System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Ovinomancer]

Please enlighten me. I mean it! I'm relatively new to Blades in the Dark, not an expert, so I would appreciate knowing how I'm looking at it the wrong way. (it is disheartening to hear that I can read the book several times and read advice for how to run things online and ask questions on the discord server and still get it so wrong, but I'm trying)

There's a thread about Apocalypse World that covers most of this topic. Lots of different posters explaining how these style of games work. Blades has particulars with how resistance and gear work, yes, but you really need to grasp the fundamental approach to play before these will make any sense -- in isolation, they're almost always construed incorrectly.

However, if you're interested in more hands on learning, pick up the free game Ironsworn and run a solo game for yourself. It should make some of the concepts click.

 

[Malmuria]

To zoom back out a bit, here is the listed gameplay loop of 5e, and I think would apply to many other "trad" games as well

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.

Upthread it was posited that this loop allows for "zero agency," which is a surprising for me claim because it would imply that 5e or really any trad game would similarly have zero agency because the players can never do (1) or (3), that is, have reliable control over what's going on in the world or how the world reacts to their characters actions.

In the context of this thread this is posited as a criticism of FKR (not allowing agency of players), but is really a criticism of a whole range of RPGs, (including, incidentally, the most popular one.) And maybe that's totally fair! Maybe games that formalize player control over (1) and (3) are just better. I don't think FKR has much to say about those kind of games.

But I do think that FKR has something to say about games that use the above gameplay loop and accordingly set out a roughly similar relationship between gm and players within the game. And basically that seems to be, what does one need to enable that part of the DM narrating the results of actions. Rules, prep, consistent dice mechanics? But its a conversation happening within games that use that basic loop and everything it implies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To zoom back out a bit, here is the listed gameplay loop of 5e, and I think would apply to many other "trad" games as well

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.

Upthread it was posited that this loop allows for "zero agency," which is a surprising for me claim because it would imply that 5e or really any trad game would similarly have zero agency because the players can never do (1) or (3), that is, have reliable control over what's going on in the world or how the world reacts to their characters actions.

In the context of this thread this is posited as a criticism of FKR (not allowing agency of players), but is really a criticism of a whole range of RPGs, (including, incidentally, the most popular one.) And maybe that's totally fair! Maybe games that formalize player control over (1) and (3) are just better. I don't think FKR has much to say about those kind of games.

But I do think that FKR has something to say about games that use the above gameplay loop and accordingly set out a roughly similar relationship between gm and players within the game. And basically that seems to be, what does one need to enable that part of the DM narrating the results of actions. Rules, prep, consistent dice mechanics? But its a conversation happening within games that use that basic loop and everything it implies.

The claim about agency is correct. That loop does not allow for any player agency over the game. The trick between a game where this is the entirety of the loop and 5e, is that 5e has the strong expectation that you will use the rest of the rules primarily, especially in combat. While, yes, the loop on page 4 of the PHB does pretty clearly state that if you declare swinging a sword at an orc that the GM can just say you miss as your blade turns into butterflies and then you're find yourself married to the orc in a beautiful ceremony. In other words, 5e sets up the expectation that the rules will be used as presented and that loop really only applies to which/how the GM applies those rules. If you showed up to a 5e table, for instance, and you declared you were attacking the orc, and the GM said, "sure, pick up 2d6 and roll" and you did and the GM said, "sorry, you missed because I rolled higher" then you'd, very rightly, have room to be upset that the game being played is not 5e.

But, yes, as presented, there's no agency in the 5e playloop.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I did a post upthread about governing principles.

The thrust of that was they matter in proportion to (a) how well they file rate this form of play from that (or another) form of play in the moment and (b) how well they engender a coherent experience that integrates with the whole of play (including the macro agenda/goal and all adjacent micro goals/aspects of play).

So for this to be true, the principles can’t be generic (they need to have sufficient zoom/resolution and they should sufficiently delineate in a way that matters to actual play) and they need to have just enough text (no less…no more) so that they’re easily digestible and their routine application leads to coherent play.

“Skip the gate guards and get to the fun” is crap. I mean I know what it’s saying…but it’s crap.

How about “At every moment…drive play towards conflict” or “Cut to the Action” (where “the action” has been laid out prior)?

