System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Arilyn]

If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?

Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work? What about just hitting someone from behind? Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness? Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic? Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant? How close are we following the tv tropes?

These questions will probably need a rules framework, so aren't we just then playing a rules light system?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Can you explain to me what difference there is, if any, between FKR and Fiasco? If you're not familiar, Fiasco is a game where players agree to a theme, roll on a simple chart to determine some core scene elements, and then roleplay scenes between each other. At the end of each scene, the other players give each participant either a white (good) or black (bad) die to represent how they think that scene went. After everyone has a scene, another roll on a simple chart is made to determine what twist happens. The round is repeated. At the end, everyone rolls their pools and subtracts the black total from the white total and gets to narrate their character's end accordingly (higher total is good, negative totals are bad). Resolution here is a few rolls on charts and the end, everything else is freeplay roleplaying. Is this FKR?

 

[overgeeked]

If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?

Maybe, maybe not. A lot can be handled by staying in the fiction (in game).

Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work? What about just hitting someone from behind? Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness? Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic? Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant?

It might. It depends on the fiction (in game).

How close are we following the tv tropes?

Depends on the Referee and the source material. Likely more about binging a few episodes and pulling from those than reading TV tropes.

These questions will probably need a rules framework, so aren't we just then playing a rules light system?

FKR games have a rules framework, it's just ultralight. Most FKR games use some variation of roll 2d6, higher is better. If opposed, roll off with 2d6, higher result wins.

 

[Campbell]

It looks like FKR play depends on a well developed sense of character, situation, and setting. I would argue that's true for pretty much all play, but we'll let it be. What I am looking is how do we get from let's play a game set in Dune to .....

It's just past the setting of the sun on Arrakis. You are agents of House Serragran, a vassal house attached House Atreides. Your retinue has recently arrived to news that Duke Leto has been assassinated and his heir, Paul has gone missing. You've tracked these Harkonnen spice smugglers down. They seem wary, but you are certain they are not looking for you. What do you do?

How do you know you are playing Corbin Bralek, a reformed spice smuggler who believes You must watch out for those who watch your back. How do you how much you care for Anna Margrave? That she cannot resist your roguish charm?

How do we narrow that scope down? How do we go about scenario design? How do we keep the fiction flowing? What about social constraints on play based on player desires?

Resolution mechanics are just about the least important element of RPG design. Getting to that defined place where we get to play our characters is not a simple process. How we do this and keep doing it is one of the most central questions in RPG design.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

If it was just that, it would be one thing. But that is not at all what I'm seeing. Look at what we just went through- over and over again about the rules, about the decision making, when the defining characteristic of the FKR games is that the rules don't matter- they aren't the focus. So what you see as surplusage, as a rallying cry, embodies the ethos as well.

Anyway, there is a fairly large gap between, "Huh, okay. I get it, but it doesn't seem that new or interesting to me," as opposed to the amount of pushback that is being generated. I guess it's because the idea that the imaginary construct (world) has primacy, not the system, is somewhat orthogonal to the idea that the system matters? But I honestly don't know.

All that said, I will go back to my original point- while the end results of FKR and (say) Fiction First can be very similar*, the process that leads to that is incredibly different.

*Not to beat a dead horse, but Cthulhu Dark predates FKR, yet the lite version perfectly encapsulates what an FKR game is, and is frequently mentioned by the handful of people into FKR. And, of course, you had people here dispute that it was an FKR game, because reasons. Which is weird.

 

[overgeeked]

It looks like FKR play depends on a well developed sense of character, situation, and setting. I would argue that's true for pretty much all play, but we'll let it be.

It's really not. Pawn stance is a thing. Beer and pretzels play is a thing. One shots are a thing. A lot of games have that, but not "pretty much all play". Large swathes of the hobby reject that entirely.

What I am looking is how do we get from let's play a game set in Dune to .....

It's just past the setting of the sun on Arrakis. You are agents of House Serragran, a vassal house attached House Atreides. Your retinue has recently arrived to news that Duke Leto has been assassinated and his heir, Paul has gone missing. You've tracked these Harkonnen spice smugglers down. They seem wary, but you are certain they are not looking for you. What do you do?

