System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

@Aldarc Fair criticism. I understand your points. I just happened to read about FKR when I was already going in that direction in my personal cycle of development as a Gm, looking on the net for ideas to support that. So I'm just sharing my point of view.

I think that you've been a good sport throughout this conversation.

Again, part of my issue with FKR has to do with the loaded language and presentation of its ideas. And when overgeeked talks about FKR reacting against massively over-complicated rule systems, it makes me scratch my head. That idea becomes even more perplexing when some of this FKR movement is coming out of the OSR movement, where one wouldn't expect to find such systems in the first place. In the wider context of game design in the hobby, FKR feels like it's presenting itself as the solution to a problem that it has invented about the hobby. Some people on Twitter and Reddit almost talk about it as a miracle cure for a mystery ailment that it informs me that I have. Or like an infomercial trying to sell me a novelty product based on a grossly exaggerated hypothetical problem as seen enacted by its actors with day-ruining levels of frustration. Or you know what? That entire conversation in There's Something About Mary about 7 Minute Abs.

That said, I get what you are saying in terms of one's direction and personal cycle of gaming. Though when I was at a similar point, I stumbled onto Fate. Again, a lot of its "tactical infinity," for example, is codified in the Create an Advantage action. Aspects are fictional tags that are significant enough to warrant mechanical interaction by the players or GM. It was also more "democratic" in how it distributed authority over authoring fiction.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think there is some obvious overlap, here, with some FKR ideas (and ideals), but I find Baker's presentation is far more clearly expressed.

Way back when I was toying with the idea (at the point, poorly expressed) that the FKR movement in terms of outcomes was really not that different from the ideas of Vincent Baker (and/or other proponents of "system matters" or "story now" or similar ideas) ... but just very different in terms of approach. Again, a global statement like that hardly does justice to the nuances involved, but I think that there is a kernel of truth there. Because there is an obvious overlap.

As a rallying cry, "Play worlds, not rules" might seem diametrically opposed to the idea that the rules matter greatly to the expression of the game. And yet, I think that they both manage to have the same concerns; that the table engage with the fiction.

Which is why I keep coming back to the critiques I see; while I think that some of them are well-thought out, I also think that many of them miss the point. Take, for example, @Manbearcat and his excellent provision of best practices in this post-

System matters and free kriegsspiel

I actually had in mind an ultralight Star Wars game with a dynamic similar to the Doom pool from Cortex to represent light and dark sides of the Force.On my to-do list is to write a Star Wars scenario for The Green Knight. I don't think much change to the special abilities or skills is needed -...

www.enworld.org

Those are a lot better than "high trust"! But for all of the arguments over high trust, I think that a lot of us (including me, at times) misunderstand the purpose of it. It's not really an articulable principle or best practice- it's advertising. It's an explanation.

In the prior thread on this subject that I started, a great deal of the pushback wasn't from those familiar with PbtA or Story Now games- it was by D&D players, who liked having those rules. Lots of rules. When we get into insular conversations over best practices, I think that we often overlook that the target audience for this isn't someone playing a lot of games; it's someone who is probably a D&D or PF or CoC player. Because that's the majority of the market. Those are the people that have to understand what this is, and how it can work.

It was ages ago, but I still remember the first time I encountered a diceless roleplaying game. And it took me nearly a year to be able to run it! I just ... couldn't grasp it. As simple as the concepts seem now, I just didn't know what to do. And I think that the issue FKR proponents have (from their perspective) is that- how do you explain to someone who is used to rolling abilities, that they don't need to? How do you explain to someone who is used to checking their skills, that they don't need to? Fundamentally, they aren't trying to persuade you- they're trying to persuade the people that find these concepts completely foreign.

And that's why we see this as a relatively formless and amorphous thing. What is FKR? What are the real and salient features? The real reason I think it's hard to pin down is because it's not based in a working theory, so much as aspiration. Tracking down that 2015 post was pretty cool, but you also note the gap until 2020! And I can't help but note that while there are people that discuss a return to a neo-Arnesonian time for D&D, the majority of case-uses of it seem to be for genre-games that have nothing to do with D&D or even fantasy.

