his dissertation (partially) on Ecclesiastes.

Sounds awesome! Good luck!

The best part about a doctoral thesis is that, eventually, it ends.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism."

<snip>

Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules."

On playing worlds, not rules I would reiterate what I posted in the other thread: this is about adjudication by way of direct application of fictional positioning. There is a lot of this in classic, dungeoneering D&D play. Conversely, it is a principle of Burning Wheel that if anything is at stake then the dice must be rolled - ie there is a deliberate rule that fictional positioning is never determinative when something is at stake. A correlate to this principle in BW is that the narration of failure focuses on intent (which is intimately related to what is at stake) rather than task - eg if something is at stake, but the fictional positioning is such that the task is trivial, then the Obstacle will be 1, and if the check nevertheless fails the GM will narrate some complication which probably involves introducing a new fictional element into the situation.

Apocalypse World also differs from free kriegsspiel-esque adjudication, because if you do it, you do it and the move has to be resolved. And if the check fails then the MC is not constrained by the current fictional position in narrating failure, because s/he is at liberty to (eg) establish signs of impending badness, or to introduce some new element into the fiction that separates the PCs, or whatever.

These examples (BW, AW, and of course they could be multiplied) show that play worlds, not rules is a thing - but it's a thing that (as per my OP) will deliver a particular sort of RPG experience. These examples also show that the "high trust" idea is a red herring best ignored: no system requires more trust (of the GM/MC as well as fellow players) than BW or AW.

There is some discussion of FKR on this OD&D forum thread: BE A FKR! | Original D&D Discussion

When I read it, I found two things that were noteworthy:

* There is this quote on the second page: The GM must know the setting inside and out, must know how that setting works the same way, and must be able to rule instantly and consistently so that the players know how the setting works and that the GM is working within the reality of that setting. This is consistent with what I posted in reply to @Manbearcat not too far upthread, about the importance of prep and holding that rock-steady in play. It also makes clear some of the well-known limitations of adjudication based on prep and fictional positioning: as soon as the fiction reaches a certain (pretty low) threshold of complexity, the possibility of this sort of adjudication breaks down. Eg we're playing a FKR-version of Traveller, and my PC is in a city and needs to get over a wall, fast. Is there any junk around to climb up onto? No referee can detail all the junk in even one city block, and so prep-and-fictional positioning won't help here. We need a way to work out the content of the setting. Classic Traveller doesn't discuss this in relation to junk that might help climb a wall, but already has subsystems for Law Level, Bribery, Streetwise etc that respond to the issue by adopting resolution frameworks that look more like Burning Wheel than they do like free kriegsspiel.

* There is surprisingly little recognition of the role of expertise in free kriegsspiel refereeing, until at the end of the second page there is a bizarre detour into a discussion of a GM who has memorised the charts and so does not have to look them up every time. That sort of memorisation has zero to do with free kriegsspiel, which is all about the referee being an expert in respect of the fictional subject matter (eg the effect that terrain has on troop movements). As you (@Aldarc) note in the post to which I'm replying, any serious discussion of free kriegsspiel refereeing and its application to RPGing has to grapple with this issue. It only becomes compounded when questions of subject matter expertise interact with questions of the complexity of the setting - I've played in games which weren't meant to be silly or frustrating but became so because the referee was making free kriegsspiel-type rulings that were based on ignorance of physics and technology in context that were already implausibly austere given the sci-fi genre of the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

On expertise:

I think as you go through life and attain more skills and a deeper and more robust forensic knowledge base, it becomes plainly obvious at just how ill-equipped "the prior you" would have been to:

(a) frame interesting and consequential decision-points around this thing

(b) illuminate these decision-points in such a way that amateurs (at best) can understand (i) their move space and (ii) the implication of their move-space

(c) ascertain how well this PC vs that PC might be equipped (physical fitness, mental fitness, skillset overlap, and gear deploymennt) to undertake tackling the conflict at large and micro-decision-points within that conflict.



Not more than 4 years ago, I was just north of a climbing novice. I'm now fairly advanced. "The prior me" would have been extremely less well-equipped to frame/articulate/rule upon climbing conflicts than "the current me." And "the prior me" (just north of climbing novice) probably understood climbing and could articulate it better than 99 % of TTRPG GMs.

Further still, "the current me" 100 % overestimates my capabilities in (a), (b), and (c)!

This knowledge gap (between the prior you and the current you or the prior/current you and other participants at the table), this knowledge creep and the incestious over-confidence in one's capabilities that comes with it (even in someone who is very advanced in a discipline) has a massive role to play here.


I'm ENORMOUSLY confident in my ability to GM all kinds of systems and all kinds of conflicts. The self-interrogating "postmortem of my sessions/decisions" side does not agree that my confidence in the moment is warranted!

 

[aramis erak]

Free Kreigspiel has a bunch of assumptions...

