System matters and free kriegsspiel

[S'mon]

No matter how much I trust you - S'mon - I just don't have the same reason to think you can resolve my description of how I jumpstart a helicopter as I do to think you can resolve my description of how I draft an insurance contract that favours me over the other party! Yet FKR seems to call upon you to do both those things, whereas AW doesn't need you to do either.

Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".

It's been a long time, but I can remember this being a problem once - a 1990s semi-free-kriegsspiel type fantasy game, I created the rules system but eventually we let another player, Janne, GM - the guy who invented the moniker "Little Devil S'mon" for me. There was an excellent player who was a very experienced US military type, maybe Army Rangers I think. I loved how he'd engage with the fiction using his RL knowledge of sword combat, ambush tactics etc. Things went sour when Janne the new GM was GMing and the army guy organised a PC ambush of some bad guys. The GM Janne's bad guys slaughtered the PC ambushers, in a way that broke everyone's suspension of disbelief. Janne did the same in a duel, where he ignored army guy's brilliant tactics, and his bad guy NPC knight with OP stats carved up army guy's Ranger PC. Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.

 

[hawkeyefan]

'High Trust' here means 'players trust GM to run the game, and don't worry about how he/she resolves stuff". You already don't trust the abstract FKR GM, so it'd be no good for you.

I'm not sure if FKR overall would not be good for me. There were a few games labeled as FKR on Itch that were linked earlier that I thought were pretty cool, and would likely be willing to play.

But I think you're right that I don't trust the process as it's been generally described here and in some of the blogs that have been linked. However, I don't think it's a case of not being able to trust the process: I think it's quite possible that I could. However, I want to actually understand the process before deciding to trust it. I don't really see the need for blind trust in this regard.

So trust is not at all a red herring. Plenty of people here make clear they trust the process in some games, but not in FK.

I think the idea of this being a "high trust game type" is a bit misleading. Because every game proceeds with the expectation that the participants can be trusted, or at least every game should. You generally don't expect people to cheat or to subvert the rules.

Where the trust seems to be needed in FKR style games is that players need to trust that the GM will abdicate fairly and with integrity, but that the means of doing so are either unknown, or are more nebulous than they may be in other games. Just about every game calls for the GM to abdicate fairly and with integrity, so that's not the concern. Instead it's the lack of specific tools at the GM's disposal to help do so.

It's like if I'm in a burning building and two firemen are coming to help me. One is decked out in his jacket and harness with airtank and all the associated gear....and the other is in sweat pants. I don't mistrust either of them, but I expect one to be able to do the expected job better.

I definitely think some of these FK blogs/GMs are not doing FK any favours.

I definitely agree there.

Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".

It's been a long time, but I can remember this being a problem once - a 1990s semi-free-kriesspiel type fantasy game, I created the rules system but eventually we let another player, Janne, GM - the guy who invented the moniker "Little Devil S'mon" for me. There was an excellent player who was a very experienced US military type, maybe Army Rangers I think. I loved how he'd engage with the fiction using his RL knowledge of sword combat, ambush tactics etc. Things went sour when Janne the new GM was GMing and the army guy organised a PC ambush of some bad guys. The GM Janne's bad guys slaughtered the PC ambushers, in a way that broke everyone's suspension of disbelief. Janne did the same in a duel, where he ignored army guy's brilliant tactics, and his bad guy NPC knight with OP stats carved up army guy's Ranger PC. Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.

This to me seems less about trust than it is about expertise. I don't think that players should have the expectation that the GM will always know more about a given topic than them, and so will always be able to portray a scene/obstacle/situation with enough accuracy to be plausible and acceptable to the player. GMs aren't experts at everything. This is where I think the label of FKR is a bit misleading because it evokes the referee from the Kriegsspiel games who actually were experts at the subject matter of their games.

Janne in your example was not doing anything wrong from his perspective. He was proceeding with integrity. In that sense, he didn't betray the trust of the participants. It was not about integrity, though, but about ability. Where Janne failed, if we can describe it as such, was to be as knowledgeable about combat as an actual trained combatant. Why would we ever expect that of a GM?

Correlating actual military experience and tactical knowledge to referee a wargame with basic genre logic to referee any scenario is a bit simplistic. Should players really trust the GM in a FKR RPG in the same way that players in a Kriegsspiel game could trust their referee?