So to go back to the subject of "high trust" (and/or provide fodder for disagreement) I think that the following can and should be noted:

A. In the games I have run recently using this model, there is significant player authorship of narrative. I would go so far as to say that for a successful game, it's practically required. Even when the ultimate result for authority of the fiction is with the GM, you just can't run the game if the GM isn't trusting the players to author a good deal of the fiction. Otherwise, it's just a game of players asking if they can do something (which doesn't work, and isn't fun).

B. Moreover, I think that the "high trust" while originally conceived as a method to explain the game to people used to rules-heavy systems, doesn't require it to be beholden to the GM. We already see that FKR games allow for the explicit rules-based division of authority, either with players controlling narrative by resisting the GM's narrative, or players in control of scenes (pausing, rewinding, etc.).

In the end, I think that FKR is two things- first, a movement of people. As such, there will be those who hype it, those who over-describe it, and those who advocate for it.

But more fundamentally, it's about the reduction of rules. It's about reducing the rules to the absolute minimum, and then reducing them even more. The assumption is that if you reduced it too much, you can always add a rule back in. At least, that's my take so far. But there's nothing necessarily opposed to the idea that the rules you have, should be good rules. There's nothing that requires good rules (or good allocations of authority) to be discarded.


PS- I pulled and read Wuthering Heights RPG over the weekend when I had some spare time. It looks fascinating and I would love to try it out; unfortunately, I don't have a group that I would be able to play that with given the subject matter. But that's a different issue entirely.

 

[pemerton]

But more fundamentally, it's about the reduction of rules. It's about reducing the rules to the absolute minimum, and then reducing them even more.

My general sense of the FKR stuff I've read, and of what you're mentioning here - which obviously is not disconnected from their stuff - is that by rules is meant something like mechanics for action resolution, including action resolution subsystems.

The contrast would be with rules that aren't expressed mechanically (eg most of what is GM-side in Apocalypse World) or with systems for generating content - like most of Book 3 in Classic Traveller.

Do you agree with this?

In the prior thread on this subject that I started, a great deal of the pushback wasn't from those familiar with PbtA or Story Now games- it was by D&D players

To me, this seems consistent with my suggestion upthread that the paradigm target of FKR criticisms of rules is D&D 3E. 5e D&D has a degree of overlap, including (but not limited to) elements of PC build which are definitely not descriptors (eg the rogue's cunning action; the fighter's action surge; etc).

Here is a controversial assertion: a good chunk of RPGers don't really want fiction-first RPGing in the Apocalypse World or Cthulhu Dark sense. They prefer a more boardgame-like experience for their combat resolution, with unstructured but relatively low-stakes free roleplay in between combats. Up those stakes too much and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of ToH (too much "gotcha"; why does the PC's Perception and Engineering skill not factor into things; etc). Put too much structure on it and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of 4e skill challenges (a "dice rolling exercise"; why do we have to get N successes even if our plan is brilliant; etc). And zooming out a bit, there seems to be a widespread expectation/aspiration that GM curation of the fiction is a, maybe the, main way of ensuring that the fiction is nicely-paced and satisfactory in its content.

Obviously the above is a coarse-grained generalisation. And I can't prove that the two sorts of pushback, and the expression of the aspiration, all come from much the same people. It's my impression of things.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My general sense of the FKR stuff I've read, and of what you're mentioning here - which obviously is not disconnected from their stuff - is that by rules is meant something like mechanics for action resolution, including action resolution subsystems.

The contrast would be with rules that aren't expressed mechanically (eg most of what is GM-side in Apocalypse World) or with systems for generating content - like most of Book 3 in Classic Traveller.

Do you agree with this?

Yep.

I admit to using the term "rules" loosely. But generally, I think that "rules" here means "written mechanics for action resolution (and subsystems)."

Heuristics and norms can function as informal rules, and that's not what I was thinking of.

To me, this seems consistent with my suggestion upthread that the paradigm target of FKR criticisms of rules is D&D 3E. 5e D&D has a degree of overlap, including (but not limited to) elements of PC build which are definitely not descriptors (eg the rogue's cunning action; the fighter's action surge; etc).

I think that the 3e / PF "mindset" is definitely the target- but I would posit that the original appeal to history and name would go back to the Arnesonian/Gygax divide. It's a mindset; when applied to D&D, it would be someone looking at the past, and one person would say, "The issue was that OD&D went to worse rules with AD&D." Another person would say, "The issue was OD&D added unnecessary rules."

