D&D General FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better

[payn]

Each player falls on this number line just like all games do, and in the best case scenario you will find a game that is at your same point on the line-- what best matches what you want.

This has largely been my experience. I see myself a bit of an outlier in that I like both games that lean BG and improv, but dont really have a goldilocks zone. I prefer the system to have the right mix for what it is meant to do. I put my line there at the system level, instead of at the mechanical level like many folks do.

D&D is odd in that it weaves in and out of the two between pillars. At some point, the right recipe was found (or folks just got used to the tradition?). When you got the Coke recipe, don't mess with it. However, I do think groups that want to shake things up should be able to. Once upon a time there was this idea of modularity in 5E, and I think an FKR module would have been a good dial for folks to have.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This has largely been my experience. I see myself a bit of an outlier in that I like both games that lean BG and improv, but dont really have a goldilocks zone. I prefer the system to have the right mix for what it is meant to do. I put my line there at the system level, instead of at the mechanical level like many folks do.

That is a good point. I think the more different and varied RPGs a person plays... especially ones that fall all up and down the number line... the more a person is willing and able to accept a game and its game system for what it is. There's less a reason to try and change the game to somewhere else on the line, because at some point in the past the person will have played another game already AT that point (or could easily find one to play at that point in the future.)

I think it's the people who only play one game (or one brand of game) who have a harder time of it when the game moves away from where they are. They are unwilling to accept the game for what it now is... but are also reticent to play another game (or an older version of the game) that actually is at the point they prefer. There's any number of reasons why they don't... but no matter what those reasons are, they just will find themselves having less and less fun. Which is a shame... but it's also not any game or game company's responsibility to try and solve.

 

[Voadam]

The improv side just involves the two active participants to mutually agree together on how the conflict resolves... the board game side uses a source outside the participants to decide-- whether that be a set of rules, the roll of a die, an impartial third-party judge or referee.

I would say the impartial third-party judge is more on the improv/FKR side. Drew Carry on Whose Line is it Anyway or the referee in the actual example of Arneson playing FKR.

I can't think of a board game where the adjudication rule is "one player is the judge who decides based on their judgment."

 

[payn]

That is a good point. I think the more different and varied RPGs a person plays... especially ones that fall all up and down the number line... the more a person is willing and able to accept a game and its game system for what it is. There's less a reason to try and change the game to somewhere else on the line, because at some point in the past the person will have played another game already AT that point (or could easily find one to play at that point in the future.)

I think it's the people who only play one game (or one brand of game) who have a harder time of it when the game moves away from where they are. They are unwilling to accept the game for what it now is... but are also reticent to play another game (or an older version of the game) that actually is at the point they prefer. There's any number of reasons why they don't... but no matter what those reasons are, they just will find themselves having less and less fun. Which is a shame... but it's also not any game or game company's responsibility to try and solve.

Yeap, some of it is playstyle. I have played with a number of players that tried FKR like games and their comments usually fall along "this game could use a lot more rules". I've also gamed with some people who are over D&D because its "too confining". These folks wont play what they dont want/like.

I think its the curse of D&D's elephant size in the hobby. Its the entry point, and often the end point for many a gamer. Folks who would prefer different styles are always trying to drag D&D there because the idea is the community will go with it. As opposed to folks just playing the games they like, which can be several, or all for folks like me.

 

[LordEntrails]

I appreciate the post @Snarf Zagyg . I learned something and thought about something today

Two issues I have with FKR. (Poorly expressed, please try to comprehend what I'm trying to say, not what I actually say!)

One: You state it right here:

As simple as the concepts seem to me now, I just didn't know what to do.

This is like telling a five year old, "You can be anything you want!" And their response is; "I want to be a suitcase." No structure, no rules, is hard for a reason. Most people prefer rules because it lets them know a framework for decision making.

And here's the next problem;

If you roll within 3 of each other, you negotiate.

Now you are getting away from Roleplaying and getting to life. What this tells me is that the outcome of this event is not about the characters that are being played, but the negotiation skills of the participants.

Or, even more detrimental, their willingness to cooperate and let other's have an impact on their vision of the game.

And to me that is really the critical weakness of FKR. It requires players of compatible personalities. More so than an RPG that has rules that can be relied upon to resolve disagreements.

So What is FKR Good At?

