System matters and free kriegsspiel

[overgeeked]

You could have one of the two ready an action to swap places with the other on that PCs turn. And while yes, two people can maneuver around each other in a kitchen while cooking, we might look at that differently if the two of them were trying to kill one another.

Not RAW. Unless there's an empty 5ft space to move into they cannot move.

I think this is likely where we may see the true failing of this FKR approach. I don't think that it's unrealistic at all to assume two people standing in a 10 foot doorway can stop someone from moving through. I'm not saying it would be impossible....but I don't think the idea "contradicts reality".

It's the added context you're putting in that makes the difference. In D&D any two people standing in that 10ft hallway with any intentions at all (friendly, neutral, or hostile) completely block the path. That contradicts reality. Likewise, that a 6ft human with a 16' shoulder span completely fills a 5ft square is kinda contradictory to reality as well. Just saying.

But, if you said to me anyone can freely move through that space without consequence, I'd say that's a better example of contradicting reality. Still not total contradiction, though....because there's potentially lots of factors at play that would make it more or less likely.

This is why there are rules.

Right. So those factors would need to be taken into account. But they're not in games like D&D. The default of system games is to check the game. Then either try to match that to reality or house rule away the contradictions. The FKR approach is start with reality and make any rules as necessary to cover the situation. Smoother, cleaner, and easier. Fewer steps, too. It's only years of playing games and internalizing their systems that hang us up. The rules get in the way of the world.

We have something that informs the skill of the two guards, we have something that informs the skill of the person trying to get past them, we may have something about the terrain or surface or other environmental factor. These things affect the chances.

Again, it's not about their skill. According to D&D, medium-sized creatures full occupy a 5ft space and unless the creature is favorably disposed to you, it's literally impossible for you to move into or through their space. The reads to me like someone who's literally never thrown a punch or ever been punched wrote those rules. It's laughably unrealistic.

Not sharing them with the players seems more about freeing the GM up to just make stuff up on the spot. Which may be fine....we all do this occasionally. But as an overall default approach it doesn't seem to lend itself to consistency.

So what? Life isn't consistent. The real world isn't consistent. Things that work on Tuesday don't always work on Wednesday.

I've seen "high-trust" be mentioned a lot and while I understand why it has been, I don't quite see it that way. It's more about "high-acceptance" of the GM's determinations rather than ever understanding things fully as a player.

That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference. FKR play isn't about the player "understanding things fully". That's not part of the style. It's almost the opposite of the style. The point of FKR isn't to be arbitrary and random, rather to model the fiction as well as possible. The character doesn't understand things fully. The player doesn't understand things fully. Things change. Circumstances change. The DM learns more about the fiction. Sticking with a rule made a few sessions ago due to some silly adherence to consistency is anathema to FKR. For example, after the last session the DM read up on climbing and realized they made a mistake. You can either: continue to be wrong but consistent or change the rules and be closer to being right. Just know that you'll never be perfectly right as the DM. And don't expect the DM to be perfectly right as a player and you're golden.

Because there's no need to put that all on them? The more you put on them, the more that trust is tested, and the more likely they'll fail at some point.

So what? We're all human. Even the people who wrote the game systems you want to defer to. They're just people, too. They fail. Sometimes their systems fail. So why open yourself up to someone else's potential failures? What's the payoff? Consistency? Emerson had a quote about that.

Which hey, we all do from time to time no matter what game, but I don't see the need to open it up so much. Especially not for a payoff that I'm not really convinced is of much use.

So instead of talking about it here why not try running or playing an FKR game? Talking to me isn't going to convince you.

That's a pretty bold assertion. Most players I know actively want to understand the rules.

I'm completely aware. But they want to understand the rules so they can game them.

Annoyingly, Players Like To Optimize The Fun Out Of A Game

Designers should take precautions that encourage players to have a more enjoyable gaming experience and that save gamers from themselves.

www.thegamer.com

Or find a system that basically achieves this without the need to obscure it from the players? That'd be my preference. And I have played in this way at a few points in my RPG career....we never would have called it FKR, but my group definitely played a few games with as little knowledge on the players' part as possible. It added a little something here and there....uncertainty and similar.....but not enough to justify.

For you. For me it was liberating and amazing. The players just did what their characters would do rather than trying to find all the nooks and crannies and cracks in the game system to exploit them.

Well, a few of the games on the FKR list that was shared incorporated elements of Blades, so that's interesting. Blades is very much about fiction first, and works in a way that pretty much allows a player to declare any conceivable action for their PC in the same way that FKR seems to want. Then the GM has to use their judgment to determine the level of risk and potential consequences for failure, and then the dice are used to determine success.

So in my opinion, the core mechanic of Blades largely does exactly what FKR sets out to do. But it does so in a way that actively involves the player and is fully transparent to all the participants at the table.