More particularly and in a modern sense, you can look at the cunning action example.

A proponent of the 5e system of play would see that cunning action applies in a way similar to a "keyword" and would seek to use it whenever the ability allows, despite the fiction.

A person who is interested in the design might believe that the issue is that the rule doesn't accurately model the fiction, and the rule should be improved (designed to match the fiction better).

An FKR devotee would believe that the issue is that there is a rule at all, and that the player would be better off not having to be beholden to the character sheet.

I don't think any of these are correct or incorrect, but they are different outlooks.

Here is a controversial assertion: a good chunk of RPGers don't really want fiction-first RPGing in the Apocalypse World or Cthulhu Dark sense. They prefer a more boardgame-like experience for their combat resolution, with unstructured but relatively low-stakes free roleplay in between combats.

Agree. Is that controversial? I know that there is a decent contingent of people that like "structured" combat and "unstructured" role-play.

Up those stakes too much and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of ToH (too much "gotcha"; why does the PC's Perception and Engineering skill not factor into things; etc).

Agree.

Put too much structure on it and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of 4e skill challenges (a "dice rolling exercise"; why do we have to get N successes even if our plan is brilliant; etc).

Partly agree. I think that there is a strong resistance with a lot of people to "dice rolling exercises" but that many of them also like being able to use dice to overcome challenges. So, not sure on this?

And zooming out a bit, there seems to be a widespread expectation/aspiration that GM curation of the fiction is a, maybe the, main way of ensuring that the fiction is nicely-paced and satisfactory in its content.

Agree, to the extent we are discussing most forms of D&D. D&D is generally predicated on the GM pacing the fiction, and ensuring the content is satisfactory.

Obviously the above is a coarse-grained generalisation. And I can't prove that the two sorts of pushback, and the expression of the aspiration, all come from much the same people. It's my impression of things.

On this, I'm not sure. My own observation is that there tends to be a divide in approach between the "3e" player, the "1/2e player," and the "OD&D" It's a generalization that isn't always applicable, but (for example) the 3e player tends to be more focused on social skills as part of the game, the 1/2e player is more focused on the strict divide between crunchy combat and free role-play, and the OD&D player is more concerned with is amplification.

The "4e" player, on the other hand, tends to be more open to skill challenges and or fiction-first.

IMO, YMMV.

 

[Campbell]

How about another take.

So when we sit down to play any given FKR game how do we know as players what we are supposed to be doing? What's the game's objective (the player's objective here - not the character's)? How are players rewarded for it? How is the GM supposed to make that difficult? Where is the animating force? How are the larger play loops structured (not micro basic fictional positioning one)? Why are we here basically?

This is the kind of stuff that if I'm going to run a game or play in a game that has to have a meaningful answer. If one isn't provided then we all have to provide it. There is so much more that needs to be figured for a functional game than just setting and basic resolution procedures. I have a pretty good answer for what I think it is for most 5e play (and definitely for all the 5e play I have personally encountered). I'm not going to assume it's the same though.

That's the kind of stuff I'm mostly looking at when it comes to rules. What structure does this lean towards? What do the reward systems and play loops look like (micro and macro)? How do I know if I am good at playing or running them? What sort of feedback does the game give?

I guess maybe are FKR games even games in the traditional sense? Is there any real structure to them? I'm not really seeing any unless Cthulhu Dark is one.

 

[Campbell]

Last post was very stream of consciousness. I will collect my thoughts and have more later. I am just trying to understand what FKR is supposed to be about like from a game design standpoint (like you would find in a typical college course on game design).

 

[overgeeked]

How about another take.

So when we sit down to play any given FKR game how do we know as players what we are supposed to be doing?

Depends on the game. Like most others there will be a pitch. “Tonight we play Lost Era Star Trek. You’re the bridge crew of the USS For Example.”

What's the game's objective (the player's objective here - not the character's)?

To have fun.

How are players rewarded for it?

By having fun.

How is the GM supposed to make that difficult? Where is the animating force? How are the larger play loops structured (not micro basic fictional positioning one)?

Don’t start with the rule. Start with the fiction. The world. You’re playing Starfleet Officers aboard a Starfleet starship. How is that made difficult? What is the animating force? What are the play loops?

