System matters and free kriegsspiel

[overgeeked]

But there are also rules that work just fine without limiting how the players interact with the fiction.

That's a contradiction. The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules. The examples above that I gave. 3X grappling and 4E improvised action and basic attacks.

I think it's something more games should do, or that they should present these ideas more overtly. Principles like this can do a lot of the heavy lifting in this area.

Agreed.

"Don't be a weasel" is one for Blades in the Dark that would apply to the kinds of players you're discussing.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I think the FKR and OSR spheres show that aesthetic is alive and well, not to mention the many other games that folks are tweaking and hacking to do something new or different. Go onto itch.io and you'll find so many DIY projects that it's overwhelming.

Oh, yeah. Obviously it still exists. I'm more lamenting that it's now niche rather than the mainstream.

Well I think it's about being able to ignore or ditch rules situationally as needed. So your two guards blocking the hall example.....it seems absurd given the situation, the GM can just say "you can pass them" or "you can pass them with a successful X check" or what have you.

Right. But that's partially the point. It takes the DM saying so for that rule to be ditched. If the DM doesn't, it's the physics of the world. That physics is patently absurd. Far better to simply remove that absurd rule in the first place rather than rely on the DM recognizing the absurdity of it and giving you a pass in the moment. That a rule produces absurdities is, in itself, a problem.

I think it depends, honestly. If that's what works, sure. And I think that's likely true for some situations, but maybe not all. I think games can also benefit from constraining GM authority. But a lot of that will depend on what the goal of play is, and where the participants would like to see the split in authority.

I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad. That's just not a thing. As you mentioned above, the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim. In either case, the DM ignoring rules to benefit the players or ignoring rules to hinder the players, the players' only real recourse is to vote with their feet. There's no appeal to the rules or appeal to the designer. Sure. In the moment you can open the book and point to the page and read the rule, but the DM's still in charge. As you say, they can ignore the rules at their whim.

The books can try to teach DMs and players the game designers' idea of the "proper" way to play the game, i.e. what their intent was in designing it. But once it's in the wild, that's it. It's now up to the DM and players to make it work.

To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it. And if a player doesn't like how a DM runs their game, leave. Those are literally the only options. Play or don't. I mean, it's like that thing going around about empathy. "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." If someone doesn't care, they don't care. If someone doesn't have empathy, you're not going to be able to explain to them the benefits of empathy by appealing to their empathy. If a DM doesn't care what the rules say, you're not going to be able to explain why they should care about the rules by appealing to the rules.

But you assume that players will always and absolutely behave one way, but then point out how GMs know their players better than anyone else. I see these being at odds, no? Unless there are differences from player to player? In which case, your monolithic take that they will always game the system seems lost.

You're making the mistake of assuming this one behavior (optimizing the fun out of the game) is the sum total of all behaviors, it's not. That's only one aspect among many. It is a given that players will optimize the fun out of the game. It's not a given whether the players at my table enjoy epic fantasy, jungle adventures, or pike & shot warfare. It's also not a given whether my players will want to engage with strict encumbrance rules or whether they want pure, unending combat, or prefer an entire campaign of pure roleplaying.

I personally find that trust goes both ways. Perhaps if a GM were able to trust his players more, he wouldn't need to worry about them always trying to subvert the rules?

What an odd assumption. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't play with them. Understanding this aspect of gamer behavior isn't about trust or lack thereof. It's understanding human psychology. I don't get mad at dogs for barking. Dogs bark. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at the wind for blowing. Wind blows. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at my players for trying to optimize the fun out of the game. Gamers optimize the fun out of the game. My trust doesn't enter into it.

Your take seems to be that the players can't be trusted with the rules.

Again, it's not about trust. It's about eliciting a more honest response to the circumstances as presented in the fiction. Rules get in the way and the players will inevitably filter their decisions through the rules. So to avoid that, lighter rules are better or obscured rules.

