System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

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.

Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."

Not sure how cynical I was trying to be, there. Were I going for cynical I might point out the many references to 'saving the players from themselves."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."

So, in my opinion, that's one of the difficult things about having this conversation in this thread, given some of the people discussing the issue. It's hard unless you approach the subject with an open mind. Genres are necessarily difficult to pin down with precision (something I've written about before); a subject that is often anathema to people who enjoy theory.

On this, I would say that one of the major, big, dividing differences between rules-lite games that could be categorized as "FKR" as opposed to "Story Now" or "Fiction First" or other terms would be the allocation of authority. When I look at the genesis of FKR and the conversations around it, that's something I notice. In fact, I use the example of Cthulhu Dark (lite) for that reason - if I play it with "Keeper adjuration" and Pemerton plays it with his background, we are using different techniques- even though we are using the same rules.

But is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Let me give you another example just to make things more confusing. Messerspiel is considered another "FKR" game (and explicitly so)- it is, in fact, called BiTD meets FKR! But if you look at the (very) minimalist ruleset, you will see that there is the ability for the players to "resist" the outcome of the referee and narrate a new outcome.

Which means that this game, which explicitly calls itself FKR, allows for a different allocation of authority.

Interesting, isn't it? Anyway, the point of this is that it's usually better to enjoy and celebrate this type of activity at the margins of our hobby than it is to denigrate it by actively attacking it and using pejorative "Bob Says" language.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

So, in my opinion, that's one of the difficult things about having this conversation in this thread, given some of the people discussing the issue. It's hard unless you approach the subject with an open mind. Genres are necessarily difficult to pin down with precision (something I've written about before); a subject that is often anathema to people who enjoy theory.

On this, I would say that one of the major, big, dividing differences between rules-lite games that could be categorized as "FKR" as opposed to "Story Now" or "Fiction First" or other terms would be the allocation of authority. When I look at the genesis of FKR and the conversations around it, that's something I notice. In fact, I use the example of Cthulhu Dark (lite) for that reason - if I play it with "Keeper adjuration" and Pemerton plays it with his background, we are using different techniques- even though we are using the same rules.

But is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Let me give you another example just to make things more confusing. Messerspiel is considered another "FKR" game (and explicitly so)- it is, in fact, called BiTD meets FKR! But if you look at the (very) minimalist ruleset, you will see that there is the ability for the players to "resist" the outcome of the referee and narrate a new outcome.

Which means that this game, which explicitly calls itself FKR, allows for a different allocation of authority.

Interesting, isn't it? Anyway, the point of this is that it's usually better to enjoy and celebrate this type of activity at the margins of our hobby than it is to denigrate it by actively attacking it and using pejorative "Bob Says" language.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).

That's a fair statement. I might not be as attuned to some of that, but I am unfortunately far too aware that there are toxic elements within our community. As far as I know, nothing about FKR is part of that, but if I'm wrong please let me know.

I would additionally say that there are also many people that aren't like that- and, for example, you have lots of people like Sacrosanct who not only champion OSR but also design explicitly inclusive rulesets. (That's my plug for his Chromatic Dungeons, by the way!).

 

[Aldarc]

I would additionally say that there are also many people that aren't like that- and, for example, you have lots of people like Sacrosanct who not only champion OSR but also design explicitly inclusive rulesets. (That's my plug for his Chromatic Dungeons, by the way!).

I am a proud backer of said Kickstarter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is part of my puzzle with FKR. To the extent that it means fictional positioning is a necessary prerequisite to action declaration, then the only RPGing it seems to be in disagreement with is a certain sort of approach to D&D play that probably peaked during the 3E era.

That's kind of my thinking on it. It seems mostly about addressing things that are often considered the failings of modern versions of D&D. I wouldn't say that these things are specifically issues with D&D, but they're common there and D&D has in turn influenced many games and, perhaps more importantly, many gamers.

The major issue that the FKR seems to be attempting to address is overwrought systems. Which is a perfectly fine goal, in my opinion. My point of concern is the need (perhaps perceived on my part) to couple that with increasing GM authority. It seems that some games that are considered FKR don't do this, but it's one of the most commonly mentioned elements in many of the sources that have been sited.

I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).

"Realism" is something that I tend to bounce off when it's mentioned in relation to RPGs. I'm all for some kind of internal logic or consistency with the fiction created by a game, but usually when I hear "realism" as a goal, I go on guard. Not for the kinds of concerns you've sited (although now that you mention it, absolutely) but just because I find that the sense of "realism" varies from gamer to gamer in potentially significant ways.

Though in the past what I've found is that the folks who are calling for "realism" tend to be the folks who want to add MORE rules rather than reduce rules. So the FKR idea of less rules to help increase "realism" is at least a refreshing change in that sense.

 

[overgeeked]

"Realism" is something that I tend to bounce off when it's mentioned in relation to RPGs. I'm all for some kind of internal logic or consistency with the fiction created by a game, but usually when I hear "realism" as a goal, I go on guard. Not for the kinds of concerns you've sited (although now that you mention it, absolutely) but just because I find that the sense of "realism" varies from gamer to gamer in potentially significant ways.

I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules.

Though in the past what I've found is that the folks who are calling for "realism" tend to be the folks who want to add MORE rules rather than reduce rules. So the FKR idea of less rules to help increase "realism" is at least a refreshing change in that sense.

It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules.

It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.

The problem here is that you've just describe Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Cortex Prime, FATE, Fiasco, numerous OSR titles... It's a conceptual framework that isn't unique to FKR, so the question then becomes how do you do this, because the above list all have different ways of doing this. And here's where the points of contention in this thread exist -- it's not in the concept space, most of us are great with that, but in the execution space. How do you do these things? And, so far, the only definitional how is that as much as possible is made GM says. The pushback isn't about the high concept bits, it's about this bit -- how does GM says actually produce the high concept reliably and consistently? This is met with vague buzzwordy things like high trust and other bits that, as has been noted, tend to raise red flags about things.

 

[overgeeked]

And you've listed three possible ways to address it (of which the third is the one I most prefer), but I think there are more.

What would they be?