System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Campbell]

By design I am mostly talking about the process of play rather than technical implementation details. What sort of scenarios can I be expected to engage with? How am I expected to approach those scenarios? What does a good character look like? What's the expected orientation to the other characters? What does good play look like? What's the collaborative process like? Basically what can I expect from the other people I am playing with?

So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling? What sort of answers can I expect on these questions? How do I do the thing?

I started roleplaying with freeform message board roleplaying when I was 10. I have done freeform in person. I enjoy parlor LARPs. These are questions that need to have answers even if they are informal. Most freeform communities have a pretty well developed process. Sometimes there are formal guidelines. Sometimes informal, but there is a discipline to doing it well. I am looking for the discipline here.

 

[overgeeked]

It has more to do with how I can spot bait for gotcha game when I see it.

That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.

 

[Aldarc]

That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.

Were you genuinely interested in my personal opinion about cooking blogs or my cooking hobby? Or did you just wanna blow past engaging my general interest in cooking and wow me with your insight?

However, the fact that this is the only point you choose to engage with in my response to you about your cooking blog analogy is even more telling.

FKR seems to largely reject design as an end in itself. The design doesn’t matter, playing the game does. Play worlds, not rules. The world matters. The rules don’t.

Except it doesn't. Based upon what I have seen so far from the helpful posters and blogs talking about FKR, the fact that FKR embraces a minimalist design seems incredibly intentional and purposeful for its play goals. That doesn't seem like a rejection of design, but a tacit embrace of it. For example, the assumption that rules get in the way of proper game-/roleplay seems pretty indicative of how FKR would go about designing games. Or the assumption that a knowledgeable GM is a more efficient processor for immersive gameplay than any given rule set is also a pretty good clue about its design philosophy.

 

[overgeeked]

What sort of scenarios can I be expected to engage with? How am I expected to approach those scenarios? What does a good character look like? What's the expected orientation to the other characters? What does good play look like? What's the collaborative process like? Basically what can I expect from the other people I am playing with?

It depends entirely on the source fiction, fact, or history. There's no answer to your questions until there's an answer to the question: what world are you playing in? The answer to your questions changes depending on whether you're playing Star Trek, Star Wars, D&D, etc. You're asking about rules. Rules come second. The fiction (aka the source material) comes first.

So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling?

If you find Star Trek compelling, you'll likely find FKR Trek compelling as the whole point of FKR gaming is to emulate the fiction (aka source material) it draws from. Say you're a DS9 fan but dislike TOS. It doesn't matter what system or how well the Referee runs a TOS game if you're not interested.

How do I do the thing?

Stop worrying about the rules and just play the world. What would your character do if they were a real person inhabiting this world? Do that. Are you playing a klingon? Then do things a klingon would do. Are you playing a Starfleet officer? Then do things a Starfleet officer would do.

It's like explaining Apocalypse World. "But how do I make an attack?" "You just do it." "What?"

AW has fiction first mechanics. So does FKR. To do an AW move you need to do something in the fiction to trigger the mechanics. Same here. Roleplay. When the mechanics are needed, they'll come in. They aren't needed nearly as often as people think so they'll come up way less often than other games.

You keep putting the rules and mechanics first. Don't. You make a character and inhabit that character in the world. The Referee describes a situation. You tell the Referee what you want your character to do. They tell you what to roll, if anything...and the Referee narrates the results. Then do it all again. And again. And again.

I started roleplaying with freeform message board roleplaying when I was 10. I have done freeform in person. I enjoy parlor LARPs. These are questions that need to have answers even if they are informal. Most freeform communities have a pretty well developed process. Sometimes there are formal guidelines. Sometimes informal, but there is a discipline to doing it well. I am looking for the discipline here.

We've told you a dozen or so times already. Play the world, not rules.