What about the GM? Why can they be trusted so much? I'm struggling to understand why there's such a strong distinction between player and GM in this regard.

Because they're already trusted with the sum total of the entire game, game world, fiction therein, world building, running all the NPCs, factions, etc. If you're not trusting enough of your DM to let them handle the rules, why are you trusting enough to let them handle literally everything outside of your character?

 

[pemerton]

The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules.

I am still curious as to what variety of games you have in mind.

I am also curious how we have moved from genre (eg upthread I think you mentioned Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea stories) to realistic responses.

In real life, if I go to sea in a leaky boat I am likely to drown. In A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged washes up on an uncharted island where he meets exiled members of a Khargad royal family. I think it reasonable for a player to want to know which rule applies in the game they are playing!

In real life, I think being surrounded by foes in battle is mostly a recipe for disaster. In 4e D&D, if my paladin has Valiant Strike (+1 to hit per adjacent foe) then when I hurl myself into battle indifferent to the sea of foes I increase my prospects of striking them down - especially if they are minions.

More generally, is combat brutal and visceral (eg Burning Wheel can be like that) or not (Prince Valiant is almost never brutal or visceral - the rules expressly say that PC death is normally not an important part of Prince Valiant play).

Knowing how actions will be adjudicated, and how consequences will be established, and what principles will govern establishing those consequences, is pretty fundamental to playing a game.

I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad.

Who thinks that a book can protect anyone from anything?

But rules - whether explicit or implicit - are pretty fundamental to a wide range of organised social activities.

The reason for having scoring rules in soccer isn't to protect anyone from anything. It's to structure the game.

The reason for having rules in Burning Wheel isn't to protect anyone from anything. It's to structure the game. The rules of BW create one play experience. It's different from playing Prince Valiant. Either is different from playing Cthulhu Dark. And all three are different from having a storyteller tell a story while taking suggestions as they go.

the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim.

So can the players.

I mean, if I ignore the rule about robbing banks on a whim, I might find myself in serious trouble with the police and their friends! But if I ignore the rule in a RPG, what is going to happen to me? The only sanctions are informal social ones. Those sanctions operate against all participants. GMs are not in any distinct position in this respect.

To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it.

This implies that you think everyone who ever talked about player-driven RPGing is dishonest. Is that what you meant? Or are you simply saying that you prefer GM driven RPGing - say, the DL modules - to player driven RPGing - say, Apocalypse World played in accordance with Vincent Baker's rulebook?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's a contradiction. The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules. The examples above that I gave. 3X grappling and 4E improvised action and basic attacks.

Because the character in the fiction is also filtering their decisions through a number of considerations....risk versus reward, the chance for physical or social harm, fight or flight.....any number of considerations. A character who is about to climb a mountain has very likely given thought to his chances of success, or the necessity of the action, and so on. They have an understanding of their world that cannot be perfectly translated to a player. They consider these factors when they decide on how to act. A player considers the rules of the game.

I have a reasonable understanding of my chances of sinking a free throw in basketball. If I was an RPG character and someone were controlling me, how would they know what my chances are? "Pretty good" per the GM? Does that mean as much as "you've got a 70% chance" or similar mechanical game expression?

Now, that's not to say that all rules are like this. I agree with you that some become a tail wagging dog type of situation. But your insistence that this applies to all rules is just not true.

Agreed.

Woo-hoo!!

I'm not sure what you mean.

"Don't be a weasel" is a Player Best Practice for Blades in the Dark. It addresses the fact that players should be principled in their choice of what Action to use in a given situation. So in Blades, the GM doesn't say "give me a Stealth roll" or the like, it's actually the player who chooses what Action they will use. So the player may say "I'm going to Prowl to silently sneak up on this guard" or they may say "I'm going to use Finesse to carefully pick my path toward the guard". It's up to the player to choose which Action they use.

"Don't be a weasel" is telling them that this power comes with responsibility, and they should choose the action with integrity, and not just based on their highest score.

