System matters and free kriegsspiel

[pemerton]

My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

If the goal of the game is to announce actions then I can achieve that, but the moment the goal of the game is defined in terms of affecting the gameworld this loop only gives power to do that to the DM.

This isn't theoretical. I've years of experience of zero agency play. You are, at best, an advisor and at worst an irrelevance or irritation.

And no amount of 'trust' or appeals for the DM to 'not be a douche' raises you from advisor to player. The construct doesn't allow it. The DM gatekeeps everything.

Right. Like I posted just upthread of you, what's key is not trust but who gets to say what, when. And in this model, only the GM gets to say what is happening in the fiction.

 

[Numidius]

To riff off of what @chaochou has just written above, I wonder what would happen at the following FKR table:

* 4 players + 1 GM

*1 player is interacting with the GM exclusively in a protracted scene

* During the protracted 1 on 1 scene, the other 3 players start to talk to each other while inhabiting their characters and faithfully "playing the world" based on the conceits of character design and play (looking at Dark Empires Dark Empires by D3B4G , they're using all of the stuff on the bottom page 2 to page 3 and the outlined premise of play).

* After the protracted scene that the 1 player + 1 GM plays out, the conversation of those 3 players (not overseen by nor vetted by the GM but entirely hewing to "playing the world" and the conceits of the game's character building, theme, and premise) has established a few layers of fiction. They now make a collective action declaration that is contingent upon that fiction that the 3 of them have established being true.


What happens? Is this a violation? Is this principled play? Is there no normative statement about FKR play that can categorize this event?

Basically that's how this hobby started, Arneson did that with a fellow player and Wesely came up with something in response to that action declaration AFAIK

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat, that's a variant of Vincent Baker's smelly chamberlain.

Baker takes as a premise that "The GM has responsibility for everything in the game world but the players' characters; the players get to say what their characters think, feel and undertake to do." Which is basically the same as the play loop that @chaochou has described.

 

[Manbearcat]

Basically that's how this hobby started, Arneson did that with a fellow player and Wesely came up with something in response to that action declaration AFAIK

I very much appreciate the insightful reply but, “came up with a response” doesn’t do enough work to sate my curiosity.

What Id be curious to know about that anecdote is:

* Was the “play the world” fiction they authored honored even though there wasn’t GM oversight/vetting/exchange?

* Was the action declaration they made (contingent upon that authoring) extrapolated to “say yes” or “roll the dice” (and why or why not)?

* Is this handling normative (meaning the “play worlds not rules” principle + character creation rules/premise + “trust each other” principle undergirds exactly this sort of thing)?

 

[Numidius]

AFAIK again, yes it was honoured, dice were rolled as an ad-hoc ruling since PvP situation, and to your last point: yes, I guess so.

 

[Numidius]

@Manbearcat, that's a variant of Vincent Baker's smelly chamberlain.

Baker takes as a premise that "The GM has responsibility for everything in the game world but the players' characters; the players get to say what their characters think, feel and undertake to do." Which is basically the same as the play loop that @chaochou has described.

I remember the smelly chamberlain

 

[Manbearcat]

AFAIK again, yes it was honoured, dice were rolled as an ad-hoc ruling since PvP situation, and to your last point: yes, I guess so.

Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.

* This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.

* They’re stipulating aspects about the world/setting as it relates to their characters (for Dark Empires, this might be one character speaking to something they’re running from to another character about the culture that has helped shape them to another character to how they are rich + can use magic and how all this relates to (a) their thoughts on Napoleon and (b) a just made up between them evidence of cult worship and incursion of ogres in the already established dark woods nearby).

* They’re then declaring an action (say in the example above they’re calling upon the riches + Magics of one PC and the cultural contacts of the other to address the thing the third PC is running from; the ogre-worshipping cult in the dark woods).


What happens?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.

* This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.

* They’re stipulating aspects about the world/setting as it relates to their characters (for Dark Empires, this might be one character speaking to something they’re running from to another character about the culture that has helped shape them to another character to how they are rich + can use magic and how s add ll this relates to (a) they’re thoughts on Napoleon and (b) a just made up between them evidence of cult worship and incursion of ogres in the already established dark woods nearby).

* They’re then declaring an action (say in the example above they’re calling upon the riches + Magics of one PC and the cultural contacts of the other to address the thing the third PC is running from; the ogre-worshipping cult in the dark woods).


What happens?