The goal is immersing in the world. The aim is immersing in the world. Skilled play is immersing in the world. The formal guidelines are immersing in the world. The discipline is immersing in the world. It's honestly no more complicated than that. But you seem to think it has to be more complicated and there has to be more rules to it. But there's not.

The whole of an FKR game could be: "Here's the fiction (source material). Do your best to emulate the source material. Roll 2d6 if you need to resolve something that's not obvious from the fiction (in play)."

 

[hawkeyefan]

So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling? What sort of answers can I expect on these questions? How do I do the thing?

You have fun! You don't play the rules, maaaaan.....you play the world!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You have fun! You don't play the rules, maaaaan.....you play the world!

I realize that sarcastic one-liners denigrating people you don't agree with gets people to "like" you, but it's not particularly productive.

So, have you ever had a conversation with someone who is super into the DM (and it will be the "DM" in this case) having ultimate authority over the fiction? And you try to explain a game with player authority over the fiction? And the person responds, "Yeah, dude, but then a player will totally have his character jump over the moon. How do you stop that? Huh?"

It's aggravating, right? Because we assume good-faith play, and we assume the players are going to act in a manner consistent with the fiction. So answering repeated variations of, "But what if the player is a jerk," isn't helpful.

A fundamental issue that seems to bedevil a lot of conversations about theory, about the division of authority, and about rules in TTRPGs, is this- what happens when there is an inconsistent view of the fiction between participants in the game? How do you determine what "really happens?" There are rules, there are principles, but fundamentally you need to assume that the participants aren't jerks, right?

Well, one aspect of FKR that is both fundamental and unwritten is that the participants are on the same page. That there is a shared understanding of the fiction. Now, of course, the immediate retort will be- "But what if there isn't?"

Well? What if a player wants to jump over the moon? In a very real way, that's what the advertising ("It's high trust") is about. Because of that, it doesn't even matter who has control of any particular fiction. Which is why most FKR games have the referee as the rules authority, but with substantial player control of the fiction, but you also have a lot of FKR games that have explicit allowances for player authorship of the fiction, even to the extent of overriding the referee.

At the base of this, however, is the core assumption that you don't worry about the rules, and that you just say what you want to do.

I totally get that this isn't appealing to many people, but what I don't get is the sheer amount of vitriol this concept seems to generate.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Stop worrying about the rules and just play the world. What would your character do if they were a real person inhabiting this world? Do that. Are you playing a klingon? Then do things a klingon would do. Are you playing a Starfleet officer? Then do things a Starfleet officer would do.

It's like explaining Apocalypse World. "But how do I make an attack?" "You just do it." "What?"

AW has fiction first mechanics. So does FKR. To do an AW move you need to do something in the fiction to trigger the mechanics. Same here. Roleplay. When the mechanics are needed, they'll come in. They aren't needed nearly as often as people think so they'll come up way less often than other games.

You keep putting the rules and mechanics first. Don't. You make a character and inhabit that character in the world. The Referee describes a situation. You tell the Referee what you want your character to do. They tell you what to roll, if anything...and the Referee narrates the results. Then do it all again. And again. And again.

I don't think anyone's putting the rules first.

You mention Apocalypse World....but if you say what you want to do in Apocalypse World, and then asks how that will work, anyone familiar with the game can actually answer the question.

So that is what's being asked, overall.

Your insistence to "just do what your character would do" is true of all RPGs. Yes, sometimes people playing certain games will play the rules first, or some games have non-diegetic elements or what have you, but they still do function with a "state what your character wants to do, then we move on to the resolution system" model. The resolution system is generally where we find the significant array of scope.

You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system, but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system. It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system, but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system. It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.

But the resolution system and the mechanics aren't the same from one game to the next. That's a huge thing- as much as you mocked it .... maaaaan .... the point is to play the world. Which means that there can be one, or more, resolution systems depending on what you're playing.

The dice pool and stress dice of Messerspiel will not be the same as d6/d4/ally d6 of 1980 Legion.

