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

[overgeeked]

The legwork is not the same.

There are questions everyone has to answer like are you using supplemental stuff, banning things, and such, but things like how long does it take to pick a lock varies by game and can be defined by rules.

5e does not define how long picking a lock takes or what happens when you flank. 3e does. Opening a lock in 3.5 RAW is a full-round action. Done. The benefits of flanking are defined in 3.5. That leg work is done. 5e has an option in the DMG for flanking to give advantage, but it is a DM call so some legwork on making a decision. If the touchstone is just fiction then it is a straight judgment call, either figured out for the group ahead of time, or ruled on in the moment.

Different levels of legwork.

You’re right. I was giving far too much credit to rulebooks. It’s orders of magnitude easier to get people on the same page when starting fiction-first instead of rules-first. Thanks for the correction.

 

[overgeeked]

Hi, folks. One feature of FKR is that, ideally, Rules are managed by the Gm; rules heavy, light or none, doesn't matter as long as those are kept behind the Gm-screen.
Nothing prevents the Gm to use any ruleset they want, but players will only engage with the words, the descriptions and adjudications of the Gm, not the actual numbers, if any.
YMMV of course, as it does in my own games.

Exactly. Which is why it’s easier to run. You don’t have to train everyone at the table in the minutiae of the rules, and games don’t stop dead so rules lawyers can nitpick, you just handle the rules as the referee and tell the players what happens or what to roll.

Most games fall into the meme of “30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.” FKR breaks that by getting the game mechanics out of the way. So, while you don’t achieve parity most times, you get far closer to it with FKR games than any other style of play.

 

[Minigiant]

FKR relies on the GM and Players having the same framing and mindset of what the genre and fantasy they are running is.

The harsh truth is something I said a lot.
Fantasy and Gaming have both expanded in volume and diversity in the last 3 decades that the assumption that you are at the same base is now false.

If the group isn't at the same base, they need hard mechanics or heavy lore that puts the group in the same base.

 

[overgeeked]

FKR relies on the GM and Players having the same framing and mindset of what the genre and fantasy they are running is.

All games do. All games can either fall back on the rules, the fiction, or the referee as the touchstone for getting on the same page.

The harsh truth is something I said a lot.

Fantasy and Gaming have both expanded in volume and diversity in the last 3 decades that the assumption that you are at the same base is now false.

No one ever claimed everyone was at the same starting point from the jump without some kind of touchstone.

If the group isn't at the same base, they need hard mechanics or heavy lore that puts the group in the same base.

This is the same false assumption that's regularly repeated in these threads. It was already repeated and already refuted in this thread.

Look at D&D 5E. It's got hard mechanics, right? Okay, so then, according to you, all D&D 5E gamers must all be on the same page in regards to how their games are played and run. Even a bad reading of the forum (and other forums) shows that's false. Despite the hard mechanics, D&D 5E games vary wildly from table to table.

Having rules to use as a touchstone no more guarantees players will be on the same page than starting from the fiction, in fact, it's the opposite, because the rules don't actually tell you much about what the fiction will be*. In games like D&D 5E the referee still has to tell you that stuff. Politics, murderhobo, espionage, endless quests, OCs with detailed backstories, pawn stance, etc.

Whereas starting with a specific fictional touchstone will cover all that, which is a larger part of the legwork than covering the rules.

"Let's play Star Wars: The Clone Wars and be clone troopers going on missions."

It's literally that easy.

I mean, I get that a lot of gamers love their mechanics, but it's a bit silly.

I've suggested a premise and started playing FKR games inside of 5 minutes with people who've never played RPGs before.

A: "I want to do this."

B: "Okay, roll that."

It's nowhere near as hard as gamers seem to think.

*Except story games, of course.

 

[Minigiant]

All games do. All games can either fall back on the rules, the fiction, or the referee as the touchstone for getting on the same page.

You can only fall back on the referee if you understand where they have coming from.

If the referee thinks dwarves can breath fire but the player doesn't, they player wont attempt to breath fire.

No one ever claimed everyone was at the same starting point from the jump without some kind of touchstone.

Many fantasy fans do think that all gamers are familiar and starting at the same base.

This is the same false assumption that's regularly repeated in these threads. It was already repeated and already refuted in this thread.

Look at D&D 5E. It's got hard mechanics, right? Okay, so then, according to you, all D&D 5E gamers must all be on the same page in regards to how their games are played and run. Even a bad reading of the forum (and other forums) shows that's false. Despite the hard mechanics, D&D 5E games vary wildly from table to table.

But that's the whole point. That a large percentage of 5e fans don't agree with the starting point of 5e and come in expecting something else and being upset about it. However 5e forces you to play the game 5ewants you to play. 5e forces you into the same base with mechanics.

That's why you ether need the group to have the same base to FKR or have hard mechanics to force everyone into the same base.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hi, folks. One feature of FKR is that, ideally, Rules are managed by the Gm; rules heavy, light or none, doesn't matter as long as those are kept behind the Gm-screen.
Nothing prevents the Gm to use any ruleset they want, but players will only engage with the words, the descriptions and adjudications of the Gm, not the actual numbers, if any.
YMMV of course, as it does in my own games.

That sounds, again, rather different from how it's usually described, where it very specifically needs to be low or no rules. How does this comport with things like the "invisible rulebooks" that are so frequently referenced (where it is, explicitly, the GM's notions about how various topics work, NOT any formal rules, which shape adjudication and thus all of play), or the explicit statements in several of Snarf's references to treating literally any fiction book as the campaign setting with zero or near-zero need for rules?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Most games fall into the meme of “30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.” FKR breaks that by getting the game mechanics out of the way. So, while you don’t achieve parity most times, you get far closer to it with FKR games than any other style of play.