Much better.

You know what else sucks? “Have fun!” (for the same reasons).

Thoughts?

Yes, but no. I don't disagree, but I also don't agree? I agree with caveats? I contain multitudes?

Speaking for myself (not in terms of theory, just how I view it) I see two separate things going on-

1. Granularity. This is kinda/sorta what I see you getting at when you are talking about how the principles can't be generic (must have sufficient resolution). I generally think that this is a truism- if you define a principle narrowly enough, it becomes an easy-to-apply rule ... but then it's not really a principle that is flexible enough to use in multiple situations.

This whole granularity issue is one that pops up a lot- I'm thinking, in real life, of the arguments between GAAP (rules-based accounting) and IFRS (principles-based). There are strengths and weaknesses of each method.

But generally, narrow principles (rules) are more brittle but easy-to-apply, whereas broader principles are more flexible but also more open to interpretation.

2. But ... I'm not sure I'm on board for your specific examples. Okay, "Have fun!" Yeah, that can be tough (although always a good principle!). I am not sure it is that much worse that the principles you think are easy-to-apply?
“At every moment…drive play towards conflict"
“Cut to the Action”

Those are great principles- and there are fine examples of them in many systems. But ... just like other principles, they require adjudication. Flexibility. People have different ideas of what "conflict" might mean, for example. It requires ... well, it requires the players and GM to have mutual trust and respect in application of principles, and the ability to "be on the same page" (and flexibility regarding outcomes).


I think that what it comes down to is that I am in agreement with you, I just feel that sometimes we forget that the principles that we are most used to deploying may not always be as obvious to other people.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the context of this thread this is posited as a criticism of FKR (not allowing agency of players), but is really a criticism of a whole range of RPGs, (including, incidentally, the most popular one.) And maybe that's totally fair! Maybe games that formalize player control over (1) and (3) are just better. I don't think FKR has much to say about those kind of games.

I know I mentioned this earlier, but to bring it up again.... there are games that are explicitly FKR that not only have a generous allowance for player authority, but that also have an explicit allowance for player authority over the narrative that can override the referee's authority over the narrative.

In Messerspiel, to use the prior example, the player can resist the outcome narrated by the referee and narrate a new outcome.

Other FKR games explicitly allow for genre conventions such as "fast-forward, pause, or rewind/redo scenes" and allow not just the referee. but the players to do so.

It's ... complicated. Which is fun. It's good to see people having fun.

 

[overgeeked]

To clarify there is nothing wrong with GM decides. Even a completely unqualified GM decides. It's just without qualification there is no real way to reliably have a demonstrable impact on play.

GM decides based on whatever. No agency.
GM decides based on known x, y, z. Agency is possible because players can make decisions trusting the GM will consider x, y, z.

And in FKR games it’s: GM decides based on known/shared genre conventions. Tonight we’re playing FKR Star Wars, let’s go, for example. But apparently that somehow means “no agency” to some posters here.

 

[pemerton]

This post is clarifying for what we might mean by high-trust vs low-trust situations.

I don't GM RPGs so I can tell people a story (whether or not they trust that it will be interesting to them).

I don't play RPGs so I can be told a story by someone else.

I don't think those are character flaws on my part. They are part and parcel of my comportment towards playing a game with a shared fiction vs (say) reading a book or watching a film.

I'm confused what you mean by agency. You have agency in that you have complete control over your character. When you walk out the front door, what agency do you have over the world? Do you control the weather, the traffic, if your neighbor is out watering the plants? Player agency debates that I've seen usually revolve around DMs deciding things are going to happen in the story regardless of PC actions-

Who is the you in that sentence. I think it's obvious to everyone that when I, @pemerton, walk out my front door I control some things - where I move my legs, how I greet people, thus to some extent how they greet me in return (given that I am familiar with the typical customs and responses of my neighbourhood - eg I am able to cause a shop assistant to come and help me by attracting their attention and saying Can you please come and help me?). Some other things I don't control, like whether or not it is raining. Some things I could control - eg if my neighbour is watering the plants I could make that otherwise by punching them or throwing a rock at them - but I choose not to because it would be vicious or stupid to try and exercise that control.