Oh, yeah. Obviously it still exists. I'm more lamenting that it's now niche rather than the mainstream.

Right. But that's partially the point. It takes the DM saying so for that rule to be ditched. If the DM doesn't, it's the physics of the world. That physics is patently absurd. Far better to simply remove that absurd rule in the first place rather than rely on the DM recognizing the absurdity of it and giving you a pass in the moment. That a rule produces absurdities is, in itself, a problem.

Well, I would say that left unaltered by the GM, it being the "physics of the world" is a pretty specific interpretation. But I can agree with you that not all rules will always make sense. That sometimes, they lead to absurd conclusions. When that happens, the GM can use his judgment to tweak things in a way that better suits the situation.

Now, if you want to say that D&D is overloaded with rules, I'm not really going to disagree....I have plenty of criticisms of D&D rules and processes. So I absolutely get where this approach comes from.

I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad. That's just not a thing. As you mentioned above, the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim. In either case, the DM ignoring rules to benefit the players or ignoring rules to hinder the players, the players' only real recourse is to vote with their feet. There's no appeal to the rules or appeal to the designer. Sure. In the moment you can open the book and point to the page and read the rule, but the DM's still in charge. As you say, they can ignore the rules at their whim.

Well you use DM a lot instead of GM, so that may be the issue. Not every game says "The GM is free to decide whatever they like". There are games that limit when and how the GM can act. If the GM ignores those rules and just does whatever he wants, he'd be breaking the rules, and everyone at the table would be aware.

Could there be a time when it would make sense to do so? Sure. But there's no way for the group as a whole to no be aware that it's happening.

The books can try to teach DMs and players the game designers' idea of the "proper" way to play the game, i.e. what their intent was in designing it. But once it's in the wild, that's it. It's now up to the DM and players to make it work.

To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it. And if a player doesn't like how a DM runs their game, leave. Those are literally the only options. Play or don't. I mean, it's like that thing going around about empathy. "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." If someone doesn't care, they don't care. If someone doesn't have empathy, you're not going to be able to explain to them the benefits of empathy by appealing to their empathy. If a DM doesn't care what the rules say, you're not going to be able to explain why they should care about the rules by appealing to the rules.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can get on board with that. I've seen GMs improve. I've improved as a GM. Very often, it's as a result of messing something up and having a player point it out, or having a conflict with a player because we have differing expectations, and then realizing that's largely on me as the GM.

GMing is a skill, and can be improved.

You're making the mistake of assuming this one behavior (optimizing the fun out of the game) is the sum total of all behaviors, it's not. That's only one aspect among many. It is a given that players will optimize the fun out of the game. It's not a given whether the players at my table enjoy epic fantasy, jungle adventures, or pike & shot warfare. It's also not a given whether my players will want to engage with strict encumbrance rules or whether they want pure, unending combat, or prefer an entire campaign of pure roleplaying.

Is it a given that your players will want to engage with whatever story you've come up with as a GM? Or that they'll agree with the judgments you make as a GM just because they may not be aware of what has informed your judgment?

What an odd assumption. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't play with them. Understanding this aspect of gamer behavior isn't about trust or lack thereof. It's understanding human psychology. I don't get mad at dogs for barking. Dogs bark. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at the wind for blowing. Wind blows. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at my players for trying to optimize the fun out of the game. Gamers optimize the fun out of the game. My trust doesn't enter into it.

Again, it's not about trust. It's about eliciting a more honest response to the circumstances as presented in the fiction. Rules get in the way and the players will inevitably filter their decisions through the rules. So to avoid that, lighter rules are better or obscured rules.

Because they're already trusted with the sum total of the entire game, game world, fiction therein, world building, running all the NPCs, factions, etc. If you're not trusting enough of your DM to let them handle the rules, why are you trusting enough to let them handle literally everything outside of your character?

So what is it that makes GMs trustworthy and not players? Why aren't GMs subject to the same gamism that you think consumes all players?

