System matters and free kriegsspiel

[overgeeked]

Few questions for FKR enthusiasts:

1) There is a climbing obstacle in the setting. This setting is roughly indistinguishable from Earth in terms of atmosphere, gravity, and topography, 21st century gear. One player at the table (not the GM) is a climber while the others are not.

Given that it’s a “high trust system” (mutually across all participants?), does the GM/table defer to the climber to adjudicate the climbing rules for the conflict resolution of this obstacle?

It’s on the DM to make the call. If they opt to defer to the climber, they certainly can. But there’s no obligation to. How important is this instance of climbing in the fiction? If it’s irrelevant it doesn’t need rules. If it’s important you can roll.

That would seem to be (a) the most conversation/negotiation-efficient thing to do in terms of this “transitive property of trust” governing rules-vacuums + (b) the most wieldy thing to do in terms of both table time and playability (coherent decision-point navigation).

If not…why not?

There could easily be factors the DM is aware of that the climber-player is not.

2) Once this happens…does this instantiation of climbing rules now get encoded into play for any subsequent climbing obstacle within this setting?

When playing D&D 5E do you keep a list of every instance of advantage and disadvantage and the precise circumstances that granted it? If not, why not?

Probably not because it would be pointlessly cumbersome. You have a broadly applicable rule that’s widely used to determine the mechanics. Same with FKR.

If not, why not?

If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?

The rules tome gets in the way, slows down play, and causes players to make decisions based on the rules rather than the fiction.

Even something as simple as Over the Edge 3rd Edition will drive particular choices based on the rules rather than the fiction. In that system, active characters succeed on a 7+/2d6, while passive characters succeed on an 8+/2d6. So gamers being gamers, everyone in Over the Edge games push to be active as often as possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Snarf Zagyg

I think you missed what I’m looking for with my post.

I’m curious about the ethos that undergirds the FKR approach and the downstream implications, not “what is a possible instantiation of climbing rules?”

Your post does create an interesting question though:

“What is the difference between ‘an event that is relevant enough to develop/negotiate rules’ and ‘what the game is about’ in an FKR game?”

What is the implication of the answer to that question on the form that the conversation of play takes?

 

[Malmuria]

I don't doubt you could come to that conclusion -- that the resolution processes are similar in that a die is rolled and interpeted -- but that is completely missing some massive differences in why the resolution occurs and what the point of the resolution actually is. These are very different in these two games -- both of which I'm currently playing/running right now. The analysis that you suggest for FKR is following closely to the 5e example in intent and effect, but substituting the system's say for the GM's say. As such, it's leaning even heavier towards Trad (or Neo-Trad). Saying that this is similar to the Blades example is flawed on many levels.

BitD and 5e are indeed very different games (currently running the former and playing in the latter). 5e is very success/failure oriented, while Blades tries to give structure to a back and forth conversation, in part by using mechanics that can partially or wholly negate GM decisions (e.g. resistance rolls and stress). But, as I found out while transitioning my 5e group to Blades, the mechanics themselves can only do so much work to create the desired gameplay. There needs to be a shift in mentality by both players and GM (following the great advice and best practices described in the book). So, sure, 'system matters,' but really some of the most helpful bits in setting our group's understanding of the game have been the touchstone, where I can be like, 'remember that scene in peaky blinders where...'

As stated earlier in this thread (or in the other one), the provocation of FKR is to say, wait, you are trying to play a peaky blinders game...why not just start and end there, at least on the player side. The players can create peaky-blinders type characters, and they describe what their characters do in the fiction, and the gm calls for a roll whenever there is uncertainty. I think what direction the game goes from there would depend on the dynamics of the group. One group might have a GM that is very forceful about giving structure to the overall narrative, but another group might arrive at a space that is more genre-driven and collaborative, akin to a story game.

One minor note: I don't think "rulings not rules," equates to a trad approach, as this is a phrase that originates in the OSR. Trad is more defined by its reliance on "story-before," and associated linear plots (and in some cases railroading)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg

I think you missed what I’m looking for with my post.