When it comes to RPG, I try to avoid doing stupid or vicious things to the friends I'm playing with. But I do do reasonable things. Eg I try and make them imagine certain things, by speaking appropriate words. And I try to get them to agree on the content of a shared fiction, by putting certain ideas forward. Now they often have their own ideas about the shared fiction, and our ideas aren't always compatible. Eg consider this from the last session I played (Agon 2nd edition, using my island of Kassos that I wrote for @chaochou's Not the Iron DM thread):

* I told the players what was happening when they arrived on the island (the storm, the crowd ready to sacrifice Pythios, and of course the signs of the gods). They accepted all this because they deferred to me as GM.

* The leader PC decided they would assist with the sacrifice. We framed the contest of Resolve & Spirit. The check succeeded. And this caused us all to agree that Zeus had accepted their sacrifice.

* I then said that Chryse had hurled herself into the water, after her son.

* One player declared that his PC dove into the water to try and save her. This was a contest of Blood and Valour. I asked the other player if his hero was helping, or joining in the contest. He said that he was. He didn't want to act only on Blood and Valour, though (it's a weaker domain for him). So he spent a point of Pathos to introduce his Craft & Reason also. We talked about what this might mean in the fiction, and agreed that he ran down through the town and grabbed rope, so that he could anchor himself before he waded into the wild waters.

* The rolls were made. Both players failed. So when it came time to recite the deeds of their heroes, I asked them - as the rules dictated - to tell us why and how they had suffered. The player whose character had roped himself up before entering the water said My rope was too short to let me reach her. He thereby caused me and the other player to add that idea to our conception of the shared fiction - in my mind the bold hero who had dived off the cliff was struggling in the breakers while Chryse drowned, just out of reach of the more cunning hero who had sensibly roped himself but underestimated the length of cord he would need.

* I also cracked a roleplaying nerd style of joke - You grabbed 50 feet of rope when you needed 60! - and that caused the player of the cunning hero to laugh.​

Agon is written by John Harper, and so it is pretty clear in explaining whose job it is to say what when. One thing it doesn't say is that the GM is the only one who gets to establish the shared fiction. In the little episode of play I've just set out, here are (some of) the occasions on which the players exercised the sort of agency @chaochou is referring to:

* The players (with the player of the lead hero, naturally enough, taking the lead) established that successfully completing the sacrifice would placate Zeus;

* The player of the cunning hero established that he could get rope from the town - it already being established (by me) that it was a town of handicrafters and market stalls.

* That same player established that his rope was too short to let him reach the drowning Chryse.​

I don't know...what would you do in that situation? I skimmed the rules...it seems for any action the player declares where they might be uncertainty, the dm and player roll 2d6 and compare results.

<snip>

Anyway, I'll again mention that the above is not particular to "FKR" games. The question about whether players can contribute to the setting, for example, would extend to any trad or osr game

I read Dark Empires pdf:

The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players. The players use common sense and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions.

The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences.

If the outcome of the situation is unclear, is very risky or has a poor chance of success the player and gm both roll 2d6. If the player rolls higher than the gm they succeed! If the gm rolls higher, the player fails in some way or the action succeeds but at some cost.

The difference in the results indicates the degree of success or failure.​

This is not a complete specification of the action resolution procedure. It doesn't tell us who decides if the outcome is unclear, risky or has a poor chance of success. It doesn't tell us what success consists in (eg is it task success, intent success, or both; and does Let it Ride apply or not?). It doesn't tell us how consequences and/or costs are to be established.

If the answer to those questions is the GM decides whether a check is made, success is task success only, Let it Ride does not apply, and the GM may make up whatever consequences and/or costs they like, then we have a game of zero player agency (as @chaochou described)

That can be contrasted with my Agon play. The rules tell us when a check is to be made - ie when a conflict/context occurs - and that is not a sole decision for the GM. As soon as I go to narrate some action or event the players which were otherwise - like Chryse hurling herself into the water after her son - they are able to call for a contest. And once it is determined whether they prevail or suffer, they get to recite their deeds consistently with that mechanically-dictated result. In Agon, success goes to intent as well as task, and there is a clear statement that Let it Ride applies.

