System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Fenris-77]

Not necessarily super relevant for this thread, but I am a teacher, and sometimes I think about how I might use roleplaying games to teach genre. Previously I do things like writing exercises ('write in the style of...), but I wonder if I can do something more collaborative, supplemented about discussion about what would 'count' or not count as expected for a given genre and why/why not. So all the stuff around invisible rulebooks, even the pedagogic context of FK makes some intuitive sense for me...

Funny, I used the basic PbtA mechanics to teach 6th graders about conflict and consequences in framing scenes for fiction. It worked really well.

 

[S'mon]

I think that's why saying it's about trust is a bit odd. I expect the GM to mess up, I don't expect them to be experts on every topic they may need to portray in a game. I want them to involve me in that process. I want to understand and be involved in establishing the process the GM will use when running the game.

I generally don't like most GMs, so I consider myself a poor player. The two type of GMs I'm ok with are (a) the ones who are willing to take advice from the players and (b) the ones who actually know their stuff. Type (b) is pretty rare, type (a) is less rare. But the most common type at least traditionally are (c), the incompetent viking hat types. Don't know their stuff, don't take advice or direction. I don't do well with them - many players do.

I try to be a (b), or failing that to be an (a).

 

[S'mon]

One of the questions I have because it's something that really weighs on me generally is how FKR referees deal with the inherent tension between playing NPCs in actor stance and having to make neutral calls about those NPCs? Maybe I just get too close to NPCs, but having rules in place to help determine what happens helps me to like stay in the pocket during scenes where NPCs are involved.

I just don't have that feeling. I'll always kill my darlings. I'll not even feel bad.
It is far harder to kill some cool PC the whole table loves. Then, I'll feel bad. I still kill them. For the good of the game.

 

[Campbell]

I just don't have that feeling. I'll always kill my darlings. I'll not even feel bad.
It is far harder to kill some cool PC the whole table loves. Then, I'll feel bad. I still kill them. For the good of the game.

View attachment 145314

I meant it more in terms of shifting mindsets. For me to shift into that character space takes a lot of effort. For me to shift back to referee headspace also takes effort. When I keep having to shift back and forth I can get exhausted.

Probably just coming at it from a different angle because I'm also a LARPer and theater nerd.

 

[S'mon]

I meant it more in terms of shifting mindsets. For me to shift into that character space takes a lot of effort. For me to shift back to referee headspace also takes effort. When I keep having to shift back and forth I can get exhausted.

Probably just coming at it from a different angle because I'm also a LARPer and theater nerd.

I dunno, I just find it easy to shift from internal-aspect to external-aspect. I can fully identify with an NPC when I'm speaking as them, but that never threatens to bias my GMing.

 

[pemerton]

Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.

I understand the rebellion. To me, the overarching problem doesn't seem unique to FKR. The systems where I've been part of rebellions for similar reasons (ie poor GM management of the fiction) have been AD&D and RM.

Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".

That makes sense. You should hire yourself out to some of the FKRer blogs!

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one here but you is suggesting this is how it's done.

No one at all is suggesting this is how it's done. My comment here was in response to your continued mentioning of rule zero in D&D, and how that makes D&D no different because the rules can simply vanish at the GM's whim.

I refuted that point by explaining no one likes or expects rule zero to be used that way. I also cited the many games that don't grant the GM such authority.

The fact that they're the DM/GM/Ref makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. They're in charge. It's their game to run as they see fit. High DM/GM/Ref authority.

That's your mistaken assumption about how it works. It's no different than D&D except that there's no rulebook for you to try to gotcha the DM with.

I mean, that's a pretty telling statement right there.

I do think that in a game, players of all kinds should be bound by rules. The rules can be different for different types of participants. When kids play tag, there are different rules for the kid who's "It" than for everyone else.

The idea that the rules are there to thwart the GM is, to me, a huge red flag.

Do you think that the rules exist to thwart players?

You assume good faith and trust the Referee right up until they show you they're not worthy of that assumed good faith and trust. What you don't do is assume, without ever actually trying, that the Referee must be a cheater and must be out to get you...simply because they run a game in a style you clearly have no interest in.

But players? Assume bad faith toward those dirty gamers immediately, right?

You're still assuming that your ultimate bad faith out-to-get-you DM is the same thing as what I'm talking about. They're different things. As I've said. A few times now.

And again. The rules are known. The rules are: roll 2d6, higher is better. In most FKR games that's literally the entire game system right there. There are no rules that are hidden. What you're railing against is that the Referee has the authority to set the difficulty of a task without precisely explaining exactly how they come to that decision in every moment and telling you exactly what your odds of success are before you make a roll. What you assume is bad faith player from the Referee and you expect that they owe you an explanation up front. That attitude is untenable in the majority of games, but especially in ones with high DM/GM/Ref authority.

It's absolutely tenable. There's absolutely nothing stopping a GM in D&D from sharing every single DC with his players before they roll. It's a perfectly tenable way to play the game. I know this because I've seen it first hand. And D&D is a very high GM authority game. I actually would have put it just about at the top of the list, until this thread.

