System matters and free kriegsspiel

[hawkeyefan]

I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules.

I think adhering to genre conventions is a much better way to put it, and a more reasonable goal. But typically it's phrased as something along the lines of "FKR strips out most of the rules to increase realism". Now, I can understand that perhaps realism here is meant as shorthand for some kind of internal consistency within the fictional world. But at the same time there are groups of folks who consider genre and realism as being diametrically opposed.

I don't tend to look at them that way myself, but it comes up often enough that I tend to focus on the words being used in any example.

It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.

I don't disagree with this part of it at all. I prefer slimmer rules systems myself. I think most games tend to expect each play group to make things work for them.

What would they be?

If we're talking about a game that's to be designed, then I would say to address this in the game's methods and principles for play and GMing. I'm a big fan of games that offer these kinds of goals that, although they are not rules in the mechanical sense, are rules in that they are guidelines for how to play and/or GM. I think these can go a long way toward preventing players from subverting the rules in some way.

For a game that already exists, if the players and GM want to slim things down, then they can do that. However, I agree that can be a tall order depending on how many rules there are, and how they all interact. Making a change in one area can impact how others work, and that may not be immediately obvious. I don't think it's impossible, and I think that the idea of "rulings not rules" of the OSR and 5E D&D kind of touch on this.

I think a less severe version of "removing rules from the player side of the screen" may simply to be to give the GM the ability to say no. "No, you can't do that no matter how many 100s you roll" (or whatever counter may be necessary). The appeal to genre conventions should probably suffice here; one would hope folks are on the same page in this regard, but if not and a player wants to try something that clearly defies genre logic, having the GM be able to deny the action is a pretty simple way to get the job done.

To me, that's where the "high trust" thing seems odd....not because I don't think it's a good goal, or that FKR games don't try to focus on that, but because if there is high trust between GM and players, then these kinds of attempts to bend the rules by the players seem less likely.

I think removing the rules from the player side or playing solo mode are both examples of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that such extreme measures are necessary, though I understand why they may appeal to any given person.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm going to be characteristically blunt -- I think that FKR may indeed be a valid and independent approach, but that the people championing it are not doing the critical analysis necessary to clearly enunciate the principles and goals that make it so. And I think that this is because this kind of analysis is viewed poorly because of things like the Forge and the general anti-analysis mindset that rose against it. It's like a mini-version of the culture war, and it's what's clashing here. FKR should have some clearly stated principles of play but this feels like talking like a Forge-ite so it's avoided.

To me, if I were doing the steelmanning, FKR should be saying that the game is about:

• making sure the play adheres to genre conventions and genre logic at all times.
• make the setting a character in play -- bring the setting to life at all times
• The job of the GM is to facilitate play, not to lead it. Let the players tell what's important in play

I'm sure I could come up with a few more, but this seems to be something I could grasp and understand as a distinct approach to play. This separates itself from OSR and Story Now.

The only issues I see are really in how adversity is generated and maintained in play.

 

[overgeeked]

I think adhering to genre conventions is a much better way to put it, and a more reasonable goal. But typically it's phrased as something along the lines of "FKR strips out most of the rules to increase realism". Now, I can understand that perhaps realism here is meant as shorthand for some kind of internal consistency within the fictional world. But at the same time there are groups of folks who consider genre and realism as being diametrically opposed.

In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.

If we're talking about a game that's to be designed, then I would say to address this in the game's methods and principles for play and GMing. I'm a big fan of games that offer these kinds of goals that, although they are not rules in the mechanical sense, are rules in that they are guidelines for how to play and/or GM. I think these can go a long way toward preventing players from subverting the rules in some way.

Yeah, I love the AW / PBTA games that offer principles for the players and DM. Don't necessarily like all the mechanics involved in those games, but principles are a fantastic way to get the players and DM on the same page. Also prevents everyone having to read into the rules to suss out what the game is about. That way lies madness.

For a game that already exists, if the players and GM want to slim things down, then they can do that. However, I agree that can be a tall order depending on how many rules there are, and how they all interact. Making a change in one area can impact how others work, and that may not be immediately obvious.

I gotta say, I really miss the old DIY aesthetic of RPGs.

I don't think it's impossible, and I think that the idea of "rulings not rules" of the OSR and 5E D&D kind of touch on this.

Sort of. They nervously approach the idea but it's not quite the same.

