System matters and free kriegsspiel

[pemerton]

I'm also wondering about the realities of "trust (high especially)" undergirding this whole thing.

<snip>

Here is what I think the word "trust (high in particular" might be doing in an FKR sense:

"High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>."

<snip>

"high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <for reasons x and/or y>?" That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the "acquiescence to GM" component of the Venn Diagram).

This seems right to me.

It's also consistent with what the OP of this thread posted. In the OP, and then about two-thirds of the way down the first page, we get:

I am not now, nor have I ever been, part of the "Old School Renaissance." This is because I've simply never stopped playing the game the way I always have. No rebirth involved.

However, one of the bases of Braunstein, then Blackmoor, then Greyhawk, was the concept of "Free Kriegspiel," where the referee's judgement is the supreme authority, not a set of written rules.

This fine tradition has all but died out. It needs desperately to be brought back.

Therefore I hereby announce the launch of the "Free Kriegspiel Renaissance," or FKR.

. . .

I'm working on "The FKRs Manifesto," and eventually I'll link to it.

To answer your question briefly, though, I think the most important principle is this:

ALL AUTHORITY LIES STRICTLY WITH THE REFEREE.

Most especially, text has no authority! So it's not a matter of "I'm the referee, I am overriding this rule;" it's a matter of "I am the referee, I say that the rule is X in this case." It's not "Rulings not rules;" it's "Rulings ARE rules."

It also means that "The rules don't cover that" is a complete and total non sequitur; the referee's judgement IS the rules. If the referee says "we are going to resolve this combat using the OD&D alternate combat system," that's the rule; if the referee says "You find Evil the Bad Guy all tied up and you hit him in the face with an axe. He's dead, no matter what level he is" ... then THAT is the rule.

You don't NEED special case rules, because "referee's judgement" is ALWAYS the rule.​

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That is a mouthful yes. But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play. All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes). Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games.

…..Whereas 3e (PF as well) and 5e may have less trust.

Or the idea that trust is engendered by player-facing rules.

And that‘s generally the people that you’re talking to when you’re trying to explain a rules-lite game.

 

[pemerton]

No. My point is that we are 300 posts deep, and just now you’ve started googling about it?

Well, you could ask rather than assume or assert.

I've Googled FKR. I haven't read everything that turns up, because I have temporal finitude. Today I Googled because I was looking for the messageboard post that I've just linked to upthread; and in the course of so-doing found the Reddit thread.

Btw, how's your play of Cthulhu Dark going?

 

[Manbearcat]

One other thing. As I wrote above, I think the concept of "High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>" is better handled on the player's side as a Best Practice. Its not a GMing principle. Things like the below:

BRING ONLY THE ENERGY YOU HAVE TONIGHT - You don't need to feel pressured to bring it this night or any other night. Bring only what you can bring tonight. The game can withstand you being low energy because the GM can pick up the slack.

THE GM KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING - You've played with them. You know. If, instead, this is your first time at <FKR Game Name Here> Club, you have to fight...errr respect the process. This isn't a marriage. There's no ring on any fingers. If it sucks, you move on.

WHEN ASKED, HELP KEEP THE PACING AND FLOW ALL SYSTEMS GO - We're all working together here. The GM may need some help on an area of expertise that you possess which they do not. But don't offer unsolicited. If they ask, be willing to step up and help to resolve the situation satisfactorily so play can keep moving at a brisk pace.


Those look like 3 * Player Best Practices for FKR players that does a lot better (more clear and more robust) work than "this is a high trust game."

@Snarf Zagyg , we cross-posted. What do you think of those 3 * Player Best Practices instead of "high trust game?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Btw, how's your play of Cthulhu Dark going?

Not currently playing it- but I did several one-shots which led me down my current rabbit hole of rules-lite!

You may never get me to play Prince Valiant, but I do believe that Dying Earth and Dark were both mentioned by you first.

Next on my list is Messerspiel- that’s the FKR adaption of BITD.

 

[pemerton]

On the topic of trusting the GM, this is from DitV (p 89), under the heading Ambush:

What’s at stake: do you get murdered in your bed?

— The stage: your room at night. A possessed sinner creeps into your room without waking you.

— You roll only Acuity, because you’re asleep. I roll Body + Will.

— My first Raise will be to hit you in the head with my axe. I get my axe dice too! I’m rolling a lot more dice than you, so probably you have to Take the Blow. But check it out — that means you take Fallout and get to say how, it doesn’t mean you’re dead. You aren’t dead unless the whole conflict goes my way.

— So let’s say that you take the blow: “I hear him coming even in my sleep, but he gashes me bad...” Then it’s your Raise, and you can escalate: “...I come awake already in motion, with blood in my eyes and my knife in my hand!” Away we go!

I should tell you, in an early playtest I startled one of my players bad with this very conflict. In most roleplaying games, saying “an enemy sneaks into your room in the middle of the night and hits you in the head with an axe” is cheating. I’ve hosed the character and the player with no warning and no way out. Not in Dogs, though: the resolution rules are built to handle it. I don’t have to pull my punches!

(You’ve GMed a bunch of RPGs before, right? Think about what I just said for a minute. You know how you usually pull your punches?)​

I think this is relevant to thinking about how different allocations of authority over the fiction, and different processes for working out what happens next, produce different RPG experiences.

