System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Numidius]

An example I've just seen is @Retreater 's thread on using a different system to run The new Enemy Within campaign instead of WFRP4e ruleset.
It is for VTT, but still...

 

[hawkeyefan]

The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics.

I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards.
Zweihander, Mythras, WFRP4, D&D5e

I personally wouldn't run 5e because of that. I might give it a try with an FKR mindset. Where I live is the most requested to be played; by far, of course.
So, having to say "Players, do not engage with rules at my table" would be totally liberating, like off-loading a burden.

Like generating characters as usual, but only noting important stuff or extreme stat number via descriptions. Ditching any type of encumbrance rules by just asking the player: "Ok, where do keep it?"
Action economy, combat procedures, all gone and instead descriptions, declaration, tactics not looking at the sheets.
Gm decides when to roll, what, and to give dis/advantage.
Clearly, a Gm one likes and trust.
In my case, it's only me, unfortunately.

Sure, there may be a reason for some folks to take this approach.

I just look at it as a case of the mechanics are a kind of substitute for the characters knowledge of the world that informs the player of things like odds and the like, and so I think that's generally something I wouldn't want to take away from players.

Overall, I'm all for making a system simpler in some way. But I'd say that there comes a point that you remove so much that you have to question if you're using the right rules set.

There are plenty of rules light systems that can sub for a more complex game that reduce the burden on GM and players, but which still give some framework to understand things like odds and the like.

 

[pemerton]

@Numidius

This is not a very profound post. But I have two immediate thoughts.

As I understand it, free kriegsspiel depends upon the referee applying their own knowledge of how relevant things work (eg how long does it take to pull an artillery piece half-a-mile through the mud after a day and a night of rain?). But the FKR advocates tend not to say anything about the epistemic expertise of the GM. Which makes me feel the label is sometimes a minsomer.

If the GM is making up rolls required based not on expertise but on . . . something else? intuition? . . . that seems to me to dilute player influence over the shared fiction. If the GM drifts back to AW-ish principles (like you were talking about in the other thread) then maybe we're moving into different terrain? And in my Classic Traveller game, when the action steps outside the core subsystems (eg an Electronics or Mechanical throw is required) I might discuss with the players before setting a throw required.

A third point: I see those above two points as separate from rules light.

 

[aramis erak]

My feelings on this are mixed. I tend to like rules-light games, generally speaking. But I can also like complex rules. I think there's a balance...and it's probably different for everyone....where additional complexity is worth it because it adds to the enjoyment. And then there's a point where it's just there. That's all subjective.

What I don't agree with from Ben's video, and with this movement overall, is the idea that the players don't need to know the rules. That's not something I can get behind.

There is a well known (within the field of Education professionals and paraprofessionals) paradigm about creative works: creativity is always easier within a framework than without one. The corollary, taught for lesson planning purposes, is Always include a prompt during free write times. RPG play is highly correlated to structured writing assignments; the framework makes creativity easier. There are always some who hate the prompt, like there are some who find the use of rules an impediment to the RP, but others who only thrive when they have rules to hang on to.

Personally, as a Rules are there to create texture for play type GM, I can't think of anything more useless than super ultralights such as Risus... it literally does nothing to help me create anything.
Meanwhile, games like T2K 4E and Talisman Adventures give me a toolset which means I don't have near as much to prep.
Tunnels and Trolls gives me a decision making framework.

On the players need to know the rules front, I'm definitely in Players should have reliable reference to standard procedures used in the rules when I'm running. I find little within the tolerable range more aggravating than having to tell player X what to roll when after 4-5 sessions... It's one of the reasons I dislike TOR 2e (but one of the smaller issues). It's one of my issues with The Fantasy Trip.
I agree, however, that a player need not know the minutia, but I also prefer games with either one or two mechanical rolling modes...