Unless, of course, the fun you desire is literally anything besides Groundedness and Simulation.

In fact, this paragraph perfectly captures my problem with the way many advocates speak of FKR. They first define all RPGing as Groundedness and Simulation (sometimes even just one subtype thereof), and then conclude that FKR is better than everything else. Even I recognize it is objectively superior at delivering a specific kind of G&S-based play, due to having been tailored for that purpose and (pretty much) only that purpose. (Again, as I said above, there is a trace of Conceit & Emulation present, but almost never more than a trace.)

Because jargon can be an impediment and these are my terms, not anyone else's, here's three-sentence summaries.

Groundedness and Simulation: Groundedness is built by setting up what is "real," what is true within the fictional space, so you can use naturalistic reasoning from that grounded position (even if it is fantastical.) Simulation is the process of both trying to foresee what might happen, and actually following the "rules" (note quotes, FKR "invisible rulebooks" qualify here) to then determine what does happen. Combined, you get a design purpose for gaming: Groundedness is the standard or metric of play, while Simulation is the goal/process you follow.

Conceit and Emulation: The Conceit is the central theme, concept, or idea, or (quite often) collection thereof that will be examined as part of play; "supers," "Arabian Nights," "space opera," "Aliens style space horror," "sexy teenage monsters," these are all Conceits of varying pervasiveness, as are the core thematic notions of most White Wolf games like V:tM and W:tA. Emulation is then the process of implementing the genre conventions and implications thereof in an entertaining and believable, but not necessarily grounded or "realistic," way. Combined, again, you have a design purpose: articulate a theme to be studied through the act of play, and then play by applying the genre conventions thereof.

And from this, you can see how C&E could piggy-back on G&S. If a genre convention gets accepted as part of the foundation, validated as "grounded" even though it probably isn't, then naturalistic reasoning may be able to color within the lines of that genre without falling out of it or producing un-grounded results. (A huge huge part of G&S is the desire for closure under the operation of naturalistic reasoning: you start from things everyone agrees are grounded, and intend that whatever you generate thereafter via naturalistic reasoning will also be grounded.) Problems come in when looking at genres with very strong conventions that make such Groundedness difficult, which is why I so often refer to superheroes for the contrast between G&S and C&E: there are some "rules" of stories about supers that often shouldn't be broken if you want to keep the tone and feel, the core Conceit, intact. These rules are often not actually grounded in anything, they're just how people seem to behave even though they could acquire an advantage by breaking them (e.g. it should be easy to find out most characters' secret identity in a world with cell phones and DNA testing, but few supervillains even try, and most superheroes actively avoid it.)

Hence why I say FKR has a veneer of support for C&E: as long as the genre conventions don't interfere with the Groundedness, they can ride along, like remoras on a shark. But if you want the kinds of fun provided by Score and Achievement (that " 'gaminess' feeling," as Snarf put it) or by Values and Issues ("Story Now") design, FKR will leave you out in the cold and do so proudly.

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly. Which is why it’s easier to run. You don’t have to train everyone at the table in the minutiae of the rules, and games don’t stop dead so rules lawyers can nitpick, you just handle the rules as the referee and tell the players what happens or what to roll.

Most games fall into the meme of “30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.” FKR breaks that by getting the game mechanics out of the way. So, while you don’t achieve parity most times, you get far closer to it with FKR games than any other style of play.

So what else can your miracle snake oil do?

I don't mind FKR, but I find this sort of salesmanship of FKR (or even other games) as some sort of panacea for all gaming to be off-putting.

 

[overgeeked]

You can only fall back on the referee if you understand where they have coming from.

If the referee thinks dwarves can breath fire but the player doesn't, they player wont attempt to breath fire.

And the reverse is also true. If the rules say dwarfs breathe fire but the referee says no, then dwarfs do not breathe fire. The rules don’t save you from having to talk to the referee.

Many fantasy fans do think that all gamers are familiar and starting at the same base.

Likewise many gamers seem to think rules with a wide variety of mutually exclusive but all equally valid interpretations are somehow written in stone, have one and only one possible interpretation, and magically fix mismatched expectations. They don’t.

But that's the whole point. That a large percentage of 5e fans don't agree with the starting point of 5e and come in expecting something else and being upset about it. However 5e forces you to play the game 5ewants you to play. 5e forces you into the same base with mechanics.

You realize you’re disproving the point you’re trying to make.

According to you, hard mechanics force players onto the same starting framework. D&D 5E has hard mechanics. And yet, despite those hard mechanics…and despite people reading the rules…there’s still a wide variety of expectations, rules interpretations, and play styles in 5E games. The hard mechanics did not force anything. It’s just one more thing to have to sort through and get on the same page with everyone else.

That's why you ether need the group to have the same base to FKR or have hard mechanics to force everyone into the same base.

And again, hard mechanics don’t do that on their own. The referee has to do the legwork of explaining what the base assumptions are, how the rules work at their table, which interpretations are valid, what’s allowed, what’s banned, etc. The rules aren’t a magic wand that fixes mismatched assumptions. They’re one more thing to have mismatched assumptions about. Look at almost any rules question in 5E. There’s dozens of way to interpret most things. Which interpretation you use at your table is legwork the referee has to do.

 

[Numidius]

That sounds, again, rather different from how it's usually described, where it very specifically needs to be low or no rules. How does this comport with things like the "invisible rulebooks" that are so frequently referenced (where it is, explicitly, the GM's notions about how various topics work, NOT any formal rules, which shape adjudication and thus all of play), or the explicit statements in several of Snarf's references to treating literally any fiction book as the campaign setting with zero or near-zero need for rules?

The referee is the arbiter of the game. Nothing prevents them to interiorize the whole PHB, DMG, MM to adjudicate an FKR D&D game.
Then at the table those books become invisible.