System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Manbearcat]

Fair enough! I think in the end, yes, there will be rules that enter into the picture in some way. So a game that is designed and playtested will be better able to articulate a somewhat reliable set of rules. But I also always ask, what rules can be taken away from a game and have it still work. This came up somewhere in a discussion on starter sets for games...why are the starter sets so often a much better and clearer articulation of the rules than the main rulebook?

I also find it interesting with OSR games how much of them are taken up with random tables. Like, what is Mork Borg really? Because it's not a bunch of rules. It's mostly random tables, a bare-bones setting, and evocative (or annoying, depending on your pov) graphic design. Supplemental rules have been cobbled together by the community in various zines and unprintable pdfs.

I think my most succinct answer to random tables is it allows GMs to offload creative energy onto something else while avoiding all 3 of the below.

As a whole, here are my thoughts best put together. In the absence of system architecture (conflict/action resolution rules that sufficiently interact with situation and yield satisfying decision-points and have governing principles/best practices of sufficient zoom/resolution to inform them), the GM will do this in any given moment of play:

1) GM storytelling

2) Conch passing

3) The GM is going to have to devote significant cognitive workspace to continually build out system in the course of play (devise > stress test > iterate).

All 3 of these are system. Tables fall under 3. So if GMs don’t want to conch pass or storytell, they’re going to be devoting a lot of table time and a lot of cognitive workspace to 3.

Some GMs love that. Some GMs love to mix 1 and 3 in equal parts. Maybe they also like a smidgeon of conch passing (historically this happens in low/zero stakes moments of play that are characterization/color-heavy like 45 minute campfire musings/laments or drunken tavern hooliganism or bakery/dress window shopping shenanigans).

I get it.

I’m just saying the useful analysis of prospective FKR GMs and players starts there.

This is what will happen as a result of your collision with this (presently…not so much after session 8) rules-minimalist game. The implications of GM Storytelling are x. The implications of Conch-passing are y. The implications of rules development/stress-testing/iterating live during play are z. Enjoy as your table sort this stuff out in its own unique way.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe, but the point is that the rule comes in at step 3 of the gameplay loop--"the DM narrates the results of their actions." DMs are free to make up new monsters...why not fire-resistant goblins?

What if I'm playing with my nephew (or really any new player)...they don't yet know the rules, or even some of the common tropes. So they would respond to the situation by saying, "oh darn, I'll try something else," where a player familiar with the rules would declare the gm to be acting in bad faith to negate a PC ability.

The difference between those two situations does not come down to the core gameplay loop described in the opening pages of the book, but rather a number of contextual elements, like player knowledge and player expectations.

Again, we aren't talking about the same thing. Of course you can create fireproof Goblins. What you can't do (in D&D) is declare your normal Goblins fireproof as part of adjudication the casting of fireball. Well, I mean you can, but that falls way outside any of the normal expectations of play and certainly is something the game gives you specific permission to do.

The example of playing with your nephew is a very different example. A marvelous example, but not one that really sheds light on how the rules of D&D work (or don't).

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe, but the point is that the rule comes in at step 3 of the gameplay loop--"the DM narrates the results of their actions." DMs are free to make up new monsters...why not fire-resistant goblins?

What if I'm playing with my nephew (or really any new player)...they don't yet know the rules, or even some of the common tropes. So they would respond to the situation by saying, "oh darn, I'll try something else," where a player familiar with the rules would declare the gm to be acting in bad faith to negate a PC ability.

The difference between those two situations does not come down to the core gameplay loop described in the opening pages of the book, but rather a number of contextual elements, like player knowledge and player expectations.

I disagree with “the rules comes in (or should come in) at point 3 of the gameplay loop (and your final paragraph points to this)” and I think this is something that we get caught up on a lot in these conversations.

In a game like D&D where skilled play is a big priority, these sorts of things MUST BE an input (often the primary if not exclusive) which informs a player’s OODA Loop.

Perhaps not in every conflict, but the bulk of conflicts should be undergirded by players skillfulness informing their orientation to the fiction and their attendant action declarations. If any large number of moments of play is instead governed by arbitrariness (THESE goblins are fire resistant and there was/is no way for you to suss this out because there was little to no telegraphing/portending it - a soft move in PBtA parlance - from which the player could draw the inferrence/puzzle solve) rather than skill and engagement with the the fiction.