I don't think they're nearly the opposites that you seem to think.

Again, I never played BITD and I've only read a very little of it. I quoted someone else and commented that FKR is the opposite of what I quoted. That wasn't a claim on my part about BITD.

 

[overgeeked]

that reminds me that this thread refers to another thread that in turn refers to another thread about whether mechanics for social encounters are needed. And here too I can understand the perspective that 'system matters,' and that there are certain games that integrate various kinds of social mechanics into their core rules, OR that you can get by, in a game like dnd, in having social-centric sessions where no, or very few, dice are rolled. I wonder: is the social "pillar" of dnd 5e effectively a fkr-style game? Really the only structure it has are charisma checks with soft DCs; it's basically, roll a d20, roll high, and the gm interprets and adjusts in response (I think in dmg there is a structure sort of similar to position/effect that I'm sure very few people use). The gm, meanwhile, is entrusted to play the (social) world accurately and without bias, and this basically seems to work for people?

I wouldn't say so. There's a lot of player-facing mechanics between the fiction and the DM.

An FKR D&D wouldn't have those mechanics at all or they'd be behind the DM's Screen.

The player's side of things would be:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Everything else would be in the DM's hands. Players would know things like their character is considered charming by some but not others. Their character spends a lot of time carousing. And the like. But they wouldn't know or need to know if they have a 16 or 18 CHA and they'd know they have some training in charm, but not +8 instead of +6, for example.

Honestly, the above three-point text is a complete FKR game on its own. You could run it rules light with just a 2d6 for everything or you could run it full RAW 5E but keep everything behind the screen. And note how there's nothing about a setting in those three points. You could run it straight D&D fantasy, slapstick sitcom, or space horror a la Alien.

 

[Malmuria]

I wouldn't say so. There's a lot of player-facing mechanics between the fiction and the DM.

An FKR D&D wouldn't have those mechanics at all or they'd be behind the DM's Screen.

The player's side of things would be:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Everything else would be in the DM's hands. Players would know things like their character is considered charming by some but not others. Their character spends a lot of time carousing. And the like. But they wouldn't know or need to know if they have a 16 or 18 CHA and they'd know they have some training in charm, but not +8 instead of +6, for example.

Honestly, the above three-point text is a complete FKR game on its own. You could run it rules light with just a 2d6 for everything or you could run it full RAW 5E but keep everything behind the screen. And note how there's nothing about a setting in those three points. You could run it straight D&D fantasy, slapstick sitcom, or space horror a la Alien.

That makes sense, although I don't thing there's a need for a screen except to keep the players in the fiction

 

[overgeeked]

That makes sense, although I don't thing there's a need for a screen except to keep the players in the fiction

Sure. I used it in the sense of keeping it for the DM to deal with rather than the players, not necessarily a literal, physical screen at the table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not RAW. Unless there's an empty 5ft space to move into they cannot move.

I think that requires a specific interpretation of the rules....but I don't think debating this any more is really relevant, so I'll move on.

It's the added context you're putting in that makes the difference. In D&D any two people standing in that 10ft hallway with any intentions at all (friendly, neutral, or hostile) completely block the path. That contradicts reality. Likewise, that a 6ft human with a 16' shoulder span completely fills a 5ft square is kinda contradictory to reality as well. Just saying.

Why would you even be using the rules and grid if it was not combat? I disagree that in the world of the fiction, two friendly people standing in a 10 foot doorway block me from passing by. The rules are only for use when there is doubt. If there's no doubt, then no need to invoke the rules at all.

And the person occupying a 5 foot space is again about the space they control during combat. It's totally irrelevant outside of combat.

Right. So those factors would need to be taken into account. But they're not in games like D&D. The default of system games is to check the game. Then either try to match that to reality or house rule away the contradictions. The FKR approach is start with reality and make any rules as necessary to cover the situation. Smoother, cleaner, and easier. Fewer steps, too. It's only years of playing games and internalizing their systems that hang us up. The rules get in the way of the world.

It very much depends on the game. I like D&D just fine, but I have plenty of criticisms of it....but even this is something I think is easily handled. The PC has a relevant stat and maybe a skill, the NPC has a relevant stat and maybe a skill. Oh, the floor is rough and rocky, so not really conducive to sliding past the guards....opposed rolls and the PC has disadvantage on his roll.

This is literally the same kind of thing that FKR would come up with, except (I think, I'm not quite sure) he wouldn't tell the player what anyone was rolling or what was being added, or why the player had to roll twice.

Again, I'm not against a GM using their judgment, or against simplifying a rules system to be smoother and cleaner. I'm against the part where it's somehow deemed better to not share these things with the player.

Again, it's not about their skill. According to D&D, medium-sized creatures full occupy a 5ft space and unless the creature is favorably disposed to you, it's literally impossible for you to move into or through their space. The reads to me like someone who's literally never thrown a punch or ever been punched wrote those rules. It's laughably unrealistic.

