System matters and free kriegsspiel

[pemerton]

The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player. So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question, just about my character relative to other characters. Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.

I think if you read the second of @Numidius's links to Lizard Wizard you'll get an answer: Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!

I think that could be translated to climbing easily enough (in principle: I imagine the narration would be about handholds, tired fingers, straining tendons, etc. @Manbearcat should be able to elaborate!).

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. Yes and no. I'm talking more about that moment when the player is trying to decide what to do, not the narration of doing it. I suppose it works to a point, but when you expand my example to anything that would normally be covered by skills it feels like an awfully shallow information environment for the players as regards decision making. That could just be my lack of experience with FKR in play though.

 

[pemerton]

Hmm. Yes and no. I'm talking more about that moment when the player is trying to decide what to do, not the narration of doing it. I suppose it works to a point, but when you expand my example to anything that would normally be covered by skills it feels like an awfully shallow information environment for the players as regards decision making. That could just be my lack of experience with FKR in play though.

Well, I imagine you would say that you (as your character) look at the wall, to see what the best way to tackle it might be. The GM would say something about what you can see, and perhaps what it's "rating" is or something else about the apparent difficulty. Then you'd say what you do. If you don't say that you chalk your fingers maybe the GM narrates slipping due to sweat, and then you have to explain how you hold your position with legs and one hand while getting to your chalk bag with the sweaty hand.

At least something like that (and with apologies to posters who actually know something about climbing).

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, I imagine you would say that you (as your character) look at the wall, to see what the best way to tackle it might be. The GM would say something about what you can see, and perhaps what it's "rating" is or something else about the apparent difficulty. Then you'd say what you do. If you don't say that you chalk your fingers maybe the GM narrates slipping due to sweat, and then you have to explain how you hold your position with legs and one hand while getting to your chalk bag with the sweaty hand.

At least something like that (and with apologies to posters who actually know something about climbing).

That last sentence is problematic for me. What about players who don't know about climbing? Or martial arts? Or swordfighting? Or machine guns? Or the nuances of a criminal enterprise? I mean this on both ends, for the player and GM, a significant imbalance of practical knowledge seems troublesome. Again, I'm not naysaying here, just a little boggled.

 

[pemerton]

That feels like you've pre-determined what should be in question. What I loved seeing in my play was more akin to the 'representative of one of the most liberal states in Europe' coming to the conclusion that 'political stability depends upon affirming the most reactionary forms of government'. To me those are the golden moments. Sometimes they seem to change the worldview of a player as well as the worldview of their PC. I've seen players have political-moral epiphanies in-game. Right up there with "Are we the Baddies?"

I may create or use a Situation with NPCs that may superficially resemble the start conditions of a murder mystery - there might even be a murder - but I'm not interested in seeing it resolved according to the beats & tropes of murder mystery fiction. What I'm interested in is the people - PC & NPC - their motivations, personalities etc. I love seeing them interact in accordance with their goals etc, with no pre-determined outcome. If the PC detective falls in love with the murderess NPC and they run off together, that's certainly fine by me. I love me the immersion, the experience of being 'in' the fictional world. I don't find murder mystery fiction immersive at all; the world seems to exist only as a thin backdrop for the mystery/plot/puzzle

To me, there seem to be two readings of in accordance with: a causal reading; and a consistency reading. I've got nothing against the second - the goals etc set some sort of soft/fuzzy boundary of tenability/plausibility around a character's reactions and responses. I tend to find the first implausible. It's a creative decision, what a character does.

I think whether a player learns something moral-political from their creative play is a separate thing, that depends on further aspects of personality etc. Eg, and at a risk of painting with a broad brush, and given my impressions of the two people I'm about to mention, I would expect this more from (eg) Picasso than from Eric Hobsbawm. I don't think these personality differences necessarily tell us anything more about the virtue/character of the person.

Here's an example from my own play (Burning Wheel) where the fiction led me to develop a character:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

Friedrich [a NPC] took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Rationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

For my part, I think the fiction has to get pretty emotionally laden for these sorts of things to feel "emergent" rather than "deliberate".

 

[Manbearcat]

I think if you read the second of @Numidius's links to Lizard Wizard you'll get an answer: Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!

I think that could be translated to climbing easily enough (in principle: I imagine the narration would be about handholds, tired fingers, straining tendons, etc. @Manbearcat should be able to elaborate!).

Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that? I’m struggling to distinguish what I just read from some kind of Calvinball Conch Passing hybrid. That is not what I anticipated from engaging in this thread nor from reading a few systems/blogs.

I mean…what governs the moment of play below?

Wiz: could I stab his eyes with my fingers? Or is he holding me by the shoulders?

Norbert: my old rule is, "if you ask 'can I', my answer is always 'no', but if you just DO, it might work"

We’re playing the world…not the rules. Ok.

These are the elements of the shared imagined space.

* on plane.

* big beefy jerk.

* I say I’m a shaolin archetype.

* I go tray to face to angry beefy jerk and it just works (I don’t know why).

* I try to ask questions to orient myself to the fiction (I’m playing the world) because I have no rules to orient me. I get stone cold rebuffed by the GM who says “just do it” (this really feels like someone read Apocalypse World and just ripped out all the system architecture that handles said orienting of character : player : situation …it even feels like they’re channeling VB’s casual prose).

* So I just do it…and it works (why I don’t know).


I could easily map this onto climbing or talking or running. It would all be the same; working from a huge information deficit and getting rebuffed when I try to ask orienting questions. Like so:

Player: Is this a big move? Seems like you’re describing a big move? Like a double Dino where I lose all 4 points of contact on the wall for a moment? That right? Is the hold Im leaping to a sloper or a tiny pinch or crimp? Something bad like that? I’ve gotta be tired at this point? Am I tired? Can I reroute to something more technical but time consuming? Less explosive and dangerous?

GM: If you ask me stuff, you can’t do it. Just DO it. Maybe it’ll work.

Player: …ooooooook? I reroute to a more technically demanding and lengthy route but I’ve got the gas tank for that and it’s way less dangerous.

GM: Cool. Your fingers are getting exhausted as you near the crux. One last move and you’re at the top.

---

That is a depiction of actual play? That feels like that has to be an orthodox-deviant version of FKR. That does not look like what I’ve read this far. That play example is on a continuum of Consensual Story Time or Calvinball depending upon the frequency of seemingly arbitrarily “yes” or “no” responses by the GM.

 

[pemerton]

That last sentence is problematic for me. What about players who don't know about climbing? Or martial arts? Or swordfighting? Or machine guns? Or the nuances of a criminal enterprise? I mean this on both ends, for the player and GM, a significant imbalance of practical knowledge seems troublesome. Again, I'm not naysaying here, just a little boggled.

Well, I think a premise of at least some FKRery is that the player will bring their expertise. That seems to be the implication of the blog I linked to just upthread.

This is the logic of referee and player expertise in free kriegsspiel, I think.

 

[Numidius]

@Manbearcat
Yeah, fascinating, ah ah!

Btw I guess that was an improvised exchange in a chat, nonetheless...... yeah

That is basically how I handled combat in my Gumshoe game, to be honest. Sometimes asking the player to roll a D6, eventually spending skill points.

 

[pemerton]

Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that?

<snip>

That is a depiction of actual play? That feels like that has to be an orthodox-deviant version of FKR. That does not look like what I’ve read this far. That play example is on a continuum of Consensual Story Time or Calvinball depending upon the frequency of seemingly arbitrarily “yes” or “no” responses by the GM.

I had a similar response. The blog refers to Theatrix, which I've heard of but don't know. Maybe it says something about when to say yes and when to say no? Here is the Wikipedia entry:Theatrix (role-playing game) - Wikipedia. If that's accurate, then I don't think the example in the blog was strictly by the book!

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, I think a premise of at least some FKRery is that the player will bring their expertise. That seems to be the implication of the blog I linked to just upthread.

This is the logic of referee and player expertise in free kriegsspiel, I think.

That I can absolutely get with.

One of my theoretical Player Best Practices above was exactly that (give solicited advice when the GM needs help).

But that doesn’t seem like what’s happening here.

If we were to map this into climbing there might be a back and forth between player and GM and the player then rolls Gas Tank + Gear + Climbwise (3d6 and gets 2 results of 4-6) vs Long Route + Slippery Hold (2d6 and GM gets 0 results of 4-6) for a contest of 2d6 +2 vs 2d6 +0…win and you’ve made the ascent…lose and it costs you something and we’re still on the wall.

But that looks very different from the completely unstructured freeform without descriptor restraint and extremely limited orienting aspects that I just read.