There must be a feedback loop where fiction + rules binds GM narration and informs player OODA Loop and vice versa or there is no skilled play (instead it becomes an unsteady ground of arbitrariness monster lurking at any given moment of play).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

'C' and Number three there was what I was indexing. Without the adjudication framework provided by the rules that bit can get mighty slippery. I'm not even saying it can't work because sure it can, but it's a lower agency way to play. I'm surprised this was such a controversial statement. Surprised, but not upset. I like a good discussion.

I think it's controversial because of the statement that the standard process loop used by the majority of TTRPG gamers has "zero player agency."

It's needlessly pejorative, denigrates large numbers of people that play our hobby, and also ... well, it takes a commonly used term and twists it in a way so that most people here wouldn't understand it and provides no added value in terms of understanding.

It's sufficient to note that most trad games heavily or completely restrict player authority (in terms of authorship of the narrative, consequences, etc.).

 

[Fenris-77]

I think it's controversial because of the statement that the standard process loop used by the majority of TTRPG gamers has "zero player agency."

Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.

 

[Malmuria]

'C' and Number three there was what I was indexing. Without the adjudication framework provided by the rules that bit can get mighty slippery. I'm not even saying it can't work because sure it can, but it's a lower agency way to play. I'm surprised this was such a controversial statement. Surprised, but not upset. I like a good discussion.

This is partly where the issue of trust comes in. A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep. The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere. Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables. This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table. If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left and what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player agency has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.

But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left? There, the players authority, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction. The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream. And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound. You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree. Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars. Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.

When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action. Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the encounter. In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next story beat.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.

Why?

Let's go through the examples again, and let's use an FKR-style game. Dark Empires (and most FKR games) use the same loop-

1. The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players.
2. The players use common sense and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions.
3. The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences.

Now, while there aren't hard & fast rules, I think that most FKR games have a much higher tolerance for player authority. But let's just concentrate on player agency.

Here, it's all reliant "on the GM's thoughts to adjudicate actions[.]" But if we are assuming your prima facie assumptions (it's all in good faith, no one is a weasel or jerk), and the GM and players are applying the principles (both the ones written and unwritten) then there should be as much player agency in FKR games like Dark Empires as in D&D!

Again, let's look at the player agency conditions-
A. The player declares the action.
B. The action will have consequences within the gameworld.
C. The player can reasonably anticipate the consequences of the decision.

A is met.
B is met.
If there is an issue with C (if there is an issue with reliance interest- if the players cannot predict the consequences of their actions), then yes, there is a serious problem with the GM and the game! But the whole point of this type of system is that this shouldn't happen. If it is happening, if there is a mismatch, then ... well, this is probably a poor choice for the table, and they would do better with a stricter set of published rules to rely on. But there is nothing, per se, about this system that limits player agency.

 

[Fenris-77]

I suspect we aren't going to agree about this, but that's ok. I think the scaffolding provided by, for example, the D&D rules in terms of adjudication does impact player agency, and pretty significantly. I was not, I repeat not, assuming bad faith play though. When you have bad faith play any RPG falls apart. To put my position simply, I think that good faith play plus an adjudication framework provides move agency than just good faith play by itself. However, when we start to look at specific FRK systems I will freely admit that the landscape could change.

If we disagree about how much player agency is inherent simply in good faith play I can live with that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is partly where the issue of trust comes in. A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep. The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere. Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables. This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table. If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left and what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player agency has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.

But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left? There, the players authority, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction. The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream. And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound. You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree. Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars. Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.

When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action. Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the encounter. In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next story beat.

That's a terrible attempt to portray Blades in the Dark play. You're starting from a trad game, standard GM-provided premise of a door that the players have to declare an action to get the GM to tell them more about the play, and then assuming that the gear rules or resistance rolls actually integrate into this play at all. They don't. There's never an opening situations like you've provided, to start, and the resistance or gear deployment don't operate in that manner.

