System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

It's interesting how this language of government vs individuality keeps finding its way into our discussions of RPGing: authoritarianism, autocracy, democracy, agency, entitlement, etc.(And not just in your post: just upthread in @chaochou's; and many many other posts and threads over the years.) One the one hand, I think there is a big difference between the two contexts; on the other hand, in RPGing we are talking about a (small) group of people trying to create and achieve something collectively, and so I guess this convergence of words and ideas is no surprise. And it marks a difference from, eg, boardgames, which involve collective activity but not that element of collectively agreeing on something to be created (ie the shared fiction). Once we decide which boardgame to play, we're back in a realm of individual decision-making in accordance with the agreed framework - or if some move in the game requires a vote or a consensus, then we would expect the game rules to specify a procedure. Whereas in RPGing the need to establish and maintain and develop the shared conception of the fiction is there at every moment. (Cue pointing to Vincent Baker on RPGing as negotiated imagination.)

I will send my own thoughts about this more directly to you in a PM. I'm a bit worried that a further thought I have is likely too political. But on your other point below...

Having got that of my chest: that language of rules as "servant, not master" has been around for a long time, and my impression of it is as a reaction to 3E D&D. (I don't ever recall seeing it said about RQ or RM, for instance.) It seems in particular to be a reaction to the fact that, in 3E D&D, fictional positioning frequently plays little or even no role in action resolution, at least once the most basic of framing has taken place, be that overt framing - You meet an angry Orc; cue Diplomancy - or covert framing - The GM's secret notes record the presence of a trap in the place they've just described; the players declare they check for a trap; cue find trap check followed by a check to disable it.

IMHO, it's a striking use of language in how this FKR post frames rules in terms of 'servant' or 'master.' Compare, for example, this servant/master language with the language that Fate uses to describe its Silver Rule:

The Silver Rule​

The corollary to the Golden Rule is as follows: Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense. If you or the players narrate something in the game and it makes sense to apply a certain rule outside of the normal circumstances where you would do so, go ahead and do it.

The most common example of this has to do with consequences. The rules say that by default, a consequence is something a player chooses to take after getting hit by an attack in a conflict.

But say you’re in a scene where a player decides that, as part of trying to intimidate his way past someone, his PC is going to punch through a glass-top table with a bare fist.

Everyone likes the idea and thinks it’s cool, so no one’s interested in what happens if the PC fails the roll. However, everyone agrees that it also makes sense that the PC would injure his hand in the process (which is part of what makes it intimidating).

It’s totally fine to assign a mild consequence of Glass in My Hand in that case, because it fits with the narration, even though there’s no conflict and nothing technically attacked the PC.

As with the Golden Rule, make sure everyone’s on the same page before you do stuff like this.

Where is the GM in this process? Notice how much of this entails player consent and agreement without any sort of the harsh master/slave framed language. The rules are not villainized as adversarial to the game or depicted as some sort of tyrant. It's primarily framed in terms of basic fiction-first principles.

The unexpressed premise of much of the FKR advocacy I've read appears to be that the only way to recover fictional positioning is to hand most or all resolution authority to the GM. If that premise was revised to one way rather than the only way, then I think the rest of it might make a bit more sense.

I would likely find FKR more compelling if it was a bit more transparent about its assumptions, approaches, and ends. But as you say, a lot of how FKR is framed seems to be about giving the GM more authority.

I find the "worlds not rules" a bit frustrating in the way that it seems to toggle between "genre" and "realism" depending on the current focus of discussion. I think both create easily identifiable risks to "trust": with genre, it's often not clear what the apt outcome is - eg Greg Stafford tells us that character death is typically not important in Prince Valiant play, but he also says that a fall from the highest towers of Camelot will kill anyone. He further treats that outcome as a matter of GM fiat - in Prince Valiant all injury, recovery and death is a matter of GM decision-making, which I guess makes me an ur-FKR!. But his rulebook is full of advice (some better than others) on how to manage conflicts of expectation between players and GM. It does not have the same stridency as the FKR material seems to.