Long car rides. I can image this being a great way to pass time and have fun with friends while on a road trip!

 

[Voadam]

I am generally a big fan of the mechanical game play of D&D combat.

I also generally really like a lot of FKR aspects in other aspects of D&D. Roleplaying out interactions. Having no dice adjudications for non-combat situations. Engaging player skill in the scene. Description from the DM then narrative description from the player then a quick adjudication from the DM.

It allows a lot of immersion as it can be very descriptive, it can allow focusing on the scene details rather than mechanics, and there is less of an immersion jarring pause for adjudication. It can also feel more immersive as it is tailored to the scene rather than to generic pre-thought-out DCs and resolution methods that might not fit the fiction.

Downsides are that it can be very idiosyncratic on the DM side for how things are handled, how competent PCs are considered or even how something will be handled in different instances.

Also there is not the neutrality and randomness of using dice adjudication. A lot of fun can be pulled out of reasonable chances of success just being rolled instead of judged, or pulling up random unexpected results from a chart and working with it (a staple of both OSR charts and improv going from prompts).

In heavily rules dominated play there is some baseline common understanding of how things can be done (such as 3e D&D's heavily done out specified DCs for a lot of skill checks) as well as allowing engagement in mechanical character build aspects of the hobby.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would say the impartial third-party judge is more on the improv/FKR side. Drew Carry on Whose Line is it Anyway or the referee in the actual example of Arneson playing FKR.

I can't think of a board game where the adjudication rule is "one player is the judge who decides based on their judgment."

The outside judge has the same function as a ruleset and/or dice... someone/something outside the direct participants of the action that decides the results for the participants.

In improv, the actors involved in the scene are the ones who create the conflict and are the ones who have to resolve the conflict. One offers an idea for how the conflict resolves, and the other one says "Yes, And". In Who's Line, Drew Carey doesn't break into the middle of the scene to tell Ryan and Colin "Colin, Ryan's suggestion is what you both are going with." Instead, the two of them agree on one of their offers and then they carry on the story themselves.

Is a judge more flexible than a ruleset or a roll of dice? Absolutely. And will there be more possible outcomes with a judge's decision than a ruleset? Quite possibly. A judge that decides how chess pieces are allowed to move during a game of chess might allow for more directions than the actual rules of chess do. But in both cases... it's the judge/rules that will tell the two players what they can do and who ends up winning, not the players themselves. But in an improv scene where the characters are playing chess but the actors aren't actually playing? At one point one of them will probably have to make the choice to just say to their scene partner "I concede. You got me. Good game!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I appreciate the post @Snarf Zagyg . I learned something and thought about something today

Two issues I have with FKR. (Poorly expressed, please try to comprehend what I'm trying to say, not what I actually say!)

One: You state it right here:

This is like telling a five year old, "You can be anything you want!" And their response is; "I want to be a suitcase." No structure, no rules, is hard for a reason. Most people prefer rules because it lets them know a framework for decision making.

And here's the next problem;

Now you are getting away from Roleplaying and getting to life. What this tells me is that the outcome of this event is not about the characters that are being played, but the negotiation skills of the participants.

Or, even more detrimental, their willingness to cooperate and let other's have an impact on their vision of the game.

And to me that is really the critical weakness of FKR. It requires players of compatible personalities. More so than an RPG that has rules that can be relied upon to resolve disagreements.

No worries- look, I get the difficulty in grokking some of the concepts (REALLY!), especially given "FKR" is an umbrella term that encompasses more than a single thing. Again, I will reiterate that it's easier to understand by doing than by thinking about it.

That said, and before addressing your specific points, one way that people often can understand FKR concepts even in modern D&D is thinking about the exploration and social pillars- even in games that use a fair amount of skill checks, there is usually some amount of engaging with the fiction absent specific rules- certainly a lot more than in the combat pillar. It might be helpful to think about how you play in those scenarios.

Now, the two issues-
1. Is it hard to play without structure? Well, this gets back to the debate that stated in the 1800s in Germany (Prussia) and we see in a lot of different areas! Sometimes, rules (structure) gets in the way of play- think of the increasingly complex rule sets that we saw in the 1800s ... I mean, Phoenix Command? Other times, rules get in the way of the fiction- you're trying to play the rules, not the fiction. On the other hand, it is true that there are people that will freeze up when confronted with the idea of tactical infinity.