Or consider Classic Traveller - a much more "traditional: RPG from 1977. It specifies certain circumstances which trigger throws - eg certain manoeuvres in a vacc suit that require a throw to avoid a dangerous incident occurring, or certain encounters with officials that require a throw to avoid close inspection of documents, etc. These various subsystems reflect the various sorts of subject matters that matter to Traveller (so it has subsystems for officials and for fighting and for recruiting and for space travel; but not for composing music or doing academic research). So again, the rules tell us when a check is to be made - ie when the right sort of "trigger" occurs for one of these subsystems. And then the subsystems tell us whether things go well or badly for the PCs and most of the time they are framed either in terms of finality (so no "takebacks" by the GM manipulating offscreen fiction) or with express rules for retries. It's not as tight as Apocalypse World, but it's quite different from what is found in Dark Empires.

In most traditional RPGs, the players have control over their PC but not the world or NPCs. So a PC trying to do something or interact with an NPC needs the DM to adjudicate, whether that's a roll or rubber stamp.

This isn't accurate. It's not accurate of Classic Traveller. It's not accurate of Rolemaster - eg if a player decides that their PC casts a fireball spell then the GM doesn't have any sort of decision to make: the player makes the appropriate rolls, and whomever is in the AoE (as established by the shared fiction) suffers the appropriate concussion hits and crits.

If a PC talks to a NPC in RM, then there is action resolution via the Influence and Interaction table. The GM has to decide the difficulty of the check, by adjudicating the fiction. but doesn't get to unilaterally decide what follows from the attempt.

Even in Moldvay Basic, if a player declares (as their PC) I try to open the door and there is nothing in the GM's map or key to suggest it's an atypical door, then the player is entitled to make the appropriate check as modified by STR to see if the door opens. It's not the case that the GM gets to decide every consequence of every action declaration.

There have always been RPGs around, with associated techniques, that give the players more than zero agency in @chaochou's sense,

 

[Malmuria]

I don't GM RPGs so I can tell people a story (whether or not they trust that it will be interesting to them).

I don't play RPGs so I can be told a story by someone else.

I don't think those are character flaws on my part. They are part and parcel of my comportment towards playing a game with a shared fiction vs (say) reading a book or watching a film.

First I don't experience the type of games I sometimes play--OSR dnd type games--as being a "story told by someone else" or that I tell to someone else. Someone else might look at the gameplay loop of a dungeon crawl (for example) and find it lacking in player agency because the player can only announce their actions. To me, that's an over simplification to say the least; I suppose I can see how one formally arrives at that position, but in practice is not how I experience those sorts of games. Phrases like "high trust" might be unhelpful if they imply a character flaw. But I'm not claiming that, I'm not sure who is. It's pretty reasonable, when playing a game, that you want to turn to a neutral reference point, such as the rules, to facilitate your playing of the game. The reasonableness of that position is not in question for me. What's in question is how many of those reference points you can remove and still have a functional and enjoyable game.

When it comes to RPG, I try to avoid doing stupid or vicious things to the friends I'm playing with. But I do do reasonable things. Eg I try and make them imagine certain things, by speaking appropriate words. And I try to get them to agree on the content of a shared fiction, by putting certain ideas forward. Now they often have their own ideas about the shared fiction, and our ideas aren't always compatible.

One thing it doesn't say is that the GM is the only one who gets to establish the shared fiction. In the little episode of play I've just set out, here are (some of) the occasions on which the players exercised the sort of agency @chaochou is referring to:

That sounds great. I've purchased the Agon book, who knows when I'll get a chance to run it. I understand what you mean by certain games setting out paths for both players and gms to establish and shape the shared fiction. On the other hand, there are games that more or less put the establishment of the fiction in the hands of the dm, and the players play particular characters, usually just one at a time, in that fiction. I think it's an exaggeration to claim those games are "zero agency," because the players have control of their characters, and confusing because within that framework the term agency has a different and more specific connotation than "establishing the fiction" of the world. (btw if "low trust" is pejorative then so is "zero agency" imo)

This is not a complete specification of the action resolution procedure. It doesn't tell us who decides if the outcome is unclear, risky or has a poor chance of success. It doesn't tell us what success consists in (eg is it task success, intent success, or both; and does Let it Ride apply or not?). It doesn't tell us how consequences and/or costs are to be established.