How do I know I can trust the GM to honor all the rolls and rules even if it means the NPC that he created with the intention of being a badass threat to the PCs winds up getting beat down like a chump? Why is a GM immune to seeking an advantage through the rules? And how would increasing his authority in any way lessen this possibility?

Also, how can I as a player trust that, should I decide that my character is indifferent to the badass NPC and his plot, that the GM won't take that cue and drop the content he created in favor of what the players decide to do?

 

[Manbearcat]

I am still curious as to what variety of games you have in mind.

I am also curious how we have moved from genre (eg upthread I think you mentioned Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea stories) to realistic responses.

In real life, if I go to sea in a leaky boat I am likely to drown. In A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged washes up on an uncharted island where he meets exiled members of a Khargad royal family. I think it reasonable for a player to want to know which rule applies in the game they are playing!

In real life, I think being surrounded by foes in battle is mostly a recipe for disaster. In 4e D&D, if my paladin has Valiant Strike (+1 to hit per adjacent foe) then when I hurl myself into battle indifferent to the sea of foes I increase my prospects of striking them down - especially if they are minions.

More generally, is combat brutal and visceral (eg Burning Wheel can be like that) or not (Prince Valiant is almost never brutal or visceral - the rules expressly say that PC death is normally not an important part of Prince Valiant play).

Knowing how actions will be adjudicated, and how consequences will be established, and what principles will govern establishing those consequences, is pretty fundamental to playing a game.

Remember my 5e thread "DC 30...35?" from days of yore (what was that...2015? 16?).

Genre logic vs this "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic was one of the primary aspects of DC handling that I was trying to suss out in that thread. Unsurprisingly, there not only wasn't a consensus on use-case handling, but it deviated wildly. No one could pin down 5e's procedures and principles (because the designers, intentionally, leave it up to the GM) as they relate to these two very different approaches to handling both (a) setting DCs and (b) deriving Consequences post-action resolution.

The fact that this is both (i) left for the GM to sort out and (ii) the GM facing nature of the process is intentionally inscrutable on a case-in/case-out basis has far-reaching implications on play. This is a large component of that feedback loop I mentioned above in my break-out of System's Say / GM's Say / Player's Say. A game that may rise to a 3 in Player's Say (vs a 6 in GM's Say), but it doesn't start out that way because the player has to gain the experience necessary to decode when a GM is apt to use genre logic and when they're apt to "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic in both (a) and (b) above (and sometimes that is completely incoherent...the GM might use "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic to set the DC but then use genre logic to derive Consequences post-action resolution....or they might do vice versa...and it might change on another, similar use-case!). In such a case, Player's Say would start out at perhaps a 1.5 (with GM's Say starting at 7.5), but, after a year or so of play under that GM, they might suss out the GM's predilections and "earn" that extra 1.5 to arrive at the Holy Grail of 3

 

[pemerton]

Remember my 5e thread "DC 30...35?" from days of yore (what was that...2015? 16?).

Genre logic vs this "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic was one of the primary aspects of DC handling that I was trying to suss out in that thread. Unsurprisingly, there not only wasn't a consensus on use-case handling, but it deviated wildly. No one could pin down 5e's procedures and principles (because the designers, intentionally, leave it up to the GM) as they relate to these two very different approaches to handling both (a) setting DCs and (b) deriving Consequences post-action resolution.

The fact that this is both (i) left for the GM to sort out and (ii) the GM facing nature of the process is intentionally inscrutable on a case-in/case-out basis has far-reaching implications on play.

I remember it, and I agree with your last sentence.

Just to add some more thoughts:

"Naturalistic" logic is tricky in fantasy games. It's tricky even in sci-fi games: eg if I hit the accelerator on my air/raft, will I cause the thug in the back seat to lose his footing and perhaps even drop his gun? (Much as if I suddenly accelerated a car or bus?) Or does the anti-grav technology that keeps the thing flying and moving also establish some sort of constant inertial field? Clearly the latter is true for spaceships, which can accelerate at up to 6Gs without everyone falling over or falling unconscious. But the rules neither state nor imply anything for air/rafts. So we have to just make it up!

