System matters and free kriegsspiel

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Right, but that's just it....those things are still happening. Rules and decision making are still happening, unless we move past any kind of RPG as we typically define it and move into more freeform storytelling. I think what's problematic is citing "the fiction" as being the rules and the decsion making. I don't think that's a legit answer; it's like saying it's my keyboard that's responding to you. There's more to it than that.

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.

Oh I'm not saying that some of the games are not interesting to me. I looked through several, and there are some I'd willingly play. I don't know if I ever will because I already have a list of games I want to get to, but it's possible. I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that.....I just don't really care about FKR as a label.

Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. The system it uses is a large part of the appeal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Can the GM ever choose to resolve things using a different method?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh I'm not saying that some of the games are not interesting to me. I looked through several, and there are some I'd willingly play. I don't know if I ever will because I already have a list of games I want to get to, but it's possible. I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that.....I just don't really care about FKR as a label.

Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. The system it uses is a large part of the appeal.

Ugh. No. What is "the system" of an FKR game, other than being "rule lite." There is no single "the system." That's the whole point. Unless by "the system" you mean, "There is no specific system, other than a preference for minimal rules and a concentration on the fiction."

To a certain extent, FKR deliberately offloads the complexity of rulesets onto the participants of the game. Some might find that refreshing and freeing- the realization that most rules aren't necessary when the fiction can guide you. Some might find that empowering- that they can create the rules when they need to.

Others might not- it's difficult to transition from the ability to rely on a specific system to relying on shared understanding, occasionally mediated by minimal rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

There's a difference between making fun of you and pointing out how a phrase you keep using hasn't shed any light on what would otherwise seem like something you're trying to shed light on.

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

No, sorry. "Play the world" doesn't answer "what happens when I swing my axe at the orc" or any other action declaration. It's just not an answer.

Not at all.

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.

I'd be less worried about the torture scene and other lines and veils type concerns, and more about the appropriate genre tropes. Even just within the Daniel Craig films, things can vary pretty significantly.

And looking at Casino Royale, how would the card game be resolved? "Play the world" again does not answer this. How do we determine if Bond can outplay Le Chiffre?

Some games, even FKR games, will have very clear answers about this.

Like any game or group.

Right. So what's different?

Why does it need to be more than one principle?

Need to be? It doesn't really need to be in and of itself. But it certainly seems like it must be in order to differentiate itself from other styles of games and how they do things, and to fit with the idea that it is a combo of several things.

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.

 

[Campbell]

This might not be fair to the overall FKR, but at least the proponents of it in this thread seem to raising a steel wall when it comes to the decisions GMs are making about what happens in the fiction, how the setting is designed, and how scenarios are designed. To me those decision making processes are the most important part of any RPG design and how that process works out in play is instrumental in my decision to play or not play a given game. It feels like you guys do not think players should have any meaningful expectations about the game's content. Is that fair?

To clarify I favor games with a strong GM role and like many of those decisions being in the GM's hands, but I want a view into the process to tell if a game is worth my time.

 

[overgeeked]

I think what's problematic is citing "the fiction" as being the rules and the decsion making. I don't think that's a legit answer...

And there's the disconnect. People playing FKR games disagree. It's just as valid as any other answer.

What would your character do? It depends on the character and the world they inhabit. Superman will react differently to Metropolis than Batman reacts to Gotham. Put Batman in Metropolis and there's a clash of contexts and expectation. Put Superman in Gotham and there's a clash of contexts and expectations. You can still turn those situations into game material, but it takes more work.

Fiction is used two ways. Your typical gamer "fiction first" as in the fiction of the in-character shared delusion play. And fiction as the source material. The source material absolutely can and does set the rules for the game.

What can my character do? It depends on the character and the world they inhabit. Can people fly? Not in Wuthering Heights...but they can in superhero fiction.

I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that...

What was refreshing about it?

I just don't really care about FKR as a label.

Other than the horrendous font, what's wrong with the label?

Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. The system it uses is a large part of the appeal.

For me, the appeal is not just the ultralight systems, it's fiction first, immersive play, brains before dice, and the explicit ability to use anything as source material using "one" system. I'm fully aware that all these things exist already in the RPG space, but they haven't come together in quite the same way as the FKR. Other games do some of the same things, but not others.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ugh. No.

My joke was unproductive, but the above is cool?

What is "the system" of an FKR game, other than being "rule lite." There is no single "the system." That's the whole point. Unless by "the system" you mean, "There is no specific system, other than a preference for minimal rules and a concentration on the fiction."

Yes, pick any FKR game. Whatever method of resolution that game uses is one of the appeals of that game. Having a rules light game is a decision made with a purpose. It will appeal to people who want the kind of game it will produce.

How the game functions will matter.

 

[Campbell]

System is more than resolution frameworks. It includes how content is generated, how we define characters, backstory authority, how we are expected to engage with the content. System in the sense that system matters talks about is just the entire design of the game. It goes way beyond resolution mechanics. It probably should have been stated as design matters instead.

 

[innerdude]

This is going to sound strange, considering I spent bundles of energy defending PbtA / FitD / Ironsworn in the Apocalypse World thread, but I can kind-of, sort-of understand what FKR is aiming at, a bit . . . .

Our current game of Tiny Frontiers (Tiny D6 sci-fi in space) is probably pretty close to an "FKR" experience in a lot of ways.