P. 4

Action, Risk and consequences...
The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players. The players use common sense and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions.
The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences.
If the outcome of the situation is unclear, is very risky or has a poor chance of success the player and gm both roll 2d6. If the player rolls higher than the gm they succeed! If the gm rolls higher, the player fails in some way or the action succeeds but at some cost.
The difference in the results indicates the degree of success or failure.

Playing the world not the rules...
Use what you know about the setting and fiction.
.....
Trust each other, have fun!


Based on the action resolution system and the principles, the game master should determine if there are any other factors (such as ones that the players do not know about) that would make the outcome unclear and require an opposed role; if not, narrate the consequences like to result in-fiction from the player's actions.

At a basic level, this trust works both ways. We are assuming good faith, and that the players are actively and happily engaged with the fiction!

IMO, etc. But that's how I'd run it without knowing more details.

 

[Malmuria]

My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

If the goal of the game is to announce actions then I can achieve that, but the moment the goal of the game is defined in terms of affecting the gameworld this loop only gives power to do that to the DM.

This isn't theoretical. I've years of experience of zero agency play. You are, at best, an advisor and at worst an irrelevance or irritation.

And no amount of 'trust' or appeals for the DM to 'not be a douche' raises you from advisor to player. The construct doesn't allow it. The DM gatekeeps everything.

I'm confused what you mean by agency. You have agency in that you have complete control over your character. When you walk out the front door, what agency do you have over the world? Do you control the weather, the traffic, if your neighbor is out watering the plants? Player agency debates that I've seen usually revolve around DMs deciding things are going to happen in the story regardless of PC actions--i.e., there will be the ogre encounter whether or not the players go left or right or how careful they try to be. That is, the DM might have difficulty being neutral, or not wanting to impose a particular story, OR, the players may simply not trust that the DM can be neutral and just play the world.

The above concerns are not particularly related to FKR, but are questions for any rpg. The gameplay loop that you identify as problematic, for example, is identical to the one listed on p.6 of the 5e players handbook.

Spoiler: 5e gameplay loop

How to Play

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.

 

[Malmuria]

Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.

* This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.

* They’re stipulating aspects about the world/setting as it relates to their characters (for Dark Empires, this might be one character speaking to something they’re running from to another character about the culture that has helped shape them to another character to how they are rich + can use magic and how all this relates to (a) their thoughts on Napoleon and (b) a just made up between them evidence of cult worship and incursion of ogres in the already established dark woods nearby).

* They’re then declaring an action (say in the example above they’re calling upon the riches + Magics of one PC and the cultural contacts of the other to address the thing the third PC is running from; the ogre-worshipping cult in the dark woods).


What happens?

I don't know...what would you do in that situation? I skimmed the rules...it seems for any action the player declares where they might be uncertainty, the dm and player roll 2d6 and compare results. In terms of players collaborating on building the setting, I suppose our group could rely on whatever knowledge we had about Napoleonic Europe, and maybe it would help if we read some of the referenced novels. Then we would just talk about it and see what's most fun. Might take a page out of a book like The Ground Itself and go around the table building up aspects of the world.

I think the result would be, is that you would start with the short Dark Empires pdf, use some combination of historical and literary knowledge, and design some mechanics or subsystems to use on the fly, probably based on prior rpgs people at the table have played. You would forget about half your houserules by the next session, and make it up again? I imagine it would almost be like designing an rpg game together, and what you design would vary from table to table. And maybe it would devolve into an argument! Or maybe there are social dynamics at the table between the players, including players that are shy or want to be polite, that would affect gameplay. That's certainly a risk that other games try to mitigate in one way or another.

It will be argued that some of the FKR blogs don't include principles or procedures to ensure that the above conversation happens, or happens in a particular way. I'm not sure I can articulate why that doesn't bother me? I think I try to imagine how the scenario would work with my play group, based on how we already play, and feel confident that we could figure it out.

Anyway, I'll again mention that the above is not particular to "FKR" games. The question about whether players can contribute to the setting, for example, would extend to any trad or osr game, where the general answer is 'no' or 'yes, with DM consent.' Similarly, I don't think Dark Empires is very sharply distinguished from an OSR zine. For example, there are games like Whitehack and Maze Rats that include free-form magic systems that basically involve the player naming their spell and the dm and player together deciding what it does. That is, many OSR games already play like some of these proposed FKR games (which maybe makes the FKR label somewhat meaningless in the context of the hobby, but that's separate from how a game plays).