 

[Numidius]

@Manbearcat Yes. I guess the tilting point is were one evaluates the mechanical odds instead of, or before the actual fiction.
Btw players may be asked to roll, knowing the odds in advance.
Also one might run rules-heavy games FKR style, as long as everything is kept behind the screen. But yeah, I've seen light to ultra-light is the default.
@pemerton the discussion with players I guess is always fundamental, not much around rules, but about genre (instead of expertise, maybe?), about fictional positioning, or different impact on the shared fiction by different Pcs, given their strengths, weaknesses, powers.

I've said were I'm coming from, so the above is just my recent understanding if it as a "system", a playstyle, but my experience and personal needs as a Gm were already taking me direction.
IME both with Gumshoe and B/X, once we dropped rules and procedures (except when me, the gm, asked for points expenditure, or dice rolls), suddenly descriptions, diegesis, the fiction in general became more vivid, interesting, with abundance of details.
Before that I found myself too many times explaining how to make maneuvers while in combat with tiny bits of machinery like Dfudge, Deed dice, proficiency dice... Then I just said, Ok you both deal damage and simply tell me what manouver you make - Going defensive? Cool, tell us exactly what you do, while I explain what happens around you.


Disclaimer: I love to roll dice and let them dictate outcomes.
In B/X Gms have a lot at their disposal: D20 roll over/under, D6 roll high/low, 2d6, 3d6, percentage.
One I used for resolution when a powerful individual is confronting a sturdy opposition is D20 vs 3D6.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics.

I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards.
Zweihander, Mythras, WFRP4, D&D5e

I personally wouldn't run 5e because of that. I might give it a try with an FKR mindset. Where I live is the most requested to be played; by far, of course.
So, having to say "Players, do not engage with rules at my table" would be totally liberating, like off-loading a burden.

Like generating characters as usual, but only noting important stuff or extreme stat number via descriptions. Ditching any type of encumbrance rules by just asking the player: "Ok, where do keep it?"
Action economy, combat procedures, all gone and instead descriptions, declaration, tactics not looking at the sheets.
Gm decides when to roll, what, and to give dis/advantage.
Clearly, a Gm one likes and trust.
In my case, it's only me, unfortunately.

Sure, this all makes sense. To my understanding, this is the kind of reasoning that led to the Free Kriegsspiel movement; the rules for the Kriegsspiel games had become complex to the point of being a burden. So the idea was to remove a lot of the rules and replace them with someone whose expertise would serve as a fast substitute for the rules.

But as others have already pointed out, that eventually leads us back to rules. The referee is meant to be consistent. So once he starts making his rulings and establishing his reasoning, what he's doing is recreating the rules.

It's a chicken-egg type of situation.

My preference is to find a rules system that is simple enough at its core, but which can be applied in a variety of ways. To me, such a system can largely serve the purpose of the referee in Free Kriegsspiel.

There is a well known (within the field of Education professionals and paraprofessionals) paradigm about creative works: creativity is always easier within a framework than without one. The corollary, taught for lesson planning purposes, is Always include a prompt during free write times. RPG play is highly correlated to structured writing assignments; the framework makes creativity easier. There are always some who hate the prompt, like there are some who find the use of rules an impediment to the RP, but others who only thrive when they have rules to hang on to.

Personally, as a Rules are there to create texture for play type GM, I can't think of anything more useless than super ultralights such as Risus... it literally does nothing to help me create anything.
Meanwhile, games like T2K 4E and Talisman Adventures give me a toolset which means I don't have near as much to prep.
Tunnels and Trolls gives me a decision making framework.

Yeah, I would agree with this. I think no matter what, there needs to be some framework involved. How structured or robust that framework may be will vary by taste, but I think it's necessary.

On the players need to know the rules front, I'm definitely in Players should have reliable reference to standard procedures used in the rules when I'm running. I find little within the tolerable range more aggravating than having to tell player X what to roll when after 4-5 sessions... It's one of the reasons I dislike TOR 2e (but one of the smaller issues). It's one of my issues with The Fantasy Trip.
I agree, however, that a player need not know the minutia, but I also prefer games with either one or two mechanical rolling modes...