1. The Referee is actually knowledgeable about the setting and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the units
2. The referee is neutral - FK originally was intended to be PVP.
3. both sides are allowed to do actions not covered by the
4. All participants are willing to adhere to the setting as presented
5. The referee usually either creates or presents a scenario, which is then played out.
   1. Nothing in the setup is modifiable by the player unless the GM explicitly allows it to be.
6. The basic combat system was present for times when it was useful; its utility was the decision of the Referee, not the players.
   1. The Referee was allowed/encouraged to modify the needed rolls.

Basically, in FK, the agency of the players usually begins at start of scenario; in RPGs, agency usually begins in character generation. FK also was intentional PVP, while RPGs are normally PVGM, but with a fair GM... they blur together and even overlap a good bit.

Many assume FK is the progenitor of Diplomacy. I don't know if that's true, but the parallels are there.
I am aware that Dave Arneson was a Diplomacy player. I don't know if he was an FK player, but I'd not be surprised if he had played.

"Playing worlds, not rules" is very much a thing in FK... because everyone's assumed to know and agree to the world concept (at the time, usually as close to reality as possible; in modern FK, fantasy worlds are more common). It's usually more accurate to say, "Playing the world as the Referee believes it to work"... but that's the same for most narrative-first referees in RPG play.

And, like RPGs, FK ranged from pretty close to standard but with permission to go off-list through "no rules other than The Referee Decides."

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat, and following up on expertise and its relationship to fictional positioning and "storytelling".

It's easy to see how an approach that starts with a free kriegsspiel-ish orientation can drift towards something different.

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 Hang on, I've walked such-and-such a trail when it was pissing down 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 don't know how that sort of insubordination was dealt with in the Prussian wargaming rooms; but in the context of a RPG the GM has an easy out: the rain is heavier, and the muddy soil likewise heavier, than anything you experienced on your trek. And now instead of the referee neutrally adjudicating the fiction, we've got the GM's adjudication establishing the fiction!

How many tables went through something like the above process between 1974 and 1984?

 

[aramis erak]

How many tables went through something like the above process between 1974 and 1984?

Quite a few... Including many who didn't play Frei Kriegsspiel. Other games of the era that might lead that way include anyone subjected to one of the presidential sims moderated by a teacher who added allowance for dirty politics the game didn't. Or those in Model UN. Or those who played Diplomacy (especially variants). Or those houseruling the bleep out of Risk. Or people houseruling Outdoor Survival for increased realism.

Everything I've seen implies that the minis crowd were much more willing to mod in the 60's to early 80's than in the 90's onward; The RPG space has always been more mod-heavy... Just look at the class of 1975... Metamorphosis Alpha, Starfaring, Tunnels and Trolls...

 

[clearstream]

My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR.

That is accurate. Seeing as the DM is the source of truth about the game world, players are forced to trust them. The DM is the accurate authority on their world, and that is not a matter of realism. In cases where their world is based on another person's fiction - say if one were to DM a campaign set in EarthSea - then it is their EarthSea. Not Le Guin's.

* There is this quote on the second page: The GM must know the setting inside and out, must know how that setting works the same way, and must be able to rule instantly and consistently so that the players know how the setting works and that the GM is working within the reality of that setting. This is consistent with what I posted in reply to @Manbearcat not too far upthread, about the importance of prep and holding that rock-steady in play.

I believe you overstate the prep requirement (or maybe more accurately, those you cite do). A crucial skill to DM this style of play is your ability to develop your world rapidly on the fly in whatever direction your play takes you. And to do that in way that feels plausible and consistent (within the terms of your world.) It is that freedom - to go rapidly in any direction - that I believe is one of the most exciting draws of this play style for players. I read tactical infinity and actually that falls short. Players embrace limits on solutions available to them comfortably. Each statement they make about their character, amounts to a statement of the infinity of things that they will do less well... all the ways in which they will not be able to solve their problems. What I see excites players is the infinity of the world itself, where they can go in it, and of course what they can do in it. Perhaps that is what the writer intended?

Prep can be light, in a way, or it can be everything you've ever read, in another way. It's a kind of quickfire authorship with the participation of players... actually in response to the players. You ideally enter a state of flow where you simply know what must be the answer to any question about your world. What lies East? Who is this person beholden to? There are a few tricks of course, such as littering the world with seeds that you will back-fill later. That's part of what is exciting for a DM - the same thing Tolkien identified - 'discovering' your world. Things that feel to you like they were always there, just waiting for you to notice them.

You might recall that I'm an advocate for immersion. By which I mean entering the world as a real place. Rules are always incomplete (generally, technically, and philosophically.) Thus rules can only ever work to fail to capture what is real in your world. Our brains have this amazing ability to gloss over blank spaces. To assume that something is drawn in where there is in truth nothing. I think this style of play leans on that ability to do a great deal with what is unsaid. Through avoiding committing to rules, an illusion of realism is sustained.