There are also games where there's nothing hidden from the players. Apocalypse World has a known resolution mechanic. Blades in the Dark is all negotiated clearly before a roll is made. Alien and Mutant Year Zero and the games that use that system, roll a pool of d6s, if you roll a 6 at all, you succeed. Spire and Heart use a pool of D10s, with tiered success based on the highest roll. All of these games are not only perfectly tenable, but I think they also largely address a lot of the concerns about D&D that the FKR seems to be attempting to address.

To me, these processes and means of determining outcomes....these are rules. They're fundamental to how the game plays.

This style of play is clearly not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their preferences. But if this is how you think things should be, you're never going to be comfortable enough with the style to give it anything approaching an honest chance. At the table or in discussion.

It's possible that it may not be for me. Certainly, some examples are not for me. That "diceless combat" example that was posted seems like the opposite of what I'd like an RPG to be. But there were some games linked on Itch that have the FKR tag that seemed fun or playable....or at the very least wouldn't make me smash my face into the table.

But for discussion, I'm giving it an honest chance. I'm asking questions. I'm poking at it. I'm actively interrogating it. I see some of the appeal, but others I'm just not seeing.

Yes. Exactly so. To inform the character of the obstacle before them and thus inform the player (as much as is relevant and possible) what their chances of success are.

But that's exactly how it's achieved. The goal is to inform the player...the means of delivery is precise numbers...which the character wouldn't have. I've no problem informing the character and player of what's before them. That's the point of describing things. My objection is solely with the means of delivery. Precise numbers break immersion. The character wouldn't have those precise numbers. It puts the game mechanics front and center instead of the character and the world. Getting back to the FKR and their mantras, "play world, not rules," is often repeated. This is part of that. The world isn't going to spit out a display informing the character that they have 57.9% chance of accomplishing a task...unless you're playing in a world that does. But the majority won't have that. So, since the world isn't going to do that...there's no reason to do that at the table.

I get that you don't like the precise numbers. My point was that being precise wasn't the goal so much as trying to give the player as accurate an assessment of the situation as possible to that of the character. The GM is going to use certain words when doing this. Those words are very often going to fail to convey as clear a picture as needed.

So codifying them in some way....with a DC or some similar means....actually serves to help me immerse. My character is going to know the situation that's facing them. I want my knowledge as a player to be as close to that as possible. I don't want there to be misinterpretation based on the specific words chosen by the GM. That's far more likely to break my immersion.

Now, this I will say is largely a matter of preference. You don't like precision, and it's more important to you to risk lack of clarity in order to avoid too much clarity. However, as many others have already posted, I think perhaps you're underestimating the human mind and how it's doing these kinds of calculations and determinations all the time, and how accurate people can be, especially with tasks they've trained for. Precision in that regard doesn't seem problematic at all.

You want the game mechanics to be centered. That's the opposite of what the FKR is after. They want the play, the character, the world to be centered. What you want and what the FKR want are opposites. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you're literally accusing DMs/GMs/Referees of bad faith play and cheating...simply because they're playing in a style different than what you expect. They're not having badwrongfun, they're having not-for-hawkeyefan fun. There's nothing wrong with that. So why are you so insistent? Just accept that it's not a style for you.

I don't need nor necessarily want the mechanics to be front and center. I just think they should be known.

And no, I'm not saying that anyone running FKR is cheating or having badwrongfun. My concern is how running an FKR game in a principled manner must be very difficult.

In an attempt to move things forward a bit, do you have any examples of what you do or how you remain principled in your GMing when running FKR style? I know the basics of like "lean on genre", but do you have an example of play that you could share?

When I've seen opposed rolls used, it's in the open. But here's the thing. From your posts, I would assume that you would demand that the Referee roll first so that you know exactly what your chances are. It's entirely up the the Referee when to roll. If they insisted that the player rolled first what would you do and why?

So why does the GM roll in the open? Why not roll behind a screen and then just observe the player roll, and then let them know what happens?

For an opposed roll, no I wouldn't demand the GM roll first; why would I do that? There's no impact on my decision making at that point, and the odds are known to me because we're both just rolling 2d6 and seeing who gets higher. Unless there are modifiers in place; then I'd like to know that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It does have guidelines for designing new characters, but not in the way most people expect. Characters are not created from a pool of points or options you pick. There are more detailed instructions, but you design the powersets that fit the character you want to play. Characters are not designed with balance in mind. Instead the game is designed so that if you are playing Ant Man you should have an impact even if Thor has a superior power set.

I suspect the answer will always depend on how someone views the loadbearing word "system" in the question. If viewed broadly enough, the answer is virtually tautological. That's rarely the usage of "system" people complaining about that feature of MHR are using, so the discussion ends up going nowhere because of semantic issues.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.

When constructed that way, its either a gotcha or Socratic, and the distinction is invisible without having a great degree of faith in the person asking the question.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The idea that the rule book exists to gotcha DMs is arrant bloody nonsense. I thought about sugar coating that but decided against it. It is nonsense.

I've argued the primary purpose of rules to me is so that the decisions I make will show a pattern to people who I'm GMing for that doesn't require having known me for years, and more, that what decision I make in three months is likely to be similar to the decision I made yesterday in at least the broad.

If that's a "gotcha" I'm not sure what to say about that.