I get the idea of hiding mechanics for the purpose of having players engage only with the fiction, I just don't think it's necessary. I think a player can both be aware of the rules, and engage with the fiction. I think there are some systems that make this easier to do. I would agree with you that the more rolling modes or other elements that get added to a game, the harder this likely becomes.

I think one area where D&D struggles with this is it gates certain action types behind feats and spells and the like, making something that seemingly anyone should be able to try (like, disarming a foe, for example) possible for only a select few. This complicates things because then you either are blocking engagement with the fiction by saying "oh sorry you can't try and disarm this guy because you don't have the proper feat" or you create two sets of rules, one for characters with the feat, and then another for characters without.

This is the kind of complexity I think makes engaging with the fiction harder. There are other ways to add complexity to a game that don't have this kind of effect.

 

[Numidius]

@Manbearcat I guess most FKR people would agree with your reasoning.

Sometimes the robust framework would be only genre/setting consistency, to start with, and rules being formalized, or ditched as they go, during play.
I can see myself doing that if I ever have a chance to run Vampire t M again.

About your last point on different crunch for feats or lack thereof: Comes to mind John Harper with his little game, or thought experiment, 50/50.

50/50
A game of fictional positioning
By John Harper


When your character takes a risk and you're not sure which outcome should occur, do the following:

Consider the situation at hand and how its details interface with the capabilities of the character.

Take a coin. Think of a best outcome and assign it to 'heads'. Think of a worst outcome and assign it to 'tails'. Flip the coin.

Describe the outcome, based on the result of the coin flip.

Example One
Rodrigo, master duelist of the Dardi school, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his purse.
Rodrigo's player says that he will draw his sword and kill them.
Rodrigo is armed with his side-sword, is sober, and well out of the reach of the three bravos. He is a master of deadly swordplay. The bravos are young, fierce, slightly drunk, and ready for violence, but not especially skillful.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Rodrigo kills the first bravo with a cut from the draw, punta riversa, then the second with a thrust to the heart. He is on his guard, ready to finish the third if the bravo makes the slightest move.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Rodrigo kills the first bravo with a cut from the draw, punta riversa, but misses the second strike as the second bravo tumbles backward in mortal fear, entangled in his own cloak. Rodrigo is on his guard, ready to finish the third if the bravo makes the slightest move.
-----
Example Two
Pietro, stable boy at the Two Owls inn, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his loaf of bread.
Pietro's player says that he will grab a stone from the ground and kill them.
Pietro is small and not especially strong. He isn't quick. He's never been in a deadly fight in his life. The bravos are young, fierce, and ready for violence.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Pietro fumbles with the rock, drops the loaf of bread, and takes only a savage kick to the ribs before the bravos saunter off, laughing and munching on his lunch.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Pietro hits the first bravo in the nose with the rock, enraging him. The bravos beat Pietro to a bloody pulp, leaving him unconscious and dying in the gutter.
-----
Example Three
Pietro, stable boy at the Two Owls inn, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his loaf of bread.
Pietro's player says that he'll be as compliant as possible, stare at the ground, and meekly hand over his bread.
Pietro is small and not especially strong. He is unassuming and non-threatening.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Pietro hands over his bread and the bravos take it, jeering. One of them feels bad about it, though, and sneaks back later to give Pietro his portion.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Pietro hands over the bread, and he's such a push-over that the bravos are emboldened. 'Sneak into the larder' they say 'and bring us a jug of wine to wash this down.'
-----
So, anyway, that's that. Fictional positioning matters, even in a game where every 'roll' is always 50/50. The fiction shapes the boundaries of the resolution. It may affect the mechanical odds of some outcomes but that isn't required. (That's a game design choice) Right? Right.

 

[pemerton]

So, anyway, that's that. Fictional positioning matters, even in a game where every 'roll' is always 50/50. The fiction shapes the boundaries of the resolution. It may affect the mechanical odds of some outcomes but that isn't required. (That's a game design choice) Right? Right.