How do you know you are playing Corbin Bralek, a reformed spice smuggler who believes You must watch out for those who watch your back. How do you how much you care for Anna Margrave? That she cannot resist your roguish charm?

You decide you are. Marvel Heroic character creation. Only there's no power sets to worry about. You just make a character.

How do we narrow that scope down?

Referee's pitch.

How do we go about scenario design?

The Referee decides.

How do we keep the fiction flowing?

By staying in it as much as possible, i.e. avoiding stopping the fiction to engage with the rules as much as possible. And when you have to disengage the fiction to engage the rules, you keep the rules minimalist, resolve quickly, and move back to the fiction.

What about social constraints on play based on player desires?

Part of grouping up is doing whatever you can to get everyone on the same page. Typical session 0 stuff.

Resolution mechanics are just about the least important element of RPG design.

Hey! Something we agree on.

Getting to that defined place where we get to play our characters is not a simple process.

It can be. You just have to let it.

How we do this and keep doing it is one of the most central questions in game design.

It's no where near as complicated as you seem to think. People make simple things complicated all the time.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Up until you directly make fun of the people you're trying to talk to, maybe.

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.

They are answers, they're just not ones people are willing to accept. There's a difference.

Do you think that it takes bad faith for two participants to be on different pages in relation to the fiction?

Not at all.

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.

Right. Which is why getting on the same page re: the fiction (source material) is key. Play the world. Going to the source material establishes the world. If the Referee makes any changes to that world, they will say so. Like, Daniel Craig Bond, but no nut torture, for example.

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.

Like any game or group.

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.

Why does it need to be more than one principle?

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.

FKR isn't really unique in the "here's a new shiny" sense, rather it's unique in that it brings several things together in different ways than before.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The people repeatedly asking about the rules clearly are.

Not really, no.

But it is. In the most recent instance, @Campbell even clarified he's asking about the process of play more than the mechanics. If we start with the fiction...."I swing my axe at the orc", then asking what is the process for resolution, that's not putting the rules first. Players declaring what they want their characters to do is a given.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?

Nope. That's the main point of FKR.

Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work?

Based on the fiction, if you are a Vulcan ... yes, assuming humanoid, and not Gary 7 or a robot.

What about just hitting someone from behind?

Based on the TOS- usually, yes. Based on the fiction, I would make it automatic for low-level humanoids (guards) and roll for other circumstances.

Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness?

See above.

Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic?

Based on the fiction - some computers, yes. IIRC, the ways you can do it are-

A. Find out an internal inviolable principle, and make the computer aware of the violation (Ultimate Computer, Archons)
B. Find out an internal principle, and have the computer carry it out (Changeling)
C. Something something Mudd and his androids (I, Mudd)

Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant?

In TOS, the Prime Directive matters except when it doesn't. You have to assume good-faith play, so you can't just make a pro forma announcement and then violate the Prime Directive. It's not like the South Park episode where you can kill any animal as long as you say, "It's coming right for us!" But yes, if there is an in-fiction reason that justifies it, why not?

How close are we following the tv tropes?

How ripped is Kirk's shirt when he needs to engage in some hand-to-hand?

 

[overgeeked]

But it is. In the most recent instance, @Campbell even clarified he's asking about the process of play more than the mechanics. If we start with the fiction...."I swing my axe at the orc", then asking what is the process for resolution, that's not putting the rules first. Players declaring what they want their characters to do is a given.

Sigh. And that's been answered a dozen times. FKR isn't a singular game, it's a style of play, so there is no singular answer to these questions. But generally speaking...

What is the process for resolving an action in an FKR game? Same as most other games. 1. The Referee describes the environment. 2. The players declare what they want their characters to do. 3. The Referee narrates the outcome. If the Referee thinks the mechanics need to come into it, they will use them to inform the narration in step 3.

How does the Referee mechanically resolve an action in an FKR game? They use the resolution mechanic of the game they're playing. Most FKR games use 2d6, roll high. If opposed, both roll 2d6, higher result wins. Players only roll when the Referee asks them to.