In this case, the trust is not about adherence to rules and processes and refereeing with integrity.....but more about accuracy. About actual knowledge or expertise, about their ability to convince all players that what they've just made up is reasonable and fair.

I think that's why saying it's about trust is a bit odd. I expect the GM to mess up, I don't expect them to be experts on every topic they may need to portray in a game. I want them to involve me in that process. I want to understand and be involved in establishing the process the GM will use when running the game.

 

[Malmuria]

I think the idea of this being a "high trust game type" is a bit misleading. Because every game proceeds with the expectation that the participants can be trusted, or at least every game should. You generally don't expect people to cheat or to subvert the rules.

As I mentioned upthread, trust might not be the most accurate word for what they are trying to describe. To me what they are trying to describe is what the table references when there is uncertainty. So if you are playing chess, there are clear legal and illegal moves. If you are learning how to play, you can reference the rules and see a pawn can only move forward, or diagonally to replace an opponent's piece. So in that sense you have "trust" in the rules: as long as we follow the rules the game will be fair. "Trust" is not about your chess opponent not cheating, though incidentally it's easier to verify whether they are or are not. Free Kriegspiel wargames, to my understanding, replaced the rulebook with a referee. So now instead of "trusting" the rules to adjudicate your position and actions, you "trust" the referee.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing.

No one here but you is suggesting this is how it's done.

I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots.

The fact that they're the DM/GM/Ref makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. They're in charge. It's their game to run as they see fit. High DM/GM/Ref authority.

It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount.

That's your mistaken assumption about how it works. It's no different than D&D except that there's no rulebook for you to try to gotcha the DM with.

How do you know if the GM in a FKR game is adjudicating things per whatever process there may be versus just deciding anything they like at every moment of play? One is the kind of "high-trust" that folks are citing, the other is the absolute subversion of that.....and I am struggling to see how anyone can tell the difference.

You don't assume bad faith. You assume good faith. When you actually at the table run into an instance of bad faith, you walk. Simple as.

Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game know if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions?

They don't until the rubber meets the road. Just like in every other RPG experience. That's why you have to assume good faith and trust the Referee.

How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?

You assume good faith and trust the Referee right up until they show you they're not worthy of that assumed good faith and trust. What you don't do is assume, without ever actually trying, that the Referee must be a cheater and must be out to get you...simply because they run a game in a style you clearly have no interest in.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As I mentioned upthread, trust might not be the most accurate word for what they are trying to describe. To me what they are trying to describe is what the table references when there is uncertainty. So if you are playing chess, there are clear legal and illegal moves. If you are learning how to play, you can reference the rules and see a pawn can only move forward, or diagonally to replace an opponent's piece. So in that sense you have "trust" in the rules: as long as we follow the rules the game will be fair. "Trust" is not about your chess opponent not cheating, though incidentally it's easier to verify whether they are or are not. Free Kriegspiel wargames, to my understanding, replaced the rulebook with a referee. So now instead of "trusting" the rules to adjudicate your position and actions, you "trust" the referee.

Yeah, that I follow, and I think it goes toward what I said about integrity/ability in my last post.

The trust for a Kriegsspiel ref seems to stem from a few things:

• their expertise in matters of war and tactics
• their position as a third party separate of the game’s participants

One I’m less sure of, but which I expect was often if not always the case is:
-they were not involved in establishing the conditions of the scenario

My understanding is that actual combat records were used to reenact a specific battle, or generic situations were established ahead of play, of which the participants were aware. Even if my understanding is accurate, I would expect that there would still be exceptions to this.

So for Kriegsspiel referees, the foundation for trust is established. They are trustworthy because they are experts in the area, they are not invested in seeing a particular side win, and they are ruling about a scenario that has been established with minimal input/design from them.

What would be the corresponding factors that would serve as a foundation of trust for a FKR GM?

 

[Campbell]

One of the questions I have because it's something that really weighs on me generally is how FKR referees deal with the inherent tension between playing NPCs in actor stance and having to make neutral calls about those NPCs? Maybe I just get too close to NPCs, but having rules in place to help determine what happens helps me to like stay in the pocket during scenes where NPCs are involved.

 

[overgeeked]

Right, but it's not used in the way you're saying. Or it's not meant to be used that way, and when it is, most would classify it as bad GMing. And although it may be overlooked or forgiven here and there, the more often it's used, the worse most would say play will be.