Why are we here basically?

To have fun.

This is the kind of stuff that if I'm going to run a game or play in a game that has to have a meaningful answer. If one isn't provided then we all have to provide it.

The fiction provides it.

There is so much more that needs to be figured for a functional game than just setting and basic resolution procedures. I have a pretty good answer for what I think it is for most 5e play (and definitely for all the 5e play I have personally encountered). I'm not going to assume it's the same though.

I disagree with your premise. All you need is the fiction and the basic resolution mechanics. The rest is basically irrelevant.

That's the kind of stuff I'm mostly looking at when it comes to rules. What structure does this lean towards? What do the reward systems and play loops look like (micro and macro)? How do I know if I am good at playing or running them? What sort of feedback does the game give?

I guess maybe are FKR games even games in the traditional sense? Is there any real structure to them? I'm not really seeing any unless Cthulhu Dark is one.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.

 

[pemerton]

Depends on the game. Like most others there will be a pitch. “Tonight we play Lost Era Star Trek. You’re the bridge crew of the USS For Example.”

To have fun.

By having fun.

This is not plausible even by reference to the FKR resources that have been pointed to and quoted in this thread.

Tactical infinity already gives us a focus for play: tactics. The notion of problem solving has also turned up. These are well-known ideas in game play in general, and in RPGing in particular. They tell me to expect a game much closer to Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain than (say) Wuthering Heights.

Just as one example: when I'm playing a member of the crew of the USS For Example, what do I need to know: my job as a crew member and the technology that I have access to? Or who I'm fighting with and who I'm sleeping with? Which will be more important for dealing with situations that play throws up?

Every FKR thing I've read suggests that it will be the former and not the latter; ie that relationships, emotional connections, etc will not be factored into either how situations are framed or how situations are resolved.

Don’t start with the rule. Start with the fiction. The world. You’re playing Starfleet Officers aboard a Starfleet starship.

<snip>

All you need is the fiction and the basic resolution mechanics. The rest is basically irrelevant.

To add further to what I've posted above: Who authors the fiction? What bits of it am I expected to treat as salient? What bits can be ignored?

Or to come from another angle: Am I expected to lean into technical and tactical challenges as if we were playing a wargame? Or am I expected to lean into tropes and story conventions, relying on the GM to make sure these pay off in resolution?

Or to get more specific about the hypothesised Star Trek game: how seriously are we expected to take the military chain of command? An interesting feature of Classic Traveller is that its default for play is that characters are retired, freelancing former military personnel and hence the chain of command issue is sidestepped.

Or consider Agon 2nd ed: there is a leader of the band of heroes, who has an express function in play, and there is also a mechanic whereby another player can spend a resource to "persuade" the leader ie take over the leader function for one particular episode of play.

There are so many things that matter to effective, conflict-free play that are not settled just by being told the setting/premise and what dice we roll to work out if my phaser hits the person I'm shooting at.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.

I think this is a bizarre conclusion. @Campbell plays a wider variety of RPGs - from OSR through PF2 through indie/"story" games through D&D 5e and just about every other label a person might put on a RPG - than any other poster I can think of on these boards.

I think it's pretty straightforward to answer the questions he's asking based on a reading of the FKR material. Just that the FKRers themselves don't want to do it - as far as I can tell as one manifestation of a broader "oppositional" orientation.

 

[S'mon]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.

I think this is true of several posters here. It feels like extolling the virtues of steak BBQ to a vegan.

 

[S'mon]

Just as one example: when I'm playing a member of the crew of the USS For Example, what do I need to know: my job as a crew member and the technology that I have access to? Or who I'm fighting with and who I'm sleeping with? Which will be more important for dealing with situations that play throws up?

Typically the GM will make reference to a fictional source "It's like ST:TNG" - in which case you probably can tell that interpersonal relations will matter.

By the way, I think I disagree with your suggestion that FK can't do the Congress of Vienna. That seems like exactly the sort of thing Braunstein type free RP tends to focus on. If the Congress is the focus of play, all the PCs and NPCs have their own agendas, and the result of the Congress is the result of their interaction in accordance with those agendas. As I hinted earlier re my empire-building example, this is a lot more useful as a teaching tool re what happens in real life, than a mechanical model would be.