I suspect that the FKR movement may regard the toggling of "realism" and "genre" as a feature and not a flaw.

I suppose my issue is that it would be more difficult for me to "play the world" as a player if I didn't know which aesthetic the GM would prioritize simulating in a given moment: realism or genre. This would be a case where I normally would consult the rules of the game to temper my expectations about the game's tone or sense of aesthetics.

Yes on both points. As I said above, I think the FKR critique of rules appears to be directed at one particular ruleset, namely, 3E D&D. There are criticism to be made of (eg) Rolemaster's rules, but a lack of tactical infinity is not one of them. And my question upthread about how to adjudicate a prayer for divine intervention was intended to illustrate that realism (as mediated through the GM's sense of it) does not necessarily provide easy answers to all adjudication questions.

I'm not sure if it's just 3e D&D. I suspect, much like with the OSR community, it's somewhat directed at the shift in approaches and philosophy that is generally marked by WotC-Era D&D. Also, @Campbell, noted how a lot of the criticisms and assumptions of FKR kind of threw the vast bulk of TTRPGs, mainstream and indie games alike, under the bus.

At this point in the thread, I can't remember everything that has been already discussed. But is there a reason why people in the OSR community are finding OSR dissatisfying in a way that FKR is appealing? What was lacking about OSR? Or is this like a subset of the OSR community trying to out-OSR OSR by trying to go back to the genesis of TTRPGs as inspiration?

 

[aramis erak]

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.

From many of the proponents, it sure comes across that way.
The reality is that the proponents posting most obviously are typically going to be at the extremes

The Referee in FKR games has the same instructions.

That neutrality is in the instructions is irrelevant to the question of agency and autonomy.

A biased as hell confrontational GM who methodologically always produces "balanced encounters" and follows the procedures of the game presents a strong amount of player agency, since they can know the odds, and can make informed decisions.

A totally neutral GM who is capricious with results prevents agency every bit as much as the Rules Lawyer GM enables it; the capricious GM, making neutral but unpredictable decisions means no choice of action is an informed one.

A totally neutral GM who follows a routine protocol for resolution is the best case for agency: the action will be reacted to by procedure, and players will learn the procedure over time, growing allowed autonomy into true collaborative agency

What you describe here is not true even of all versions of D&D. A GM in 4e D&D has no general power to declare genre-credible actions automatic failures. A GM in Moldvay Basic has no power to declare an attempt to open an ordinary door an automatic failure.

And it's certainly not true of every RPG!

It's becoming less and less common to have rule 0 be GM authority to change anything...]
In some, the authority shifts to the group as a whole.
In others, the rule 0 is "Don't be a dick" or equivalent.
A few are written from a "the rules are the rules, and if you're not following them, you're playing somethign other than (name of game)"

What a weird thread.

Yup.

Sounds like you’re depicting “Illusionism Infinity (and beyond!)” rather than “Tactical Infinity!”

FKR is, as far as I can tell, the illusion of rules.
Several of the discussions linked to by @pemerton are ones I've been involved in. They're not a cogent presentation any... and in fact are different aspects of FKR proponents.

Jim Parson on RPGG is one such - he's a a rules-super-light, roll-seldom, encourage player contribution type. He's one corner of the FKR plateau. (He recently mentioned that he uses D&D magic because it's easier than freeforming it.)
One of the guys on odd74.proboards.com is of the "rules are a framework for when the GM doesn't have a ready decision" type, and a different person advocates similar on RPGG.
There are those using rules more consistently such as dropping everything in D&D 5E except the basic rolling mechanic and character generation (including ignoring the mechanical class abilities)
There are guys who go roll-heavy, almost never using "yes", and GM ultra-authority mode.
There are guys doing roll-heavy, rules light, high player narrative authority play. (Mario Silva on RPGG, for example.)

Watching Mario and Jim go round each other is amusing to me in an academic sense. And while I do respect both, I'd never want to play under either of them; I'm not capable of the trust needed for Jim's table, and have a hard enough time understanding Mario when I've time to parse and reparse his text.... Because I see rules as a social contract.

