System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

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.

I remember running several one-shots of Fate for my prior gaming group when the GM wanted a break from running D&D. There was a great epiphany moment and bewildered joy when the players realized that a lot of the things that the various minutiae rules for actions that D&D gates and lavishes pages of ink towards were essentially all bundled into the standard "Create an Advantage" action in Fate.

Trying to temporarily blind someone by flinging up sand from the ground with your sword? Create an Advantage. Trying to hide behind cover for extra defense in the gun fight? Create an Advantage. Using an elaborate disguise to get past the guards? Create an Advantage.

The result of this epiphany? The players engaged the fiction even harder than before because they understood how their fiction they created and this rule intersected.

It's a simple concept that covers such a diverse range of action types behind a single robust enough rule.

 

[aramis erak]

The result of this epiphany? The players engaged the fiction even harder than before because they understood how their fiction they created and this rule intersected.

It's a simple concept that covers such a diverse range of action types behind a single robust enough rule.

I had that epiphany upon reading the rules; my fellow players had it shortly after finding that I was doing "Let's you and him fight, here's a boost"...
Fate responds well to rules-adroit play.

 

[Bluenose]

My understanding of free kriegsspiel is that it is a process of adjudicating much if not all of the action declarations in a wargame: instead of using formal charts and tables, the umpire decides what happens based on extrapolation from the imagined situation. The basis for that extrapolation is the umpire's own experience and familiarity with military manoeuvres, terrain, and/or warfare. In free kriegsspiel the umpire does not declare actions.

Well, not quite. There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique).

And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, not quite. There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique).

And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.

Kriegsspiel was released to the Public in a magazine article in 1873... Free Kriegspiel is about the same time . 1876 - von Verdy du Vernois "rules" - literally doing away with the mechanics other than the sequence of play, all decisions by fiat. Only later did the FK movement really become "GM using random when he felt it appropriate"

 

[Campbell]

I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.

 

[Numidius]

@Campbell
I know Cthulhu Dark is appreciated. Regarding the other two, I'd say metacurrencies, maybe too crunchy the 2d20, engaging with mechanical stuff instead of purely diegesis/fiction, too much enphasis on dealing with character sheets during play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.

Honestly, I'd say it's because of the player's say that exists in these other games. There's no player's say in FKR, it's only the GM's say.

 

[pemerton]

I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.

Honestly, I'd say it's because of the player's say that exists in these other games. There's no player's say in FKR, it's only the GM's say.

I read these two posts, and then this:

There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique).

And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.

And therefore find myself confused by the FKR label, at least. Trust the GM, who has the sole say seems quite different from Have the referee make decisions, following input and discussion, that rely on knowledge and experienced intuition, and are subject to critique and/or correction by other experts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I read these two posts, and then this:
And therefore find myself confused by the FKR label, at least. Trust the GM, who has the sole say seems quite different from Have the referee make decisions, following input and discussion, that rely on knowledge and experienced intuition, and are subject to critique and/or correction by other experts.

Largely because FKR isn't actually Free Kriegsspiel, but rather takes having a referee make calls and runs with that to the GM being the sole arbiter of all things. Expecting things said about how Free Kriegsspiel actually worked to apply to the idea of OSR FKR.

 

[Numidius]

Unless a table goes FKR gm-less...