Which goes all the way around again to the point people keep trying to make- the resolution systems (the rules) aren't the focus. I know that might seem weird, yet there it is.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think anyone's putting the rules first.

The people repeatedly asking about the rules clearly are.

You mention Apocalypse World....but if you say what you want to do in Apocalypse World, and then asks how that will work, anyone familiar with the game can actually answer the question.

So that is what's being asked, overall.

Not really, no.

Your insistence to "just do what your character would do" is true of all RPGs.

Then why the 24 pages of hostility to the idea?

Yes, sometimes people playing certain games will play the rules first, or some games have non-diegetic elements or what have you, but they still do function with a "state what your character wants to do, then we move on to the resolution system" model.

Same with FKR games.

The resolution system is generally where we find the significant array of scope.

In other games, maybe. Not in FKR games. The resolution system is bare bones. Intentionally so. To prevent people from focusing on it too much.

You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system

Only if you haven't read my posts about it in this thread.

but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system.

Exactly. Most FKR games use that, or BitD, or PbtA, or similar quick and simply resolution mechanics.

It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.

Only if you think more widgets is an inherent good. The FKR does not think more is better in regards to mechanics. It minimizes the rules specifically to get them out of the way so players can focus on immersion in the world and their character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I realize that sarcastic one-liners denigrating people you don't agree with gets people to "like" you, but it's not particularly productive.

I like to try and approach topics with a sense of humor. I actually find that very productive.

I felt answering @Campbell's question using the phrases that have been used to explain the FKR approach would highlight how they aren't really answers to anything.

So, have you ever had a conversation with someone who is super into the DM (and it will be the "DM" in this case) having ultimate authority over the fiction? And you try to explain a game with player authority over the fiction? And the person responds, "Yeah, dude, but then a player will totally have his character jump over the moon. How do you stop that? Huh?"

It's aggravating, right? Because we assume good-faith play, and we assume the players are going to act in a manner consistent with the fiction. So answering repeated variations of, "But what if the player is a jerk," isn't helpful.


A fundamental issue that seems to bedevil a lot of conversations about theory, about the division of authority, and about rules in TTRPGs, is this- what happens when there is an inconsistent view of the fiction between participants in the game? How do you determine what "really happens?" There are rules, there are principles, but fundamentally you need to assume that the participants aren't jerks, right?

Well, one aspect of FKR that is both fundamental and unwritten is that the participants are on the same page. That there is a shared understanding of the fiction. Now, of course, the immediate retort will be- "But what if there isn't?"

Well? What if a player wants to jump over the moon? In a very real way, that's what the advertising ("It's high trust") is about. Because of that, it doesn't even matter who has control of any particular fiction. Which is why most FKR games have the referee as the rules authority, but with substantial player control of the fiction, but you also have a lot of FKR games that have explicit allowances for player authorship of the fiction, even to the extent of overriding the referee.

Do you think that it takes bad faith for two participants to be on different pages in relation to the fiction? That an extreme example like "jumping over the moon" sheds any light? What if someone said the game is meant to be like the Daniel Craig era Bond films? Okay, that gives us some ideas, and may be very different than some previous Bond eras....but it still may allow for a lot of variation when it comes to expectations RE the fiction.

Which is fine. I think nearly all games need something like this, even ones as highly codified as D&D. You still tend to have a discussion about themes or the feel of a campaign when you get started. And that may even morph along the way, so expectations may shift accordingly, which can cause a mismatch.

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think that "play worlds, not rules" is a bad idea as a principle of play; it's comparable to "fiction first". But it doesn't seem to be much more than one principle.

At the base of this, however, is the core assumption that you don't worry about the rules, and that you just say what you want to do.

I totally get that this isn't appealing to many people, but what I don't get is the sheer amount of vitriol this concept seems to generate.

I don't think it's unappealing, I just don't think it's as unique to FKR as is being said, and therefore people are wondering what they're missing.