THe play cycle is more nuanced than the 3-line version which has been a macguffin in the discussion above...
The play cycle I've seen advocated hasn't been cogently presented, but I'll try to present it:

1. GM describes situation
2. Player decides to and describes action prior to success.
3. GM makes decision on saying yes.
   1. if GM does not say yes, GM decides which rule to use, if any
   2. If the rule doesn't prescribe a roll, or no rule is appropriate, the GM invents one.
4. The GM narrates the conclusion of the action, and results.
5. Return to 1

The successful GMs posting about such style play all seem to require a trust-heavy environment. Jim himself notes that he runs a high trust table - and that trust is two way - he has to trust his players to stay in genre and setting, and they have to trust him to not be a jerk and to be fair and consistent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

From many of the proponents, it sure comes across that way.
The reality is that the proponents posting most obviously are typically going to be at the extremes

That neutrality is in the instructions is irrelevant to the question of agency and autonomy.

A biased as hell confrontational GM who methodologically always produces "balanced encounters" and follows the procedures of the game presents a strong amount of player agency, since they can know the odds, and can make informed decisions.

A totally neutral GM who is capricious with results prevents agency every bit as much as the Rules Lawyer GM enables it; the capricious GM, making neutral but unpredictable decisions means no choice of action is an informed one.

A totally neutral GM who follows a routine protocol for resolution is the best case for agency: the action will be reacted to by procedure, and players will learn the procedure over time, growing allowed autonomy into true collaborative agency

It's becoming less and less common to have rule 0 be GM authority to change anything...]
In some, the authority shifts to the group as a whole.
In others, the rule 0 is "Don't be a dick" or equivalent.
A few are written from a "the rules are the rules, and if you're not following them, you're playing somethign other than (name of game)"

Yup.

FKR is, as far as I can tell, the illusion of rules.
Several of the discussions linked to by @pemerton are ones I've been involved in. They're not a cogent presentation any... and in fact are different aspects of FKR proponents.

Jim Parson on RPGG is one such - he's a a rules-super-light, roll-seldom, encourage player contribution type. He's one corner of the FKR plateau. (He recently mentioned that he uses D&D magic because it's easier than freeforming it.)
One of the guys on odd74.proboards.com is of the "rules are a framework for when the GM doesn't have a ready decision" type, and a different person advocates similar on RPGG.
There are those using rules more consistently such as dropping everything in D&D 5E except the basic rolling mechanic and character generation (including ignoring the mechanical class abilities)
There are guys who go roll-heavy, almost never using "yes", and GM ultra-authority mode.
There are guys doing roll-heavy, rules light, high player narrative authority play. (Mario Silva on RPGG, for example.)

Watching Mario and Jim go round each other is amusing to me in an academic sense. And while I do respect both, I'd never want to play under either of them; I'm not capable of the trust needed for Jim's table, and have a hard enough time understanding Mario when I've time to parse and reparse his text.... Because I see rules as a social contract.

THe play cycle is more nuanced than the 3-line version which has been a macguffin in the discussion above...
The play cycle I've seen advocated hasn't been cogently presented, but I'll try to present it:

1. GM describes situation
2. Player decides to and describes action prior to success.
3. GM makes decision on saying yes.
   1. if GM does not say yes, GM decides which rule to use, if any
   2. If the rule doesn't prescribe a roll, or no rule is appropriate, the GM invents one.
4. The GM narrates the conclusion of the action, and results.
5. Return to 1

The successful GMs posting about such style play all seem to require a trust-heavy environment. Jim himself notes that he runs a high trust table - and that trust is two way - he has to trust his players to stay in genre and setting, and they have to trust him to not be a jerk and to be fair and consistent.

3 just sums up to "the GM decides" which can be rolled into 4 "the GM decides and narrates the outcome" which gets right back to the playloop being challenged here.

In other words, there's nothing in 3 that establishes anything other than "GM says" play. It's borrowing "say yes" from "say yes or roll the dice" but it doesn't requite "say yes" as a default position, rather just as words because 3.1 and 3.2 both work against say yes and just let the GM say no. It's "say yes, or say no, or say roll something but I'll pick what and than say yes or no -- your roll may or may not matter."