I think a less severe version of "removing rules from the player side of the screen" may simply to be to give the GM the ability to say no. "No, you can't do that no matter how many 100s you roll" (or whatever counter may be necessary).

The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.

The appeal to genre conventions should probably suffice here; one would hope folks are on the same page in this regard, but if not and a player wants to try something that clearly defies genre logic, having the GM be able to deny the action is a pretty simple way to get the job done.

Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.

To me, that's where the "high trust" thing seems odd....not because I don't think it's a good goal, or that FKR games don't try to focus on that, but because if there is high trust between GM and players, then these kinds of attempts to bend the rules by the players seem less likely.

I don't see how those are connected at all. The players trusting the DM has no bearing on the players trying to optimize the fun out of the game. That's a trait inherent to gamers, like water being wet. The player can have infinite trust in the DM but the player will still try to game the system. High trust as a phrase to use is mostly a stop gap to prevent players used to heavier systems from freaking out about running a rules light or ultralight game. Put trust in the DM to make fair rules and rulings rather than putting trust in the game book. The DM is the one at the table running this game with these players, not the designer in some other city, other state, and other time zone who never has and likely never will even meet these players. The DM knows the players at their table better than the typically nameless, faceless designer. So yeah. Trust the DM. If they show that they don't deserve that trust, walk. You're not eternally binding yourself to this person simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt and some trust up front.

I think removing the rules from the player side or playing solo mode are both examples of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that such extreme measures are necessary, though I understand why they may appeal to any given person.

I agree with you on playing solo, but couldn't disagree more about player-facing rules. I see literally zero benefits and an endless list of downsides to player-facing rules. Again, the article and video about players optimizing the fun out of the game.

 

[Campbell]

Optimizing the fun out of the game is basically another way of saying that dopamine is one hell of a neurotransmitter. Basically we will do what it is efficient even if it's less enjoyable. In my experience this does not go away with minimalist rules. Sometimes it's exacerbated. See Greyhawking the dungeon, playing the game of 20 questions every time you enter a room, etc. You change what players will tend to optimize, but you do not get away from human nature just because you have a lighter or even no system. Sid Meier was actually making the point that we need to design better games where what's optimal is also what's enjoyable for the player.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer more minimal games, but protecting players from their dopamine signaling generally is not one in my opinion.

My own experience with hidden rules in particular is that players will attempt to suss them out over time. In information poor environments they will look for the patterns the same way most D&D players will try to reason out a monster's AC and saves. I'm players. In information poor environments my gamer brain goes into overdrive. I enjoy that type of play in an OSR context, but to get to that place where I feel comfortable just playing my character I need a good handle on things. It's kind of like going into survivor mode.

 

[Manbearcat]

Two things I want to say right quick (as I'm time-restricted):

* GM's Say being in abundance (as it is in FKR) is not a de facto bad thing. I don't think that you'll find (across the distribution) of Story Now advocates that we feel that a default spread like this System's Say 1 / GM's Say 6 / Player's Say 3 means "crap game" (I've GMed so many hours of "Big GM's Say" games its not funny...likely more than any other setup). A scant number of folks may feel that way, but I'm confident that position isn't widespread. What is widespread is "if GM's Say is going to be 6+", then (a) own it, (b) speak clearly about its merits, (c) allow for analysis upon the implications of play of this distribution so that (d) people can make informed choices about what to play and (e) participants of "High GM's Say" systems can improve at their craft (particularly the GM's...eg "own Force, understand it, get better at deploying it).

* I don't agree (like...at all...its empirically not true...because I've run every manner of game under the sun since 1984....thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of GMing everything possible...and I know it for a fact) that rules-heavy games inherently and/or fundamentally mean tables are preoccupied with, and driven by, rules over fiction. Its just not true. I've GMed so many games on the rules-heavy side of things where the rules are clear, beautifully integrated, cognitively queueable (meaning the uptake of them and the uptake of sequential and integrated/related rules are "sticky" for the brain), and easily inferable from first principles (as to the what/how/why of their application and the adjudication of exceptions). When games are like this (Moldvay Basic, D&D 4e, Sorcerer, Torchbearer, Blades in the Dark, probably Aliens but I'm still TBD on this), in practice, they're every bit as nimble as Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, and Apocalypse World at the table.

Its when systems are opaque, byzantine, incoherent, and not well integrated is when this becomes a problem. GMs and Players Best Practices defy what the game is supposed to be about as incentive structures and (purported) play goals/premise becomes misaligned, cognitive overhead becomes overwhelming, and table time is disproportionately spent on "non-play."