If the answer to those questions is the GM decides whether a check is made, success is task success only, Let it Ride does not apply, and the GM may make up whatever consequences and/or costs they like, then we have a game of zero player agency (as @chaochou described)

It's a six page pdf; it doesn't tell us a lot of things! I suppose we can assume that all the questions you pose are necessary to playing the game, and then further assume that the answers to all the self-posed questions are as you describe, then characterize that situation as zero-agency when placed in comparison to an unrelated and completely different type of game like Agon.

This isn't accurate. It's not accurate of Classic Traveller. It's not accurate of Rolemaster - eg if a player decides that their PC casts a fireball spell then the GM doesn't have any sort of decision to make: the player makes the appropriate rolls, and whomever is in the AoE (as established by the shared fiction) suffers the appropriate concussion hits and crits.

If a PC talks to a NPC in RM, then there is action resolution via the Influence and Interaction table. The GM has to decide the difficulty of the check, by adjudicating the fiction. but doesn't get to unilaterally decide what follows from the attempt.

Even in Moldvay Basic, if a player declares (as their PC) I try to open the door and there is nothing in the GM's map or key to suggest it's an atypical door, then the player is entitled to make the appropriate check as modified by STR to see if the door opens. It's not the case that the GM gets to decide every consequence of every action declaration.

There have always been RPGs around, with associated techniques, that give the players more than zero agency in @chaochou's sense,

This is quite debatable. Remember the game loop in question is
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.

That's the loop that supposedly results in zero agency. It supposedly results in zero agency, because the player can describe what they want their characters to do, but have no authority to determine how the world reacts. The reference to a rulebook, when it comes to determining how much damage a fireball does or what roll to make when opening a stuck door, is what the DM does to help "narrate the result of their [the PCs] actions." The player is not entitled to look at a dms notes. The HP and AC of a given monster are a suggestion that a DM can adjust. etc. I would agree, however, that best practice is to stick to the rulebook unless you have a good, ideally previously-thought-out and written-down reason to diverge from it, because if your world and rulings are not consistent your players will start to lose trust in it and in you, and trust is very important for that kind of game.

 

[S'mon]

This thread has been prompted by some of the recent discussions of the topics mentioned in the thread title.

System matters
To the best of my knowledge, Ron Edwards is the person who coined this slogan.

When Edwards and those influenced by him (eg Vincent Baker) talk about system they're not focusing on things like whether turning undead uses 2d6 (Moldvay Basic) or 1d20 (AD&D). Of course those sorts of rule minutiae are not irrelevant - not only does the use of dice affect the experience of play, it affects the maths (eg a +1 amulet of turning behaves differently on a 2d6 spread compared to the linear 1d20). But the core of system is something else.

The core of system is what the shared fiction consists in and how that shared fiction is established. In this post, I'm not even going to try and point to all the considerations that can go into this. But some of them are:

* What sorts of elements make up the player-character? For instance, does the PC include relationships with others as part of the build?​

​

* How do those elements affect action resolution? For instance, if a PC is acting to protect someone with whom they have a relationship, does that feed into the resolution process?​

​

* Which participant establishes the situations that confront the PCs? For instance, does the system use "kickers" (player-authored starting situations)?​

​

* What principles govern the establishment of situations? For instance, if a GM has the authority to establish situation, do they have to have regard to any elements of PC build in doing so? If situation is related to pre-authored backstory, how is this relationship mediated (eg via a map and a key)?​

​

* What authority does the GM have to determine that a PC fails in a declared action? For instance, is the GM entitled to declare failure (or say "no") by reference to pre-authored and as-yet unrevealed fiction?​

Different ways of answering these questions produce pretty different RPGing experiences. Those differences go not only to the content of the shared fiction (including outcomes of action declarations), but also - and at least as importantly - the process and experience of establishing the shared fiction. It's not clear what an argument to the contrary would even look like.

Free kriegsspiel
My understanding of free kriegsspiel is that it is a process of adjudicating much if not all of the action declarations in a wargame: instead of using formal charts and tables, the umpire decides what happens based on extrapolation from the imagined situation. The basis for that extrapolation is the umpire's own experience and familiarity with military manoeuvres, terrain, and/or warfare. In free kriegsspiel the umpire does not declare actions.