 

[Campbell]

Side note - This is not criticism leveled against any one argument. It's just something that keeps coming up that drives me a little crazy.

One of the things I personally have an immense amount of trouble understanding is the constant insistence of experienced practitioners of highly technical skills to act as if the endeavors they undertake are natural or instinctual. That obviously we do not need a mental framework to do these complex tasks we have been doing for 10,000+ hours. It's totally not that we have internalized a highly technical process so deeply we barely realize we are doing it. You see the same thing in strength sports where people will insist that highly technical movements like the barbell back squat, dead lift, bench press, and overhead press are simple to perform. They are simple to perform for those practitioners because they have done so 1000s of times. Same goes for any form of running a roleplaying game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Side note - This is not criticism leveled against any one argument. It's just something that keeps coming up that drives me a little crazy.

One of the things I personally have an immense amount of trouble understanding is the constant insistence of experienced practitioners of highly technical skills to act as if the endeavors they undertake are natural or instinctual. That obviously we do not need a mental framework to do these complex tasks we have been doing for 10,000+ hours. It's totally not that we have internalized a highly technical process so deeply we barely realize we are doing it. You see the same thing in strength sports where people will insist that highly technical movements like the barbell back squat, dead lift, bench press, and overhead press are simple to perform. They are simple to perform for those practitioners because they have done so 1000s of times. Same goes for any form of running a roleplaying game.

As a corollary, people with lots of experience in a thing generally tend to have trouble with anything that diverges from their experience, especially if it's a valid alternative. I see this all the time with my fellow engineers, and also all over ENW. The statements are usually "I've been doing this for X years and you can't tell me I don't know how it works!"

 

[S'mon]

FKR is, as far as I can tell, the illusion of rules.

They pretend there are rules?

Free Kriegsspiel does not pretend there are rules, only some aids to GM adjudication.

In the original Prussian Free Kriegsspiel, and many others, the GM is bound to apply the 'rules' of the real world, as he understands them. In a fantasy setting it's the 'rules' (physics) of the fantasy world, which likely include genre conventions, a particular magic level/power, etc. Of course if the players don't agree on those conventions there will be problems. I think FK is therefore best suited to real world, realistic, and hard SF type settings. I can see Game of Thrones working well in FK. Remembering always that the default FK resolution mechanic is NOT "GM decides", it is "GM declares probability, then rolls". If the FKR advocates don't do that, then it becomes something like the "Mother May I" bete noire so often invoked on RPGnet.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They pretend there are rules?

Free Kriegsspiel does not pretend there are rules, only some aids to GM adjudication.

In the original Prussian Free Kriegsspiel, and many others, the GM is bound to apply the 'rules' of the real world, as he understands them. In a fantasy setting it's the 'rules' (physics) of the fantasy world, which likely include genre conventions, a particular magic level/power, etc. Of course if the players don't agree on those conventions there will be problems. I think FK is therefore best suited to real world, realistic, and hard SF type settings. I can see Game of Thrones working well in FK. Remembering always that the default FK resolution mechanic is NOT "GM decides", it is "GM declares probability, then rolls". If the FKR advocates don't do that, then it becomes something like the "Mother May I" bete noire so often invoked on RPGnet.

I haven't seen this asserted -- that in any situation the GM declares a probability and then assigns a roll. This seems to skip the bit where the GM can assign 100 and 0 as probabilities. Or that after the roll the GM is still free to interpret the result. Or that there's no hard direction to "let it ride" or that a success should not be countered unless the player stakes it.

As an aside, hard SF seems a terrible place for FKR, because most people aren't highly literate in how things work. So, if you have a player that's done something as silly as play Kerbil Space Program and a GM that's operating on the ideas of space flight in movies and most literature, you're going to rapidly create issues with understanding. Or even comms gear. I'm an engineer that does RF stuff and I have to turn that off almost every time there's anything to do with radios or comm gear in movies and just go with "this is magic."