 

[pemerton]

You may never get me to play Prince Valiant, but I do believe that Dying Earth and Dark were both mentioned by you first.

The Dying Earth is definitely not rule lite.

Prince Valiant is, but not as lite as Cthulhu Dark. So is Maelstrom Storytelling - it's a little bit like a lite version of HeroWars/Quest. It can be downloaded from DriveThru for free as StoryBones.

The other good lite game I know is Wuthering Heights.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The Dying Earth is definitely not rule lite.

Prince Valiant is, but not as lite as Cthulhu Dark. So is Maelstrom Storytelling - it's a little bit like a lite version of HeroWars/Quest. It can be downloaded from DriveThru for free as StoryBones.

The other good lite game I know is Wuthering Heights.

Oh no, Dying Earth isn’ rules lite!! But I picked it up after you mentioned it one time. Totally worth it.

I‘m not familiar with Maelstrom Storytellinag or Wuthering Heights- I’ll check them out when I have the time.

 

[pemerton]

I‘m not familiar with Maelstrom Storytellinag or Wuthering Heights- I’ll check them out when I have the time.

Wuthering Heights can be found in two English versions and a French version (the original).

 

[Aldarc]

I found this on reddit. (My copy-and-paste has killed the links in the original.)

I'm aware that this has been posted already, but if I may hack your post up a bit:

1.) FKR tends to be very minimalistic, rules wise, although it usually isn't completely freeform. Opposed 2d6 rolls are common, although other dice conventions can be used as needed. A common trend seems to be starting out very bare-bones and then adding in rules as the campaign continues, based on what it needs. These mini-systems are frequently tweaked, replaced, or thrown out as the campaign evolves. The rules are the servant, not the master of the game. FKR uses table-centric design.​

I will admit that I am skeptical with the claim that "FKR uses table-centric design" when it also claims "FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks," especially when in conjunction with the holistic perspective of the GM or players' role in the game. As such, "FKR uses table-centric design" may as well mean that it uses "GM-centric design." They may as well call FKR "the ultimate expression of the Cult of Rule 0 design."

Plus what is really meant by "The rules are the servant, not the master of the game"? From what I can tell, the players are switching one master for another: i.e., the rules for the GM.

An Autocrat is more efficient at governing than a Republic or a Democracy. The laws are kept minimal and are entirely invisible. The citizens should not need to know the laws to immerse themselves in their daily living. The citizens should trust their Autocratic leader to make consistent rulings. It's a high trust system of governance.

This is not to cast aspersions on the DIY attitude of the hobby. I think that DIY is great. But I also don't think that this DIY or "high trust" attitude is somehow fundamentally at odds with the rest of the hobby that FKR seemingly frames as antithetical to its own perspective.

2.) FKR strips out most of the rules in order to increase realism. FKR places a high priority on immersion and realism by giving the DM a lot of authority over the rules. They can decide what to roll, when to roll, the range of possible outcomes, etc. The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster.​

This may be my least favorite point from FKR. It builds one massive uncritical assumption on another.

It's the causal assumption regarding (1) the interaction between realism and rules, (2) that realism should be the "ultimate good" of roleplaying, and (3) giving the DM a lot of authority as the rules is the best way to achieve that. This is again not to mention the final assumption that "a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset" or the implication that faster is better.

This says nothing necessarily about the extent that I agree with these assertions. But I think, much as @Campbell said earlier, that this tends to snub a lot of roleplaying games and not just the indie ones.

Edit: I am curious whether there are two principles that are potentially at odds in this as well: the goal to "increase realism" with "play worlds not rules." Realism and world/genre simulation are not necessarily equivalent. How does one "increase realism" if one were playing the world of Marvel Superheroes?

3.) FKR has less rules to let players do more.​

This assumption of causality is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for the FKR movement. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it. Again, especially since often so much of it fundamentally rests on "GM decides." Looking through subreddit threads on FKR shows that we're not the only people who are picking up on this issue or the whole "high trust" framing of FKR.

To be clear, I don't think that less rules or more rules necessarily says anything about how much players can do. That seems like a somewhat shallow understanding of rules. It says nothing about the content of the rules, what the rules that are present achieve, or how they go about doing that.

I generally think the amount of rules needed for a game depends on the game.

5.) FKR is a High-Trust play style. It's only going to work if you trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings.​

Does the knowledge or fairness of players not count for anything? Are they incapable of applying clear, consistent rulings?

6.) Boardgames (and some very crunchy RPGs) derive their fun from manipulating abstract rules to your advantage. FKR derives its fun from manipulating an imaginary (but logically consistent) world to your advantage. It plays worlds, not rules. It emphasizes the joy of tactical infinity. You don't use mechanics to solve problems, you use real, open-ended problem solving skills to solve problems.​

The issue of framing this in terms of fun and "play worlds, not rules" has been talked about enough by others, IMHO. Or even the veiled condescension that frames very crunch RPGs like boardgames with the implication that players of these TTRPGs are rollplaying rules and not roleplaying worlds.

I'm also skeptical of the claims of "tactical infinity" depending on the nature of the dice resolution system and the fact that so much of this rests on the whims of the GM, particularly when in conjunction with the underlying play principle that the minimalist design is being done to "increase realism." So the "tactical infinity" seems bound to the GM's idiomatic sense of reality.