If you read through the Tiny Frontiers rulebook, there's almost nothing there. The entire mechanic is basically, "Roll 1d6 if it's something you're terrible at or disadvantaged, roll 2d6 if it's 'normal' circumstances, or roll 3d6 if it's something you're good at / advantaged. As long as you get a 5 or 6 on any of the dice you roll, it's a success. A critical success is if you roll a 6 on any two dice (meaning you can't critically succeed on a disadvantaged roll)."

There's no other bonuses or mechanical modifiers to anything. Literally none.

There's a very small count of minor racial trait adjustments that give circumstantial "advantage" rolls, an absolute bare-bones hit point system, and maybe 10-15 pages of slightly more "layered" rules for damage, armor ablation, and a pretty nifty theater-of-the-mind space combat system that is actually tremendously more fun than it has any right to be.

But it 1000% falls into the "minimalist" camp of design. And though it's unstated in the rulebook, it quite obviously and heavily leans into the notion of "GM decides" as the primary loop of play.

So I recognize what FKR proponents are saying about fictional positioning being the pre-eminent determinant of 'what's possible' in the game. There's nothing in the rules that says what happens when you punch a hole in a space cruiser with an assault rifle, it's just assumed that we'll all sort of agree that rapid decompression is the likely result---and if we don't agree, the GM is supposed to just jump in and say, "This is how it is."

As a result, I can sort of picture what the FKR proponents are saying, where the first basic input of action declaration is, "Where are we in relation to the assumed fictional universe?" Because in our Tiny Frontiers game, so much is just assumed / hand waved / ignored until suddenly it's relevant, and someone has to decide whether it works or not. For reference, the basic campaign setting for our game is the universe of the video game Deep Rock Galactic (which, apropos of nothing, is an awesome game in its own right).

But beyond saying "Okay, we're in Deep Rock Galactic," there are zero governing principles in the game rules about who is allowed to introduce what kinds of things into the fiction and when they are allowed to do it. On absolutely no level would I consider it to be a "high agency" game.

And like @pemerton has noted, Tiny Frontiers really only works as a "ruleset" when its immediate focus is on tactical engagement --- it's highly gamist in that way. There's no rules, stated or implied, to introduce any kind of relationship / consequence / background milieu information through the players, other than the players just throwing things out there and seeing what sticks with the GM.

In a way, it feels like FKR is basically a complete surrender to the idea of "illusionism as principled play." I have no idea how our GM is really handling the inner workings of the fiction behind the scenes. What is determined as "meaningful" or "matters to the characters / matters to the fiction" is entirely behind an impenetrable "GM Third Wall."

If Tiny Frontiers leans heavily into the realm of FKR --- and everything I've read of FKR in this thread would seem to point that way --- I would find it difficult to see how FKR is viable for anything more than short-term play (mini-campaigns of 6-10 sessions), and only in circumstances where player-character actions are allowed to resonate within highly pre-framed areas of play that focus on tactical engagement.

Truthfully I was skeptical as to whether Tiny Frontiers had enough "bones" to really be fun, and I was wary of the GM, having had to suffer through a largely "setting tourist" campaign of Savage Worlds: Shaintar with him previously.

But strangely, and in spite of my misgivings, Tiny Frontiers has been a lot of fun, probably because our game has largely stayed within that fairly limited framework ("We're space dwarves, mining and hunting alien artifacts, swilling beer, and blowing stuff up!"). It's not what I'd choose to run/play all the time, but it's certainly been a worthy 4-month diversion from other games we've played.

TL;DR --- Imagine stripping away the entire D&D 5e ruleset until all that's left is rolling normally, advantaged, or disadvantaged on a static TN of 9 for all rolls. Characters get one, maybe two racial traits / feats that gives circumstantial advantage rolls. All damage is normalized as 2, 3, or 4 points per roll (and no others). Your amazing, hand-picked, "highly trusted" GM has final say in all other fictional positioning arbitration. Oh, and you occasionally get to play a fun "pirate ship" sailing mini-game, if you want. If you can picture the sort of game that would arise from that core conceit, you're getting pretty close to the realm of FKR.

 

[overgeeked]

Is that fair?

Not at all.

This might not be fair to the overall FKR, but at least the proponents of it in this thread seem to raising a steel wall when it comes to the decisions GMs are making about what happens in the fiction..

They're resolved the same as any other game. As we've said. A dozen times.

how the setting is designed...

The setting is mostly designed by other writers and artists. The Referee points to a piece of fiction or art and says, "Let's play that." There's your setting design.

and how scenarios are designed.

How does a player view the process of the Referee designing a scenario without spoiling the fun and surprise of playing through that scenario? They can't. The closest you can get is something like "it's a dungeon crawl" or "West Marches in space" or "you're spice pirates on Arrakis during the transition between Atreides and Harkonnen". Do you want to know generally what to expect? Engage with the source material. We're playing FKR Star Trek TOS...so maybe watch a few TOS episodes. The scenarios will look like that.

To me those decision making processes are the most important part of any RPG design and how that process works out in play is instrumental in my decision to play or not play a given game.

FKR games are: Pick a fun bit of pop culture. Start playing. What more do you need?

It feels like you guys do not think players should have any meaningful expectations about the game's content.

That's mysteriously the opposite of what's been said. The players know exactly what they're getting into up front. "Would you like to play FKR Star Trek? Yes / No." That's not what you're claiming at all. How much more detail does the player need? Which era? TOS. Enterprise or not. Not. Bridge crew or not. Bridge crew. Etc. At a certain point you're just talking about playing the game instead of just playing.

To clarify I favor games with a strong GM role and like many of those decisions being in the GM's hands, but I want a view into the process to tell if a game is worth my time.

You've been given that. You just reject the answers.