 

[pemerton]

The problem here is that you've just describe Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Cortex Prime, FATE, Fiasco, numerous OSR titles...

And HeroQuest revised. And Prince Valiant. Even Burning Wheel!

 

[pemerton]

The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.

Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.

<snip>

The players trusting the DM has no bearing on the players trying to optimize the fun out of the game. That's a trait inherent to gamers, like water being wet. The player can have infinite trust in the DM but the player will still try to game the system. High trust as a phrase to use is mostly a stop gap to prevent players used to heavier systems from freaking out about running a rules light or ultralight game. Put trust in the DM to make fair rules and rulings rather than putting trust in the game book.

What systems do you have in mind here, other than WotC D&D?

 

[hawkeyefan]

In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.

Sure, I think this is possible, for sure. I don't think it's a certainty, but I would agree with the general idea, and I'd say the more rules that a game has, the more likely this may be.

But there are also rules that work just fine without limiting how the players interact with the fiction.

Yeah, I love the AW / PBTA games that offer principles for the players and DM. Don't necessarily like all the mechanics involved in those games, but principles are a fantastic way to get the players and DM on the same page. Also prevents everyone having to read into the rules to suss out what the game is about. That way lies madness.

I think it's something more games should do, or that they should present these ideas more overtly. Principles like this can do a lot of the heavy lifting in this area.

"Don't be a weasel" is one for Blades in the Dark that would apply to the kinds of players you're discussing.

I gotta say, I really miss the old DIY aesthetic of RPGs.

I think the FKR and OSR spheres show that aesthetic is alive and well, not to mention the many other games that folks are tweaking and hacking to do something new or different. Go onto itch.io and you'll find so many DIY projects that it's overwhelming.

Sort of. They nervously approach the idea but it's not quite the same.


The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.

Well I think it's about being able to ignore or ditch rules situationally as needed. So your two guards blocking the hall example.....it seems absurd given the situation, the GM can just say "you can pass them" or "you can pass them with a successful X check" or what have you.

I think this is already the case, but I think presentation can matter quite a bit, and some of this has been lost at times, or is dismissed because of perception about how a game is supposed to play.

Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.

I think it depends, honestly. If that's what works, sure. And I think that's likely true for some situations, but maybe not all. I think games can also benefit from constraining GM authority. But a lot of that will depend on what the goal of play is, and where the participants would like to see the split in authority.

I don't see how those are connected at all. The players trusting the DM has no bearing on the players trying to optimize the fun out of the game. That's a trait inherent to gamers, like water being wet. The player can have infinite trust in the DM but the player will still try to game the system. High trust as a phrase to use is mostly a stop gap to prevent players used to heavier systems from freaking out about running a rules light or ultralight game. Put trust in the DM to make fair rules and rulings rather than putting trust in the game book. The DM is the one at the table running this game with these players, not the designer in some other city, other state, and other time zone who never has and likely never will even meet these players. The DM knows the players at their table better than the typically nameless, faceless designer. So yeah. Trust the DM. If they show that they don't deserve that trust, walk. You're not eternally binding yourself to this person simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt and some trust up front.

But you assume that players will always and absolutely behave one way, but then point out how GMs know their players better than anyone else. I see these being at odds, no? Unless there are differences from player to player? In which case, your monolithic take that they will always game the system seems lost.

I personally find that trust goes both ways. Perhaps if a GM were able to trust his players more, he wouldn't need to worry about them always trying to subvert the rules?

Your take seems to be that the players can't be trusted with the rules. What about the GM? Why can they be trusted so much? I'm struggling to understand why there's such a strong distinction between player and GM in this regard.

I agree with you on playing solo, but couldn't disagree more about player-facing rules. I see literally zero benefits and an endless list of downsides to player-facing rules. Again, the article and video about players optimizing the fun out of the game.

Yeah, I get that's your take. I don't share it....but thankfully, I don't find it to be true in most of the games I've participated in. It can come up at times, sure, but never so much that I had to take such drastic measures. I think rules can be both visible to players and unobtrusive to the fiction.

 

[overgeeked]

Optimizing the fun out of the game is basically another way of saying that dopamine is one hell of a neurotransmitter. Basically we will do what it is efficient even if it's less enjoyable. In my experience this does not go away with minimalist rules. Sometimes it's exacerbated. See Greyhawking the dungeon, playing the game of 20 questions every time you enter a room, etc. You change what players will tend to optimize, but you do not get away from human nature just because you have a lighter or even no system. Sid Meier was actually making the point that we need to design better games where what's optimal is also what's enjoyable for the player.

