System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Ovinomancer]

The FKR ref should absolutely leverage player knowledge as input in their adjudicating on a matter (I've been told).
Is it enough to produce clear stakes for the players and/or characters, in your opinion?

I'm not following what you're saying here. As a player, I quite often lack knowledge relevant to the situation my character finds themselves in, especially in relation to determining stakes and odds. I, for instance, have no experience with picking locks, but my character might, so my knowledge is not terribly useful here for determining stakes. So this can be done a few ways -- the game can provide me with this information based on how it resolves conflicts (ie, stats, skills, resolution methods, etc) so that I can make an informed decision this way despite my lack of actual experience with picking locks (the system's say). Or, the game might use consensus building, where we discuss it at the table and find a way forward for this conflict by establishing stakes and building out a shared knowledge of the situation (the table's say). Or, it might just say that Bob says what happens and I don't have any way to gain knowledge because it's not shared (the GM's say). Or, it might be that the player just gets to declare what happens here (the player's say). Or, it could use some combination of the three. So, without additional clarity on what you mean by player knowledge here, I don't have an answer for you.

I can say that when I GM and am faced with determining the outcome of a situation where I lack personal knowledge and experience, like with picking a lock, I much prefer to have the system have a say here. Maybe not to the exclusion of all else, but I feel it's an important piece of the puzzle for me. This is why I very much enjoy Blades -- the system has a strong say, but there's also parts of the player's say, the GM's say, and even the table's say that feed in. FKR seems adamant about removing the system's say and leaning heavily on the GM's say, with individual GM's being able to flex that say to include however much of the table and player's say they want. I suppose, in the neo-trad approach, there's also the setting's say, which I didn't really account for here. I feel this is really a subset of player/table/GM say, though, as the setting has to be filtered through these to get that say.

 

[overgeeked]

Player engaging with rules= character interacting with world.

Only if the rules make sense in the world. Take another example. Characters not being able to move through each other’s space. In most D&D games, characters take up a 5ft square, completely blocking anyone else from moving through. So if you have two people abreast in a 10ft hallway, no one’s getting through. That’s nonsense in the real world, makes zero sense in any fantasy world, but it’s the rules of the game.

Most gamers will dutifully adhere to the rules of the game despite them being nonsense, like the example above. But the FKR mantra “play worlds, not rules” suggest the opposite. The rules of the game must first make sense in the fiction of the played world, if not toss the rules and use ones the don’t break the fantasy, immersion, common sense, etc.

The post at the top of the page about FKR being the opposite of BITD in this regard is apt.

What @Aldarc just said in the AW thread about BitD:

"The game does not exist for supporting the setting; the setting exists for supporting the game."

...I think it may be reversed to explain FKR: The game exists to support the setting, not viceversa.

 

[Campbell]

I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games. I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games. I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.

I'm with you. Most of the talk about FKR really feels like trying to lean all the way into Trad or Neo-Trad without actually saying this, and that confuses me. All the talk of setting fidelity seems to me to go straight to Neo-Trad. But then there's this weird "try anything" claim that appears to be suggesting a more protagonist approach, but gets curtailed by further reinforcement of setting fidelity in resolution.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games.

Well, yeah. It’s still relatively new and tiny. There’s maybe a few dozen people doing things in this space and a few hundred who’re excited by it.

I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.

Don’t judge FKR by the people explaining it in this thread. Maybe three of us encountered FKR before this thread or the one that spawned it. Read some of the links I provided.

It’s a misunderstanding of FKR to think it rejects all rules at all times. The rules must conform to and support the fiction. If not, dump the rules that don’t. In FKR the DM is the rules. But the DM‘s rules, rulings, decisions should conform to the fictional world being presented.

 

[Malmuria]

I can say that when I GM and am faced with determining the outcome of a situation where I lack personal knowledge and experience, like with picking a lock, I much prefer to have the system have a say here. Maybe not to the exclusion of all else, but I feel it's an important piece of the puzzle for me. This is why I very much enjoy Blades -- the system has a strong say, but there's also parts of the player's say, the GM's say, and even the table's say that feed in.

Picking a lock

• in 5e (a trad game), there's a procedure and mechanic as defined by the rulebook, available to all, that the DM follows with some discretion. So a lock may be a DC 16 dexterity/theives tools check. The player might not know the DC but knows that there is a target number that at least the DM knows. The DM might not have prepared the DC ahead of time, but makes a decision on the spot or makes a decision after the dice have been rolled but pretends there was a target number all along (illusionism). Similarly, in CoC there is a locksmith skill and locks of various difficulties, but as a player you can push your roll to try again if you fail.
• in BitD (a story game), a player could choose to roll tinker or finesse. Based on the player's description, and what else is going on in the fiction, the GM decides position and effect. The player assembles the dice pool, rolls, and the GM interprets the results and decides what complications there might be. The player can choose to resist this complication.