Suppose we decide that there is no inertial field in an air/raft because it uses "grav modules" whereas a starship uses "grav plates". So my plan to disarm the thug can work (yay!). How likely is the thug to fall over? To drop his gun? Does anyone have that empirical knowledge? Have studies been undertaken? My understanding is based entirely on personal experience of riding in cars and buses as a passenger!

Cortex+ Heroic will treat this as an attempt to impose a complication (my pool includes, let's say, my Reflexes and my Vehicle specialisation; the thug gets to put his Thug specialty into the pool because thugs don't drop their weapons lightly!, and whatever else might make sense). In Classic Traveller, on the other hand, the referee sets a throw which probably shoud be modified by DEX - maybe extrapolating from the rules for putting on a vacc suit following explosive decompression, which is the closest thing I can think of in the system (and which uses full DEX - from 1 to 15 - as a mod to the 2d6 throw). Perhaps my Air/Raft skill is a debuff on the check.

I don't see how either is inherently superior. The Cortex+ approach is probably more transparent. The Traveller approach - based on my actual experience of play - is a bit more gritty and visceral. I play both!

 

[overgeeked]

What I'm disagreeing with the other claim being put forth in this thread (by you and by FKR):

More rules = Assured focus of table participants on rules over fiction during table time (and the claim appears to also be that this happens in proportion to rules weight).

Again, that's not the claim that's being made.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok, then who said this:

FKR is about minimalist rules, but what rules do exist should support the fiction.

and then immediately said this:

That's due to the tendency of gamers to focus on the rules. So you will inevitably come to a point where the player has to pick between the rules and the fiction. Gamers being gamers, that will come sooner rather than later and they will inevitably pick the rules over the world.

in response to this:

hawkeyefan said:
But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.

and then who said this doubling down on the "rules bloat/cruft/expansion/heft makes players focus on/make decisions around rules rather than world/fiction" premise:

In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.

And this:

Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game.

What inference is one supposed to draw from all of this (and there is plenty more) and your support from FKR other than:

Table-facing, codified rules cause players to focus on rules instead of fiction and the focus is in proportion to the heft of those rules (so therefore not rules-heavy...not rules-medium...not rules-lite....therefore minimalist rules).


I don't even understand why you're choosing to make this a thing. It seems as noncontroversial a thing as there could ever be (attributing this position to you and FKR).

 

[overgeeked]

What inference is one supposed to draw from all of this (and there is plenty more) and your support from FKR other than:

Table-facing, codified rules cause players to focus on rules instead of fiction and the focus is in proportion to the heft of those rules (so therefore not rules-heavy...not rules-medium...not rules-lite....therefore minimalist rules).

Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.

I don't even understand why you're choosing to make this a thing. It seems as noncontroversial a thing as there could ever be (attributing this position to you and FKR).

I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as.

And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.

So, then, I'm curious. Are you not in favor of minimalist rules? Are you not in favor of obscuring any rules that might exist from the players? Are you not of the opinion that having rules the players know leads to the players relying on the rules rather than engaging the fiction?

I'm curious to your answers because this seems exactly what MBC just posted as a sum up and also aligns well with what you've said in this thread.

I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as.

And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.

I've read a few of the linked things -- they aren't any more illuminating than you've been as to what actually makes FKR a unique approach to gaming. Most of them seem to be starting from the position that FKR is a thing and then casting about for reasons why, rather than building up a coherent set of principles that define the approach. Maybe you've read things you haven't linked, here, that do this work. If so, I'd be keen to read them.

 

[Manbearcat]

Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.

I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as.

And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.

Who are you and what have you done to overgeeked?!

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want.

If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my overgeeked go now, that'll be the end of it.