System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect this was him making the reasonable point that in FK you want the players 'playing the world' not 'playing the rules', just as they shouldn't be 'playing the man'. The problem with original Kriegsspiel as a training aid was that the comprehensive rules encouraged the trainees to get good at playing the game, when they were supposed to be getting good at fighting actual battles. And the senior staff officers running the exercises did feel annoyed that they were being reduced to just paper pushers implementing player orders. FK was an attempt to harness the trainers' expertise. There was also Semi-Free Kriegsspiel a bit later, which tried to get a 'best of both' and I'd say is the approach of OD&D.

I guess you can decide that when someone tells you that their goal is to save the players from themselves and that it's preferable to hide the resolution of things via "invisible rulebooks" that what they really mean it that things should be reached via transparent resolutions (at least after the session) and that the game should be to empower the players. I mean, that's a take, I guess.

And, as for Kriegsspiel, I haven't seen that at all in any reconstruction of the history of the game. I would like your source for this.

 

[S'mon]

And, as for Kriegsspiel, I haven't seen that at all in any reconstruction of the history of the game. I would like your source for this.

You tell me your source for "the referees were too lazy to learn the rules, hence FK" and I'll give it a google.

 

[S'mon]

the game should be to empower the players. I mean, that's a take, I guess.

I've never heard anyone talk about FK as "should be to empower the players". This is an alien language from an alien worldview.

I would say that good FK refereeing helps the players to get good at the game, by giving them the chance to see why they succeeded or failed. Then if they pay attention they become better players, and hopefully do better next time. This is what eg Lew Pulsipher calls "skilled play" - he's talking more about semi-free kriegsspiel as in OD&D, but still the emphasis is on players getting good at engaging with the world, not good at the rules (unlike eg 4e D&D, where most skill is in the rules-play). Whether the players feel 'empowered' by this or not isn't really a concern.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You tell me your source for "the referees were too lazy to learn the rules, hence FK" and I'll give it a google.

Try wikipedia, to start, it's very easy to find. I'll help a bit more:

Lieutenant Wilhelm Jacob Meckel published a treatise in 1873[d] and another in 1875[e] in which he expressed four complaints about the overcomplicated rules of Kriegsspiel: 1) the rules constrain the umpire, preventing him from applying his expertise; 2) the rules are too rigid to realistically model all possible outcomes in a battle, because the real world is complex and ever-changing; 3) the computations for casualties slow down the game and have a minor impact on a player's decisions anyway; 4) few officers are willing to make the effort to learn the rules.[13] The fourth issue was the most serious, as the Prussian military struggled to meet the growing demand for umpires.[14] Meckel proposed dispensing with some of the rules and giving the umpire more discretion to arbitrate events as he saw fit. The only things he kept were the dice and the losses tables for assessing casualties.[15]

Emphasis added.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've never heard anyone talk about FK as "should be to empower the players". This is an alien language from an alien worldview.

What other reason are you saving the players from themselves if not to empower them to achieve a better experience?

I would say that good FK refereeing helps the players to get good at the game, by giving them the chance to see why they succeeded or failed. Then if they pay attention they become better players, and hopefully do better next time. This is what eg Lew Pulsipher calls "skilled play" - he's talking more about semi-free kriegsspiel as in OD&D, but still the emphasis is on players getting good at engaging with the world, not good at the rules (unlike eg 4e D&D, where most skill is in the rules-play). Whether the players feel 'empowered' by this or not isn't really a concern.

I don't see how you can get good at the game if the arbitration is both hidden and arbitrary. The only way to get good here is to learn how to play the GM. This is, in fact, required. I have to discern, from repeated play, how this GM will rule on common things so that I can better anticipate how things work in this world. This is the exact complaint made about rules, and there's a reason -- the world is fictional and at least somewhat arbitrary, so you have to engage that to operate with effectiveness. This means learning the rules, even if the rules are "Bob says."

 

[S'mon]

Try wikipedia, to start, it's very easy to find. I'll help a bit more:



Emphasis added.

OK, you'll note that (1) and (2) are what I said to you.

 

[S'mon]

I don't see how you can get good at the game if the arbitration is both hidden and arbitrary.

I agree with that. This is why the arbitrator needs to act like a Common Law judge, and explain his reasoning, not hide it. Then even if I disagree with the specific decision, I've learned something.

As I've said, no referee is perfect, certainly no referee has perfect information, and for FK play it's important for the referee/GM to set a range of possibilities and roll the dice. This takes off a huge burden, and over time a lot of dice rolls, even if each individual one has skewed probabilities, tends to lead to better & more realistic results than the referee deciding what happens each time. A good referee knows his Clausewitz - knows that sometimes, unlikely things happen - and expecting conflict to resolve predictably is a huge mistake.

TLDR: arbitration should not be hidden and should not be arbitrary. If it's a modern or SF game with comms as a play focus, the referee better be a guy like you who knows a lot about comms.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK, you'll note that (1) and (2) are what I said to you.

No, they are not. You said that the players were gaming the rules. 1 and 2 say that the rules were too restrictive and constrained the umpire -- nothing at all at the players getting too good at the rules and gaming the system.

I'll wait on that source, then?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with that. This is why the arbitrator needs to act like a Common Law judge, and explain his reasoning, not hide it. Then even if I disagree with the specific decision, I've learned something.

As I've said, no referee is perfect, certainly no referee has perfect information, and for FK play it's important for the referee/GM to set a range of possibilities and roll the dice. This takes off a huge burden, and over time a lot of dice rolls, even if each individual one has skewed probabilities, tends to lead to better & more realistic results than the referee deciding what happens each time. A good referee knows his Clausewitz - knows that sometimes, unlikely things happen - and expecting conflict to resolve predictably is a huge mistake.

TLDR: arbitration should not be hidden and should not be arbitrary. If it's a modern or SF game with comms as a play focus, the referee better be a guy like you who knows a lot about comms.

Why did you rep this post @overgeeked? You were pushing the invisible rulebooks and not revealing why the GM is adjudicating to prevent the players from being able to game the GM.

@S'mon if transparent adjudication at all times was something that was being actually pushed by the proponents of FKR, most of this thread wouldn't exist. The rulings MUST be arbitrary, though, as even your formulation of setting a probability and roll method are both nothing but arbitrary. The point is to be arbitrary, with the idea that the GM's unique and arbitrary rules will engender a better experience. ANY explanation can fit the facts, because it's fiction, so the choice by the GM is always just going to be their opinion on it. There is no reality or actual physical system to appeal to.

 

[Fenris-77]

Oops.