I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results. We could even go through an exercise of looking at different games and evaluating their lock picking rules from a G-N-S perspective (which rules lead to fun and streamlined gameplay? Which are most realistic? Which is most suitable for the kind of story we are collaboratively telling). I'm not necessarily advocating for an FKR style--the reason to use a system is because it does the work of setting expectations of play. That is, one player might want to describe exactly how they use a small mirror and a pair of pliers to disarm a trap, and another player might just want to roll using their skill, and a third might be approaching the scene in a cinematic way. But I do think an exercise of streamlining and stripping away rules can get you to a core understanding of what it is you are actually interested in doing in a game, and that's worthwhile even if you add rules back in later.

 

[overgeeked]

I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results.

In my estimation that’s not enough context to go on to make a call. Are you playing a family sitcom where the outcome doesn’t matter unless it’s funny or ups the stakes (so a simple 1d6 if any roll at all would be sufficient) or are you playing a heist (so mechanics up to or exceeding D&D levels of combat rules are called for)? It’s further complicated by tone and style. If you’re going for crunchy, methodical, and slow or light, cinematic, and fast.

I'm not necessarily advocating for an FKR style--the reason to use a system is because it does the work of setting expectations of play.

And that’s precisely what FKR aims for. But instead of defaulting to the game rules, it defaults to the fiction. The fiction does the work of setting expectations of play...and therefore the game mechanics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Picking a lock

• in 5e (a trad game), there's a procedure and mechanic as defined by the rulebook, available to all, that the DM follows with some discretion. So a lock may be a DC 16 dexterity/theives tools check. The player might not know the DC but knows that there is a target number that at least the DM knows. The DM might not have prepared the DC ahead of time, but makes a decision on the spot or makes a decision after the dice have been rolled but pretends there was a target number all along (illusionism). Similarly, in CoC there is a locksmith skill and locks of various difficulties, but as a player you can push your roll to try again if you fail.
• in BitD (a story game), a player could choose to roll tinker or finesse. Based on the player's description, and what else is going on in the fiction, the GM decides position and effect. The player assembles the dice pool, rolls, and the GM interprets the results and decides what complications there might be. The player can choose to resist this complication.

I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results. We could even go through an exercise of looking at different games and evaluating their lock picking rules from a G-N-S perspective (which rules lead to fun and streamlined gameplay? Which are most realistic? Which is most suitable for the kind of story we are collaboratively telling). I'm not necessarily advocating for an FKR style--the reason to use a system is because it does the work of setting expectations of play. That is, one player might want to describe exactly how they use a small mirror and a pair of pliers to disarm a trap, and another player might just want to roll using their skill, and a third might be approaching the scene in a cinematic way. But I do think an exercise of streamlining and stripping away rules can get you to a core understanding of what it is you are actually interested in doing in a game, and that's worthwhile even if you add rules back in later.

I don't doubt you could come to that conclusion -- that the resolution processes are similar in that a die is rolled and interpeted -- but that is completely missing some massive differences in why the resolution occurs and what the point of the resolution actually is. These are very different in these two games -- both of which I'm currently playing/running right now. The analysis that you suggest for FKR is following closely to the 5e example in intent and effect, but substituting the system's say for the GM's say. As such, it's leaning even heavier towards Trad (or Neo-Trad). Saying that this is similar to the Blades example is flawed on many levels.

 

[Manbearcat]

Few questions for FKR enthusiasts:

1) There is a climbing obstacle in the setting. This setting is roughly indistinguishable from
Earth in terms of atmosphere, gravity, and topography, 21st century gear. One player at the table (not the GM) is a climber while the others are not.

Given that it’s a “high trust system” (mutually across all participants?), does the GM/table defer to the climber to adjudicate the climbing rules for the conflict resolution of this obstacle?

That would seem to be (a) the most conversation/negotiation-efficient thing to do in terms of this “transitive property of trust” governing rules-vacuums + (b) the most wieldy thing to do in terms of both table time and playability (coherent decision-point navigation).

If not…why not?

2) Once this happens…does this instantiation of climbing rules now get encoded into play for any subsequent climbing obstacle within this setting?

If not, why not?

If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?

You're overthinking it. Because you're preoccupied with the rules.

There are a number of ways to do this. Here's one.

Roll 2d6. Below average (7), and you don't advance. You don't climb, but nothing bad.
Catastrophic roll? (3, 4). Something bad.
Roll above average? You climb up.

If there's someone trying to keep you from climbing, make it an opposed roll.
If the person wrote that the character had experience as a climber, or he's a cat burglar, give him a bonus.

That's one way, but hardly the only way. And it doesn't require any kind of advanced rules for climbing, because I am assuming that the game (fiction) isn't about climbing. It's just an event, like any other.