Exactly. Design the game in such a way that it produces the results you want in play. Further, that using a carrot to produce the results you want is far better than using a stick. So if you want players to rush in, reward rushing in. If you want players to focus on the world instead of the rules, you need to push the rules into the background. That's dramatically easier to do with lighter rules than heavier.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer more minimal games, but protecting players from their dopamine signaling generally is not one in my opinion.

No, but that's definitely a reason to keep whatever rules you're using on the DM's side of the screen.

My own experience with hidden rules in particular is that players will attempt to suss them out over time. In information poor environments they will look for the patterns the same way most D&D players will try to reason out a monster's AC and saves. I'm players. In information poor environments my gamer brain goes into overdrive. I enjoy that type of play in an OSR context, but to get to that place where I feel comfortable just playing my character I need a good handle on things. It's kind of like going into survivor mode.

Sure. And you can do that by telling the players "the system is 2d6, roll high; and if you're in a direct contest opposed 2d6 rolls, high roll wins" is the sum total of the game system. You have a completely open game, the players know all the rules, and they're light enough that they stay out of the way so everyone can focus on playing the world, not the rules.

* I don't agree (like...at all...its empirically not true...because I've run every manner of game under the sun since 1984....thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of GMing everything possible...and I know it for a fact) that rules-heavy games inherently and/or fundamentally mean tables are preoccupied with, and driven by, rules over fiction. Its just not true.

Well, good thing that's not what the argument is. The argument is (and it's backed up by heaps of actual data) that gamers will optimize the fun out of the game, i.e. they will pick the most efficient path regardless of how boring and dull it is and that they will make choices based on the game's mechanics rather than a) what's fun, or; b) what their character would do if they were a real person in a real world as presented by the fiction. The empirical evidence I've collected in my time running and playing games since 1984 matches that conclusion exactly.

Some examples. Grappling in 3X. Regardless of whether the fiction would call for or the character would honestly choose to grapple a target, the mere fact of using 3X D&D means that there's a huge hurdle to that choice, one that elicits groans from players and DMs to this day when it's mentioned. So, instead of doing that thing that makes the most sense for the fiction or the character (i.e. grapple a target), the player will always choose something else because almost without exception whatever that "something else" is will be easier than dealing with the grappling rules.

Improvised actions and basic attacks in 4E. Despite the wonderful Page 42, the majority of players ardently stuck with their at-will powers because it was the optimal choice. Likewise with the refusal to make basic attacks going so far as to admonish other players for making basic attacks instead of using an at-will power because a basic attack was sub-optimal.

And going all the way back to AD&D...the tap, tap, tapping of 10ft poles. Despite it being literally the most boring, tedious, ridiculous waste of time and least fun option possible, it was such an ingrained default style of play that when people start AD&D games now they take the time to ask if they need to bother with them or not. So players would literally waste half the game session or more poking and prodding at every square inch of a dungeon simply because there might be a trap somewhere. I think that's the king of "players will optimize the fun out of the game". The optimal choice is to carry a 10ft pole and tap at every surface you can reach, because there might be traps. It's also the most boring style of play possible. Yet it utterly dominated the era.

I've GMed so many games on the rules-heavy side of things where the rules are clear, beautifully integrated, cognitively queueable (meaning the uptake of them and the uptake of sequential and integrated/related rules are "sticky" for the brain), and easily inferable from first principles (as to the what/how/why of their application and the adjudication of exceptions). When games are like this (Moldvay Basic, D&D 4e, Sorcerer, Torchbearer, Blades in the Dark, probably Aliens but I'm still TBD on this), in practice, they're every bit as nimble as Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, and Apocalypse World at the table.

Its when systems are opaque, byzantine, incoherent, and not well integrated is when this becomes a problem. GMs and Players Best Practices defy what the game is supposed to be about as incentive structures and (purported) play goals/premise becomes misaligned, cognitive overhead becomes overwhelming, and table time is disproportionately spent on "non-play."