I’m curious about the ethos that undergirds the FKR approach and the downstream implications, not “what is a possible instantiation of climbing rules?”

If you truly curious, there have been numerous posts pointing you to resources.

The best way to satiate your curiosity would be to engage those resources in good faith, and then try playing a few games.

As a general rule, practice > theory.

As for the ethos, I think that proponents encapsulate it in the "Play worlds, not rules." Which is just a shorthand of saying that they are looking to engage the fiction, not the rules. More pertinently, it is sometimes described as "The freedom of the Player Characters to attempt any tactic to solve a problem, subject to the adjudication of the Game Master." - But that's been stated in the resources that have been provided.

 

[Manbearcat]

When playing D&D 5E do you keep a list of every instance of advantage and disadvantage and the precise circumstances that granted it? If not, why not?

Probably not because it would be pointlessly cumbersome. You have a broadly applicable rule that’s widely used to determine the mechanics. Same with FKR.

Don't you think that is a haaaaaaaaair bit of a false equivalence? Inspiration is a bolt-on piece of exception-based design tech that can be trivially (and overwhelmingly is) ignored. Climbing rules are a fundamental piece of the rules chassis used to negotiate what happens when a very typical conflict emerges within the game.

Its like comparing a car's drivetrain to its infotainment system HUD.

It’s on the DM to make the call. If they opt to defer to the climber, they certainly can. But there’s no obligation to. How important is this instance of climbing in the fiction? If it’s irrelevant it doesn’t need rules. If it’s important you can roll.

There could easily be factors the DM is aware of that the climber-player is not.

<snip>

The rules tome gets in the way, slows down play, and causes players to make decisions based on the rules rather than the fiction.

Even something as simple as Over the Edge 3rd Edition will drive particular choices based on the rules rather than the fiction. In that system, active characters succeed on a 7+/2d6, while passive characters succeed on an 8+/2d6. So gamers being gamers, everyone in Over the Edge games push to be active as often as possible.

I'm putting these two together because I didn't get an answer that is helpful to me in my understanding. You added some caveats here as Snarf did (maybe in this particular conflict the GM knows something that the player doesn't...maybe this "event isn't what the game is about").

The bottom paragraphs are helpful, however, so thanks for that.

Let me go back to what I was trying to suss out:

1) No caveats. The obstacle is the obstacle and no fundamentally unknowable thing is happening. Beating the obstacle is sufficiently "what the game is about" such that you need rules to resolve it. Its THE CLIMB OF WALL SUCKINGTON TO REACH THE PLACE OF IMPORTANTITUDE.

2) In order for the climbing player to orient themselves to the challenge such that they can navigate a "climbing-coherent decision-point", they need some kind of rules structure to buttress that cognitive loop of orientation > navigation decision-point > act that they are undertaking.

If the FKR GM composes a rules structure that fails to buttress (or perhaps actually does the opposite), what happens? Does the climber player say "how about x, y, z?" Is that an episode of "the edifice of trust being established through conversation" or is that an episode of "the situation is fraught and the trust is broken?"

Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules? It seems your answer is either:

* "negative, next time we encounter a climbing obstacle of consequence we instantiate something else and potentially have another trust establishing/eroding conversation with the climber because there is no encoding of rules in FKR."

or

* "play has now encoded these rules for future use through the negotiation with climber person and trust has been established/preserved/grown."


Is it the former or the latter (I feel like maybe the latter?)?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't you think that is a haaaaaaaaair bit of a false equivalence? Inspiration is a bolt-on piece of exception-based design tech that can be trivially (and overwhelmingly is) ignored. Climbing rules are a fundamental piece of the rules chassis used to negotiate what happens when a very typical conflict emerges within the game.

It wasn't inspiration; it was advantage/disadvantage.

Advantage and disadvantage are not "bolt-on pieces of exception based design tech" in 5e, but absolutely fundamental to 5e.