You're still assuming that your ultimate bad faith out-to-get-you DM is the same thing as what I'm talking about. They're different things. As I've said. A few times now.

Let me approach this differently. I don't want to seem like I'm advocating specifically for the DC/Modifier system in and of itself. It does the job, but it's not my favorite or anything. What's important to me is not the specifics of the rule, but more that the rules are known in some way to the player so that they can then make an informed decision.

And again. The rules are known. The rules are: roll 2d6, higher is better. In most FKR games that's literally the entire game system right there. There are no rules that are hidden. What you're railing against is that the Referee has the authority to set the difficulty of a task without precisely explaining exactly how they come to that decision in every moment and telling you exactly what your odds of success are before you make a roll. What you assume is bad faith player from the Referee and you expect that they owe you an explanation up front. That attitude is untenable in the majority of games, but especially in ones with high DM/GM/Ref authority. This style of play is clearly not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their preferences. But if this is how you think things should be, you're never going to be comfortable enough with the style to give it anything approaching an honest chance. At the table or in discussion.

What is the point of the GM describing the situation to the player? The PC has come to the wall and they need to climb it and there's some risk of failure. What is the point of describing the wall and its features?

The point is to inform the player, right? I would think we can agree on that. I hope we can.

Yes. Exactly so. To inform the character of the obstacle before them and thus inform the player (as much as is relevant and possible) what their chances of success are.

What rules like the DC system can do is make that information clearer. The goal is not so much about giving precise numbers...

But that's exactly how it's achieved. The goal is to inform the player...the means of delivery is precise numbers...which the character wouldn't have. I've no problem informing the character and player of what's before them. That's the point of describing things. My objection is solely with the means of delivery. Precise numbers break immersion. The character wouldn't have those precise numbers. It puts the game mechanics front and center instead of the character and the world. Getting back to the FKR and their mantras, "play world, not rules," is often repeated. This is part of that. The world isn't going to spit out a display informing the character that they have 57.9% chance of accomplishing a task...unless you're playing in a world that does. But the majority won't have that. So, since the world isn't going to do that...there's no reason to do that at the table. You want the game mechanics to be centered. That's the opposite of what the FKR is after. They want the play, the character, the world to be centered. What you want and what the FKR want are opposites. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you're literally accusing DMs/GMs/Referees of bad faith play and cheating...simply because they're playing in a style different than what you expect. They're not having badwrongfun, they're having not-for-hawkeyefan fun. There's nothing wrong with that. So why are you so insistent? Just accept that it's not a style for you.

House rules are a bit different than overriding the rules in the moment...That's quite different thing than changing the rules mid-play...

You are literally the only person here claiming that is what DM/GM/Referee authority is about. Just you. No one else. I've already agreed that changing the rules after a result would otherwise be known is bad form. Yet you still insist that's what I'm after. It's not. I don't know how many other ways or times I can tell you that.

But in some of the blog posts I've read, and in some of your posts and others, it seems like the GM may just decide how things go, or may call for a roll to determine it, using some kind of factors and decision making process that players may or may not know.

Yes. Exactly like most other high-GM authority RPGs.

And even if they know the general process, they may or may not be privy to the factors the GM has decided to deem relevant in any specific instance.

Yes. Exactly like most other high-GM authority RPGs.

But when it is a 2d6 highest wins, does the GM roll in front of the player? If not, why not? If so, why?

When I've seen opposed rolls used, it's in the open. But here's the thing. From your posts, I would assume that you would demand that the Referee roll first so that you know exactly what your chances are. It's entirely up the the Referee when to roll. If they insisted that the player rolled first what would you do and why?

 

[Campbell]

@overgeeked

Can you please refrain from telling people what they want and what their play is like? Please discuss your own play.

 

[Fenris-77]

The idea that the rule book exists to gotcha DMs is arrant bloody nonsense. I thought about sugar coating that but decided against it. It is nonsense.

 

[Malmuria]

What would be the corresponding factors that would serve as a foundation of trust for a FKR GM?

Not necessarily super relevant for this thread, but I am a teacher, and sometimes I think about how I might use roleplaying games to teach genre. Previously I do things like writing exercises ('write in the style of...), but I wonder if I can do something more collaborative, supplemented about discussion about what would 'count' or not count as expected for a given genre and why/why not. So all the stuff around invisible rulebooks, even the pedagogic context of FK makes some intuitive sense for me...