That said- the framework is the fiction.

2. I was using the Perfected rules as one example- there is no single (or best) method for adjudication in FKR. If you prefer opposed rolls, cool. If you don't, then it can be targets. Do you like d20 or 2d6 or d00? I think that's a nifty way when you have an FKR game with shared narrative authority, but you don't have to use that.

3. In the end, I'm not sure it requires people with compatible personalities- but it absolutely requires people to game in good faith (don't be a jerk). Everyone. Personally, I find that to be an absolute prerequisite for all of my gaming ... but I also understand that not everyone is so lucky. I would probably add that FKR might not be an ideal system if you have people in your group that enjoy having disagreements about rules.

 

[overgeeked]

Near as I can tell, the only real difference between a FKR game, an ultralight game, and something like D&D is the perception of reliability. But it's a perception, not a fact. It's an illusion, really. People are used to it, so it's better. Doesn't make it so.

In D&D 5E games, you trust the DM to make fair rulings.

In FKR games, you trust the referee to make fair rulings.

The only difference between the rulings they make, really, is a tiny fraction of more stuff for the FKR referee than the D&D DM.

What's the functional difference between: 1) the D&D DM who's permitted to say a task automatically succeeds, automatically fails, or is rolled for...who also gets to set the DC at any number they want and can give dis/advantage, and; 2) the FKR referee who's permitted to say a task automatically succeeds, automatically fails, or is rolled for...who also gets to set the target number at any number they want and can give dis/advantage?

Effectively nothing. They're the same picture.

What the sticking point is, I think, is that players who reject FKR out of hand want to know: what to expect and what they can do. But, to me, they're holding RPGs by the wrong end.

"But the rules tell me what I can do." No, they don't.

The rules do not provide the player with an exclusive menu of options they can perform in the game. Characters in RPGs have tactical infinity. They can try anything. And yet...a lot of players treat the game's rules as a video game menu to select options from. Never to even try anything not on the menu. Yawn. RPG mechanics are all about giving suggestions on how to cover common occurrences and situations. Providing mechanical frameworks so the GM doesn't have to think about it and can default to what's provided. They're a starting point, not the finish line.

Some GMs and players want more flexibility and they're comfortable with uncertainty. Some aren't. And that's great. Everyone's different and everyone's preferences can be met at different tables, with different games, and different styles.

If you know what to expect, it's boring. Not knowing is the exciting part. "But anything could happen!" Exactly. And that's the fun part. If it's not something you like, don't sit down at the table or walk away. It's not hard.

But, you know, maybe don't show up in every single thread about it complaining that it's something you don't like.

It's okay to let other people like things and talk about things you're not interested in.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That said- the framework is the fiction.

There's a limit here that might not be so obvious: everyone need to already understand the fiction pretty darn well. Especially the referee.

In Prussian wargames, the referee was an experienced military officer who had actually fought Austrian and French armies and knew personally what that entailed. For them, most of the questions that come up are not really resolving hypotheticals, they're pulling from experience to remember what had happened the last time they saw this. Sometimes they have to adjust based on new info (the troop's morale in context is very different, so do the break under these circumstances?) but then they're comparing two or more memories, inside of a context of doing this for a living for a decade or more. The players might be cadets without that experience, but they do have years of training.

(Plus the referee might fudge a bit for pedagogical reasons but I digress)

If I'm playing a Harry Potter game with a bunch of other Potterheads, I don't need or want a lot of rules for magic. We all know the feel of the magic system (which is a soft magic system) so we can just wing it. I'd probably use Fate Accelerated instead of FKR, but that's not a huge difference and if I wanted to play right away we could try FKR-style.

But this probably wouldn't work if I wanted to play a game set in the world of L. E. Modesitt Jr.'s Soprano Sorceress series, because I'm probably the only one who's read it, and I can't give you enough information to really get yourself into the heads of the characters in a timely fashion. (Or you know way more music theory than me, also a problem.) To play a game there, it would make much more sense to build out rules for magic for all of us to work from.

I would argue that FKR (and any other rules-light setup) requires a "shared understanding of the fiction" - something that well-written rules can provide instead. DnD doesn't require that we all 'get' how magic works in Toril. It simply tells us, in great detail.