Your argument seems to be that rules cannot be bent or reconsidered in any way, and can only be abandoned.

If a player in a D&D game said to me "I want to get past these guards" I'd ask him how he planned to do that, and then I'd come up with something and explain to him what it was.

So what? Life isn't consistent. The real world isn't consistent. Things that work on Tuesday don't always work on Wednesday.

Well, FKR is about trust and that comes from consistently applied judgment. If it's raining on Wednesday then sure, something may be harder than it was on Tuesday. But if there aren't really any different factors, then I would expect things to be consistent. The doubt, if there is any, should be represented by the dice, not the GM's whim or indifference.

That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference. FKR play isn't about the player "understanding things fully". That's not part of the style. It's almost the opposite of the style. The point of FKR isn't to be arbitrary and random, rather to model the fiction as well as possible. The character doesn't understand things fully. The player doesn't understand things fully. Things change. Circumstances change. The DM learns more about the fiction. Sticking with a rule made a few sessions ago due to some silly adherence to consistency is anathema to FKR. For example, after the last session the DM read up on climbing and realized they made a mistake. You can either: continue to be wrong but consistent or change the rules and be closer to being right. Just know that you'll never be perfectly right as the DM. And don't expect the DM to be perfectly right as a player and you're golden.

I would argue that a player's understanding of the fiction can be very different than that of the GM.

And the downplay of consistency here is surprising considering the actual point of Free Kriegsspiel in wargames.

So what? We're all human. Even the people who wrote the game systems you want to defer to. They're just people, too. They fail. Sometimes their systems fail. So why open yourself up to someone else's potential failures? What's the payoff? Consistency? Emerson had a quote about that.

I don't know what this means. I'm not calling on consistency for the sake of consistency.

So instead of talking about it here why not try running or playing an FKR game? Talking to me isn't going to convince you.

I've played a couple of them. I'm not asking anyone to convince me of anything. I'm asking about what makes this movement different from others.

So far, all I've managed to figure out is that no one is committed strongly enough to actually explain, and consistency is right out.

I'm completely aware. But they want to understand the rules so they can game them.

That may be a motivation for some players, or may be a motivation at times. Do you actually think it's the only reason?

Annoyingly, Players Like To Optimize The Fun Out Of A Game

Designers should take precautions that encourage players to have a more enjoyable gaming experience and that save gamers from themselves.

www.thegamer.com

Yeah, I saw this when it was last posted. I get the idea. There's nothing I hate more than players turtling with their characters. It makes for boring play. So I agree with that part of the video, and with that general goal (if it is one?) of the FKR.

For you. For me it was liberating and amazing. The players just did what their characters would do rather than trying to find all the nooks and crannies and cracks in the game system to exploit them.

That's great. I don't know if I would find it to be that. I think when this problem rears its head at my group's table...which when it does is almost always when playing D&D as opposed to other games....we handle it in other ways.

I think I view this idea of removing player knowledge of rules as a scorched earth kind of approach.

Again, I never played BITD and I've only read a very little of it. I quoted someone else and commented that FKR is the opposite of what I quoted. That wasn't a claim on my part about BITD.

Well you said the opposite is true of FKR games.....and I don't think that's the case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So far, what I'm taking that the guiding principles of the FKR movement are simply to give the GM complete authority. Everything else is negotiable, it seems, as there's hide stuff from the players alongside seek consensus and be consistent and trustworthy in adjudication alongside try not to use the same adjudication method too often and consistency is not a goal. At the end of all of this, I still don't know what distinguishes FKR except that it's all about maximizing GM authority.

 

[Manbearcat]

I read Dark Empires. Interesting. These are my takeaways:

* Its mostly unstructured freeform with encoded GMing and player best practices and principles.

* Where there is structure, it is comparatively lithe. I typically call non-agenda/principles rules (the integration of action/conflict resolution mechanics + PC build mechanics + incentive structures) "the system's say." "The system's say" in this game is extremely lean. For instances, let us say something like Apocalypse World had the following zero sum "say" spread for system, MC, and players; 3 / 3 / 4. My takeaway from reading Dark Empires (and if I were to run it based on this document) would be the following zero sum "say spread for system, GM, and players; 1 / 6 / 3.

In other words, a lot of "say" has been removed from system, some say has been removed from players, and the GM's say has been increased significantly.

* There will be a "skilled play" factor for players that increases with exposure to the GM's interpretation and attendant manifestation of many things fiction + action resolution/gamestate consequence; the ficklness/subtlety/dangerousness of magic, what double-crosses/duplicity looks like and how well and through what means it can be sussed out, how stealth and deception work in moving the trajectory of play, how effective gear is in any move made and how burdensome it is, how hardy and capable a PC is in dealing with physical threats and how that threat scaling works.