 

[overgeeked]

As to your first point above without an adjudication framework, which D&D has in spades, you are incorrect.

And since the DM is free to ignore the rules on a whim and/or adjust the DCs as they see fit, they amount to the same thing. The DM decides. Either they decide it works, it doesn't work, or they give you a chance and ask for a roll. The player's agency is limited to what they decide to do. The player controls their actions, not their actions' outcomes. That's the purview of the DM. Agency is choice of actions, not narrative control of the outcomes of those actions. If the DM sets the DC at 15, that's up to the DM. Likewise if they set the DC at 45, that's up to the DM. There's no appeal to the rulebook the player can make to force the DM to pick a different DC. The player has no recourse but to accept the DM's ruling or gather their stuff and walk.

As to your second point, I said deciding by fiat that they are immune to fire. I thought that was clearly indexing a decision made in the moment, not something done during setting design. Sure, of course goblins can be immune to fire in D&D, but not because you just now decided that was the case.

Can but shouldn't as explained below.

As to your third point, I wasn't talking about house rules at all. I was talking about the adjudication guidelines present in the rules at the time of play. So the fact that fireball works like X (it doesn't matter of its RAW or house-ruled) confines or constrains the way the DM adjudicates the results of that action. If your DM gets to randomly change rules like that on the fly I think your D&D experience is non-standard, to say the least.

Not really, no. Again, the DM can decide mid-cast that any number of things happen. Counterspell, wild magic surge, etc. Or simply decide that this one fireball is different somehow. Or that the circumstances right now (that the PCs and/or players are completely unaware of) changes how things work. But, the players trust the DM generally won't do those things or if they do, the players trust that the DM will explain why at some point.

What does a fireball do when cast into a space smaller than it's AoE? That's pure DM fiat. You expect the DM to rule that fairly. You trust them. How long does it take fire to catch on something wet? That's pure DM fiat. You expect the DM to rule that fairly. You trust them.

What you can't do (in D&D) is declare your normal Goblins fireproof as part of adjudication the casting of fireball. Well, I mean you can, but that falls way outside any of the normal expectations of play and certainly is something the game gives you specific permission to do.

Right. You can, but you shouldn't. Why? Because it breaks the players' trust. And DMs really don't want to break the players' trust. Why? Because if they do the entire house of cards, shared delusion, shared fiction, suspension of disbelief crumbles. Maintaining that is all about trust. Literally the whole of the hobby is about trust. The players have to trust the DM to be fair and run and interesting and engaging world. You have to trust these other humans with your time. Trust these other humans in your house.

This is why it's silly that trust is somehow a bugbear word now. In traditional games the DM is in complete control of literally everything and you generally trust them not to be a jerk. Yet, somehow trusting the DM not to be a jerk is now this weird, scary thing. Pick one. Either you trust the DM or you don't. You don't get it both ways. (General you, of course.)

Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.

And since the DM can freely change that on a whim...the players have effectively the same agency in both. There is no appeal to the rules the player can make that forces a DM to relent if they do something the player doesn't like. Only the social contract, breaking trust, and the players' voting with their feet.

The point is that the rules don't provide the agency for the players. For every thing you can point to in the rules that says "this is how this functions" there's a line in the DMG or otherwise that says the DM is in charge. It's the DM's show from start to finish. What races and spells you can pick, DM fiat. Roll stats or array or point buy, DM fiat. Max hit points or rolls or averages, DM fiat. What the monsters can or cannot do, DM fiat. The shape of the planet you're on, or whether you're even on a planet at all, DM fiat. The house rules, if any...DM fiat. The setting and world and monsters and factions and NPCs...yep, still all DM fiat. The only agency traditional games give the players is their character creation options and choice of actions...which are also constrained by DM fiat. That's literally identical to what the FKR game being used as an example gives the players.

Your constant pointing to the rulebook as some kind of source of player agency is the gamer equivalent to an appeal to authority. The book isn't in charge of the game as played at the table...the DM is. The DM can default to the rules, if they want to. Or they can ignore the rules entirely. Again, the players' only choice is to go along and play or walk. The rulebook isn't a charm person scroll you can activate by thumping it to magically compel the DM to do something you want.