 

[Ovinomancer]

BitD and 5e are indeed very different games (currently running the former and playing in the latter). 5e is very success/failure oriented, while Blades tries to give structure to a back and forth conversation, in part by using mechanics that can partially or wholly negate GM decisions (e.g. resistance rolls and stress). But, as I found out while transitioning my 5e group to Blades, the mechanics themselves can only do so much work to create the desired gameplay. There needs to be a shift in mentality by both players and GM (following the great advice and best practices described in the book). So, sure, 'system matters,' but really some of the most helpful bits in setting our group's understanding of the game have been the touchstone, where I can be like, 'remember that scene in peaky blinders where...'

As stated earlier in this thread (or in the other one), the provocation of FKR is to say, wait, you are trying to play a peaky blinders game...why not just start and end there, at least on the player side. The players can create peaky-blinders type characters, and they describe what their characters do in the fiction, and the gm calls for a roll whenever there is uncertainty. I think what direction the game goes from there would depend on the dynamics of the group. One group might have a GM that is very forceful about giving structure to the overall narrative, but another group might arrive at a space that is more genre-driven and collaborative, akin to a story game.

One minor note: I don't think "rulings not rules," equates to a trad approach, as this is a phrase that originates in the OSR. Trad is more defined by its reliance on "story-before," and associated linear plots (and in some cases railroading)

I don't think it equates, but it's a powerful tool for engaging in Trad and Neo-trad play. There's only the claim of impartial referee standing in the way, here, and I already find that claim to be somewhat preposterous given how the GM is creating the adversity and adjudicating it.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is correct. My bad. Quick reading.

Still, Advantage/Disadvantage is a modifier system trivially deployed from first principles (add +1d or -1d to dice pool, take +1, take -1). Its not a system of conflict resolution. The two are not remotely equivalent.

I'm hoping for engagement on my other questions. From the looks of your last post, you don't think I'm engaging in good faith here and you've directed me to a bunch of resources to read through so I assume we're done having a conversation?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules?

Fundamentally, the problem with your example is that it is isolated. You haven't actually provided the fiction. You've given us the use-case in order to provide a disparity in expertise (and some shadow of simulationism), but not what this FKR game is about.

And that's really the key, because it's about the world, not the rules (to borrow the phrase). There might be very different approaches if the game is supposed to be Peaky Blinders (when climbing walls isn't a major part of the fiction) as opposed to Lupin (when climbing walls, as part of jewel heists, would be).

Or, for that matter, imagine if it's an FKR version of an Arnesonian D&D game; in that case, perhaps there would be a determination of a hidden rule for climbing, and further use of it.

The point is, you won't have one way to determine the rule based upon an event; instead, it would be determined by the needs of the fiction. Trying to isolate "What about a climbing rule" won't help you answer your questions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That is correct. My bad. Quick reading.

Still, Advantage/Disadvantage is a modifier system trivially deployed from first principles (add +1d or -1d to dice pool, take +1, take -1). Its not a system of conflict resolution. The two are not remotely equivalent.

It's not trivial in 5e for the simple reason that it's the major abstraction system used in the game for all situations, and that the game also uses a simplified method for resolving competing ad/disads (they cancel each other out, regardless of number).

It's far from trivial; it has a major impact on the game, and it is most certainly part of the system of conflict resolution in 5e! In addition, it also does a lot when people are discussing ways in which 5e can allow players to play to the rules, and not the fiction.

I'm hoping for engagement on my other questions. From the looks of your last post, you don't think I'm engaging in good faith here and you've directed me to a bunch of resources to read through so I assume we're done having a conversation?

Not necessarily; just pointing out that if you want to learn about FKR in good-faith, there are a lot of good resources for it, and you will learn a lot more by trying to play it in that manner than you will by trying to ask "gotcha" questions.

And in saying this, I am not advocating for any kind of system superiority- different games work for different tables at different points in time. TTRPGs are like the eternal Mounds/Almond Joy War; sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.