The John Harper example reminds me of these blogposts, in the same general neighbourhood, by Vincent Baker.

One comment Baker makes, which is a bit orthogonal to the present thread trajectory, as that in an approach of framing => stakes setting => roll => narration of outcome, we never actually see the characters in action. So eg one minute Pietro is reaching for the rock, the next minute Pietro is lying in the gutter.

The one time I had to invent a whole little subsystem in our Classic Traveller game was when one PC tried to wrestle a sub-machine gun from a guard. (Traveller has no grappling rules.) As much by good fortune as anything else, the way I chose to resolve it turned out to produce a very intense back-and-forth, as the gun changed hands and bullets were discharged and some injuries were taken and in the end the PC had the gun and the NPC guard was dead:

This left Xander the only PC still under Rada's guard. Xander's player discussed with the other players, should I go kinetic? He decided that he should - especially as Xander has Vacc Suit skill, and so would be able to use the battle dress should he be able to find it. So he jumped Rada and tried to wrestle his SMG away from him.

Classic Traveller has no grappling or disarming rules, so I improvised this, giving advantages to Xander for greater Strength and Brawling skill, but also allowing that whoever already has the gun has an advantage to retain it - so it was opposed checks on two dice, with Xander having a +1 to grab from Rada and a +2 to retain against Rada. In the ensuing fight Xander got shot (but not seriously) before grabbing the gun, shooting Rada - who also was able to take it - before Rada grabbed it back and got in another shot at Xander, before Xander grabbed it again and killed Rada with a final burst. There were two interesting things about this. One concerned the system for wounds in Classic Traveller, where the first set of hits is taken off a random physical stat (the "first strike" rule), but subsequent wounds are allocated on a die-by-die basis as the victim chooses - this meant that (as GM) I was able to keep Rada up rather than unconscious, by spreading the damage dice across his stats, but when the final burst came in I had no way of avoiding all three stats dropping to zero (= death). The other was how cinematic it was, which isn't something I expect from Traveller combat. The time taken at the table to resolve it was probably ten minutes or so, and there was this real sense of the tables turning, and turning again, as the gun changed hands, attempts to grab it back failed but then succeeded, shots were discharged, and Xander finally was able to grab the gun and shoot Rada dead.

In the resolution framework I imposed, the fictional positioning did affect the odds - I imposed die modifiers for STR, Brawling and possession-of-the-gun advantages - and I think that building that into the process rather than just the stakes/outcomes helped support the "cinematic" and also rather visceral feel at the table. (I could imagine a similar vibe in AW based not on opposed rolls but repeated Seize by Force with GM-side moves including dealing harm and taking things from them.

To try and move my comments from the slight tangent back to the main point: My feeling - a bit untested, but I'm thinking of Cthulhu Dark play which is the closest I think I've come to this in actual play - is that fictional positioning as affecting outcome works best when the relationship between the established character, and the position they find themselves in, feeds very naturally into the possible outcomes: like when a journalist PC jumped from an upstairs window to escape a fire and (the player rolling poorly) broke his leg.

In the Harper examples, it's hard for me to get a sense of what the play experience would be like without knowing much more about how the stakes/outcomes are established, at what point the player is allowed to take back their action declaration, etc.

 

[Numidius]

@pemerton Yes, that is also my experience in running like you did, giving out dis/advantage as the narration of combat went exchanging blows and tactics, very cinematic.

Also the argument that we don't actually see Pietro doing his stuff is very pertinent and I think an FKR approach would allow us to see it, as in narrating what he does in real time at the table.

On Baker, I am still fascinated to this day by the resolution of DitV in which narration and putting dice forward just (must) go together.

 

[pemerton]

On Baker, I am still fascinated to this day by the resolution of DitV in which narration and putting dice forward just (must) go together.

It's on my "to play one day" list. But behind AW.