 

[S'mon]

(2) I haven't seen this asserted -- that in any situation the GM declares a probability and then assigns a roll. This seems to skip the bit where the GM can assign 100 and 0 as probabilities. (3) Or that after the roll the GM is still free to interpret the result. (1) Or that there's no hard direction to "let it ride" or that a success should not be countered unless the player stakes it.

1. Your last sentence certainly would make no sense in FK.

2. The GM can assign 0 and 100 as probabilities, but he needs to be able to explain why (post-game, if it's a secret in-game, but normally done right away). "OK you send your infantry forward against the machine gun emplacements. They have overlapping fields of fire, artillery support, and barbed wire... your attack fails". But even then I find it's best practice to set a range of failure, eg "Most of your force is cut down in the open or stalls, seeking cover in the shell craters, but on a 6 some of your men do penetrate the enemy dugouts... roll". The FK GM needs to imaginatively consider the range of possible outcomes. It is (very) bad FK practice to decide on just one 'likely' outcome and declare that the result.

3. The GM should not be interpreting the result post-roll. The FK GM has to set the stakes first, then roll.

If your description is accurate, it sounds like these people may be doing it wrong. :-O

 

[Ovinomancer]

1. Your last sentence certainly would make no sense in FK.

2. The GM can assign 0 and 100 as probabilities, but he needs to be able to explain why (post-game, if it's a secret in-game, but normally done right away). "OK you send your infantry forward against the machine gun emplacements. They have overlapping fields of fire, artillery support, and barbed wire... your attack fails". But even then I find it's best practice to set a range of failure, eg "Most of your force is cut down in the open or stalls, seeking cover in the shell craters, but on a 6 some of your men do penetrate the enemy dugouts... roll". The FK GM needs to imaginatively consider the range of possible outcomes. It is (very) bad FK practice to decide on just one 'likely' outcome and declare that the result.

3. The GM should not be interpreting the result post-roll. The FK GM has to set the stakes first, then roll.

If your description is accurate, it sounds like these people may be doing it wrong. :-O

Sorry, was there a shift to Free Kriegsspiel as practiced by the Prussian Army and not anything to do with the FKR movement in RPGs? Because your response here seems to call back to that rather than addressing how FKR is presenting gameplay.

In FKR, 1 is most certainly sensical. There's already quite a lot of walking back or soft peddling success in RPGs, and nothing I've seen in FKR strongly decries this like some other games do. For instance, I read Dark Empires and I get no sense on this matter whatsoever. Perhaps this is because it's incomplete. As for the rest, the drive to "realism" is usually paired with soft-reversals of successes in the name of "how it should be."

As for 2, I see nothing in FKR that requires a GM to conduct a post-mortem where they need reveal reasonings. In fact, the references and posts about "invisible rulebooks" directly cuts against this. The same goes for 3 -- there's nothing to indicate this as even prevalent, and posts have been made that undercut it -- again, 'invisible rulebooks" does work here.

So, for "doing it wrong," I don't even seen a coherent set of principles within the movement (as judged by linked blogs and posts here) that establish how to do it right! We've had, just as 1 example, some claiming that decisions should be reached by table consensus with the GM as tiebreaker competing directly against the idea that the single authority to decide vested in the GM creates faster and better play. It would appear that it's you that has to do some more work to show the 'right way' rather than claim others are doing it 'wrong.'

 

[S'mon]

Sorry, was there a shift to Free Kriegsspiel as practiced by the Prussian Army and not anything to do with the FKR movement in RPGs? Because your response here seems to call back to that rather than addressing how FKR is presenting gameplay.

I'm trying to understand this FKR movement you are talking about, in the context of actual FK I have seen played, and actual FK techniques I use. If FKR is just borrowing the term Free Kriegsspiel (for prestige value?) but actually doing something different (eg "Mother May I"?) that has nothing to do with FK, that seems a fact worth knowing.

Can anyone else with experience/knowledge of the FKR movement chip in on whether Ovinomancer's impression of FKR is accurate?