Right. Rules that focus on the fiction, that present a coherent world, and drive play towards particular goals produce better results. But there are multiple kinds of rules and rule books. Check this out. The FKR just relies more on aligning the table's invisible rulebooks and getting on with it rather than pouring over thick tomes of rules. Do you need 20 pages of social interaction rules or can you just pretend your character is a real person and interacting with other real people and talk to them as such? Do you need a list or precisely detailed moves or can you just declare what your character would do and roll 2d6? Neither is better or worse. Rules heavy, rules medium, rules light, rules ultralight, freeform. They're all great. As long as the rules don't get in the way, don't produce absurdities, and don't contradict the fiction they're supposedly trying to represent. Some people want more rules scaffolding, others less.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, good thing that's not what the argument is. The argument is (and it's backed up by heaps of actual data) that gamers will optimize the fun out of the game, i.e. they will pick the most efficient path regardless of how boring and dull it is and that they will make choices based on the game's mechanics rather than a) what's fun, or; b) what their character would do if they were a real person in a real world as presented by the fiction. The empirical evidence I've collected in my time running and playing games since 1984 matches that conclusion exactly.

Some examples. Grappling in 3X. Regardless of whether the fiction would call for or the character would honestly choose to grapple a target, the mere fact of using 3X D&D means that there's a huge hurdle to that choice, one that elicits groans from players and DMs to this day when it's mentioned. So, instead of doing that thing that makes the most sense for the fiction or the character (i.e. grapple a target), the player will always choose something else because almost without exception whatever that "something else" is will be easier than dealing with the grappling rules.

Improvised actions and basic attacks in 4E. Despite the wonderful Page 42, the majority of players ardently stuck with their at-will powers because it was the optimal choice. Likewise with the refusal to make basic attacks going so far as to admonish other players for making basic attacks instead of using an at-will power because a basic attack was sub-optimal.

And going all the way back to AD&D...the tap, tap, tapping of 10ft poles. Despite it being literally the most boring, tedious, ridiculous waste of time and least fun option possible, it was such an ingrained default style of play that when people start AD&D games now they take the time to ask if they need to bother with them or not. So players would literally waste half the game session or more poking and prodding at every square inch of a dungeon simply because there might be a trap somewhere. I think that's the king of "players will optimize the fun out of the game". The optimal choice is to carry a 10ft pole and tap at every surface you can reach, because there might be traps. It's also the most boring style of play possible. Yet it utterly dominated the era.

Right. Rules that focus on the fiction, that present a coherent world, and drive play towards particular goals produce better results. But there are multiple kinds of rules and rule books. Check this out. The FKR just relies more on aligning the table's invisible rulebooks and getting on with it rather than pouring over thick tomes of rules. Do you need 20 pages of social interaction rules or can you just pretend your character is a real person and interacting with other real people and talk to them as such? Do you need a list or precisely detailed moves or can you just declare what your character would do and roll 2d6? Neither is better or worse. Rules heavy, rules medium, rules light, rules ultralight, freeform. They're all great. As long as the rules don't get in the way, don't produce absurdities, and don't contradict the fiction they're supposedly trying to represent. Some people want more rules scaffolding, others less.

I'm not disagreeing that gameable systems don't yield a tendency for social animals to attempt to game them (or perceive that others will do so and therefore engage with a game theoretical model that pressures them into engaging to game the system).

I would never disagree with that as it defies everything my formal life training, work, and everything I've learned outside of that training/work.

What I'm disagreeing with the other claim being put forth in this thread (by you and by FKR):

More rules = Assured focus of table participants on rules over fiction during table time (and the claim appears to also be that this happens in proportion to rules weight).

This is an empirical claim like the other one (that gameable systems yield a tendency for social animals to attempt to game them et al). This is the claim I'm disputing...because its not true. Yes, it may be true for a particular population distribution (eg D&D 3.x players who have been inculcated by a TTRPG model that pressures them into gaming a gameable system), but it isn't true across the distribution of (a) all people nor (b) all TTRPG players.

Its trivially not true. I've run games for probably north of 700 people in my life. The number of people who I have seen that this holds true for isn't even the majority (its probably just south with an increased tendency to do so depending upon the game; like 3.x D&D combat particularly at level 9+). In the last 2 years of my life I've GMed for about 40 strangers (many now friends) that I had never interacted with in real life prior to running various games for them (Dogs in the Vineyard, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Dread, Blades in the Dark, Scum and Villainy, Aliens, Lady Blackbird, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Aliens...I may be forgetting one or two). Many of these games are rules heavy (and others are lite to medium).

Of those 40 strangers, the number of them that hew to the "more rules = assured focus of table participant on rules over fiction" = zero. Zilch. Nada.