Historically, there are well-known connections between free kriegsspiel-type wargaming and (proto-)RPGing. Arneson and Wesely are prominent figures in this respect. But rather than looking at the relationship historically, we can look at it in "logical" terms, ie what sort of system is free kriegsspiel?

I'm not going to try and answer that question fully in this post. But here are some features of free kriegsspiel as a system:

* The umpire does not have an interest in the outcome of action declarations; their interest is in the "truth" of the situation;​

​

* Following from the above, the umpire is not advocating for the opposition - the adversity posed by the opposition has already been established, and is simply part of the circumstances that the umpire is adjudicating;​

​

* The umpire is able to understand and interpret the connection between the player's "gamepiece" and the declared action just as well as the player is;​

​

* Once the action is declared, the player has no more control over how it unfolds or resolves - it is "out there" in the world of the fiction, for the umpire to adjudicated.​

It's obvious that a RPG that exhibits these features is going to be pretty distinctive, relative to the overall known variety of RPGs. The first point, about the neutrality of the umpire, excludes approaches to GMing that deliberately lean into particular thematic or emotional elements of the fiction. The second point, about the "fixedness" of the opposition, excludes many approaches to RPGing which assume a degree of dynamic improvisation of adversity. The third and fourth points are at odds with a whole lot of approaches to "augments", "fate points", etc - especially those which flow from a player's ability to activate idiosyncratic or "subjective" aspects of their PC build, like relationships or emotional commitments, as a contribution to the success of a declared action.

Some obvious limits of free kriegsspiel
Free kriegsspiel is intended as a system of adjudication of tactical decisions made in a domain in which the adjudicator has expertise and the context of resolution is already established.

In the context of a RPG, there are some obvious contexts in which it is not going to be very applicable:

* If the context of resolution is not already established - eg it is very complex or dynamic in ways that would matter to resolution;​

​

* If the adjudicator is not especially familiar with the context of resolution (and doubly so if the players are more expert than the adjudicator);​

​

* If the parameters that need to be adjudicated are not really tactical, but involve a high degree of evaluative or aesthetic or emotional interpretation.​

These contexts would include a wide variety of urban and social situations.

Many RPGers advocate GM decides as an approach to such situations. It's worth noting that, whatever one thinks of that sort of approach, it's not free kriegsspiel. It's much closer to GM as storyteller.

To me, two important elements of Free Kriegsspiel are:

1. Probability and the RNG. It's not usually 'GM decides', it's usually 'GM declares a probability, then rolls the die' (probably a d6).

2. FK originated as a training aid. It's very important that the GM can explain why they decided as they did. It's absolutely not a black box. When I'm GMing FK style, I'm aiming for complete transparency.

The FK GM definitely does need to know at least as much as the players, or it doesn't work.

I tend to use elements of FK adjudication within mechanically crunchy games. Eg I use a d8 based 'system' for daily weather (lower = colder/stormier, higher = warmer/brighter) that is basically FK adjudication based on the time of year, terrain, and current/previous weather. I often use a d6 based 'system' for off-screen adjudication of battle results, based on lower = worse (for PCs), higher = better. Better =/= Victory, the TPK at Thermopylae would probably be a '5' for the Spartans.

 

[S'mon]

Re player-GM arguments. A good FK GM certainly does not claim omniscience. A good General knows that war is always uncertain. That's why you set a probability, explain what you are rolling for, then roll.

Conversely, a good FK player plays the world, not the man. You don't argue with the GM "I can walk 18km in 3 hours in mud, so my men should be able to" - you say "OK, given the muddy conditions, I dispatch my fast Rangers as an advance guard to reach the forward position before the enemy gets there, and hold it until the main body arrives" - then the GM considers, and rolls for success.

Edit: There was a show on British TV a decade or so ago where three real British Army generals played FK. I recall they did the Battle of Waterloo. The General playing Napoleon used Grant/Zhukov 'hammer blow' tactics, immediately throwing in the Imperial Guard at the Allied centre, and smashed 'Wellington'. The Wellington player's last line was:

"Oh well. It's up to Blucher now!"