If you want to look at it like Blades in the Dark Position and Effect or Aliens Degrees of Success/Failure/Panic, the GM has to derive this through play and map these concepts onto degrees of success. The players then have to model this for subsequent orientation to obstacles and their attendant action declarations downstream of their exposure to the GM's adjudication of these things. In theory, this should allow players to improve over time in their inferences of their PC's orientation to elements within the fiction and what any given action declaration > resolution > consequence loop might look like.

This is how living creatures with neurological systems work. They poke and prod at their environment in order to build up a sufficient model to make predictions and improve their confidence in their OODA Loop. In their endocrine system has its say. Going into the first session of play with a GM, the predictive capacity of any given player's model won't be terribly high. As exposure to GM and game conceits increases, that predictive capacity should (in theory) increase in some proportion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I read Dark Empires. Interesting. These are my takeaways:

* Its mostly unstructured freeform with encoded GMing and player best practices and principles.

* Where there is structure, it is comparatively lithe. I typically call non-agenda/principles rules (the integration of action/conflict resolution mechanics + PC build mechanics + incentive structures) "the system's say." "The system's say" in this game is extremely lean. For instances, let us say something like Apocalypse World had the following zero sum "say" spread for system, MC, and players; 3 / 3 / 4. My takeaway from reading Dark Empires (and if I were to run it based on this document) would be the following zero sum "say spread for system, GM, and players; 1 / 6 / 3.

In other words, a lot of "say" has been removed from system, some say has been removed from players, and the GM's say has been increased significantly.

* There will be a "skilled play" factor for players that increases with exposure to the GM's interpretation and attendant manifestation of many things fiction + action resolution/gamestate consequence; the ficklness/subtlety/dangerousness of magic, what double-crosses/duplicity looks like and how well and through what means it can be sussed out, how stealth and deception work in moving the trajectory of play, how effective gear is in any move made and how burdensome it is, how hardy and capable a PC is in dealing with physical threats and how that threat scaling works.

If you want to look at it like Blades in the Dark Position and Effect or Aliens Degrees of Success/Failure/Panic, the GM has to derive this through play and map these concepts onto degrees of success. The players then have to model this for subsequent orientation to obstacles and their attendant action declarations downstream of their exposure to the GM's adjudication of these things. In theory, this should allow players to improve over time in their inferences of their PC's orientation to elements within the fiction and what any given action declaration > resolution > consequence loop might look like.

This is how living creatures with neurological systems work. They poke and prod at their environment in order to build up a sufficient model to make predictions and improve their confidence in their OODA Loop. In their endocrine system has its say. Going into the first session of play with a GM, the predictive capacity of any given player's model won't be terribly high. As exposure to GM and game conceits increases, that predictive capacity should (in theory) increase in some proportion.

Shorter form? The system is mostly all Bob says, and skilled play is learning how to play Bob?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, I read the game. I find that it's interesting that there's more space dedicated to charts that don't really matter to how the games plays than discussion about the core conceits, principles, or agenda of play. And that the resolution method is Bob says unless it's especially risky or unlikely to succeed, then it's a ~40% chance to succeed? Honestly, the largest problem I have is that the game leaves so much up in the air for the GM to determine how things happen while encouraging players to lean into some source material -- the issue here is that I can lean hard on this source material but if the GM hasn't or doesn't like that particular bit of material, I'm just straight out hosed for doing what the game told me should work.

 

[pemerton]

This is a partial solution, at best, though, because it doesn't at all really inform the player what the odds of success are. This doesn't need to be specific, but there the character could probably determine how likely success would be in this action because they have the understanding of their abilities, experience in actual combat situations, and at least a reasonable idea of how skilled their opponent is. So, yes, you can as a GM just leverage these kinds of tests, but this doesn't really root the decision in the fiction when you do so -- the arbitration is not well situated with the understanding the character might have.

This is, of course, an argument for clear stakes and odds

That will depend more on further details.

Eg in Prince Valiant the player will know what their Brawn+Agility pool is, and if the NPC whom they're opposing has already acted then the player probably knows theirs too. And the general rule for stakes in Prince Valiant is that they're low - by default it's rather light-hearted, and there is an express statement that PC death isn't normally an important part of the game.

Moving beyond the FKR notion however that's meant to be orthodoxly understood, I think part of the logic of a lighter system like Prince Valiant or even Classic Traveller is that these resolution methods are relatively intuitive - even in some cases self-evident - to everyone involved. Whereas (say) 4e D&D has to scaffold that intuition with more system infrastructure like the p 42 damage charts, and the correlation of ad hoc conditions with action economy that Wrecan published on the WotC website - because the system (by design) has a large number of intricate and interacting moving parts and mucking them up will spoil the experience.