System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Malmuria]

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.

What if asking/talking to the players is part of the GM's decision-making process? If you can assume that the relationship between GM and players is not adversarial, then you don't need to include any mechanics for regulating or gameifying that conversation

 

[Ovinomancer]

Unless a table goes FKR gm-less...

I don't even understand how this would work and not just be some kind of conch-passing (not to put down conch-passing).

 

[Ovinomancer]

What if asking/talking to the players is part of the GM's decision-making process? If you can assume that the relationship between GM and players is not adversarial, then you don't need to include any mechanics for regulating or gameifying that conversation

This is postulating that there's never, ever a case where a player thinks one thing and the GM the other and then saying that you don't need a resolution process because everyone's on the same page. The point of any conflict resolution process is to resolve conflicts. Doing that with an ad-hoc fiat system where one player has all the say doesn't change this. Nor does asking for input make the ad-hoc fiat system less of a fiat system.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, just pointing out that your argument here seems to be just postulating a statement of "but what if everyone's okay with the GM says?" Okay, works great then, we've gone around the circle.

 

[Numidius]

I mean, rules, rolls are still available when needed, and disposable when not.

 

[Malmuria]

This is postulating that there's never, ever a case where a player thinks one thing and the GM the other and then saying that you don't need a resolution process because everyone's on the same page. The point of any conflict resolution process is to resolve conflicts. Doing that with an ad-hoc fiat system where one player has all the say doesn't change this. Nor does asking for input make the ad-hoc fiat system less of a fiat system.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, just pointing out that your argument here seems to be just postulating a statement of "but what if everyone's okay with the GM says?" Okay, works great then, we've gone around the circle.

What I'm saying is that "gm fiat," doesn't preclude in practice there being a fair amount of conversation at the table. That is, personally, it doesn't really seem inconsistent for an FKR game in practice to include a lot conversation and consensus-seeking while still ultimately letting the GM decide the how to resolve uncertainty. It's just that an FKR game would not include any formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative (for example, like Resistance rolls in Blades in the Dark where a player can negate a consequence by taking on stress).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, rules, rolls are still available when needed, and disposable when not.

I'm not sure who you're replying to, here. What you're describing is still an ad-hoc fiat system that can, in a given moment, use fiat to determine to use some other more formal procedure or not.

 

[Numidius]

I'm not sure who you're replying to, here. What you're describing is still an ad-hoc fiat system that can, in a given moment, use fiat to determine to use some other more formal procedure or not.

I guess you are correct, yes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I'm saying is that "gm fiat," doesn't preclude in practice there being a fair amount of conversation at the table. That is, personally, it doesn't really seem inconsistent for an FKR game in practice to include a lot conversation and consensus-seeking while still ultimately letting the GM decide the how to resolve uncertainty. It's just that an FKR game would not include any formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative (for example, like Resistance rolls in Blades in the Dark where a player can negate a consequence by taking on stress).

Right, but this doesn't alter the system from GM fiat. The inclusion of the players being able to ask for certain outcomes doesn't move the authority needle at all, even if a GM is generous in granting those asks. When you strip this an look at where authorities lie and how the system works to resolve conflicts, that a player feels they can try and negotiate an outcome or the GM is generous and free with such negotiations doesn't change that it's still an entirely ad-hoc GM fiat system being talked about. And that this has very little to do with the Free Kriegsspiel historical basis of umpires applying actual experience and doctrine to moves in a game, especially considering that there is a higher evaluation of the umpire's choices during the game and a rating for umpires. It's this borrowing of just the fiat that strikes me as misplaced when claiming the FK part of FKR. I think this is what @pemerton is driving at.

 

[Malmuria]

Right, but this doesn't alter the system from GM fiat. The inclusion of the players being able to ask for certain outcomes doesn't move the authority needle at all, even if a GM is generous in granting those asks. When you strip this an look at where authorities lie and how the system works to resolve conflicts, that a player feels they can try and negotiate an outcome or the GM is generous and free with such negotiations doesn't change that it's still an entirely ad-hoc GM fiat system being talked about. And that this has very little to do with the Free Kriegsspiel historical basis of umpires applying actual experience and doctrine to moves in a game, especially considering that there is a higher evaluation of the umpire's choices during the game and a rating for umpires. It's this borrowing of just the fiat that strikes me as misplaced when claiming the FK part of FKR. I think this is what @pemerton is driving at.

I agree with that...the relationship between FK and FKR is mostly analogical and best understood in as bearing a similar relationship to other games of their time (kriegsspiel and trad rpgs respectively). As I mentioned in another thread, this means that FKR is mostly an extrapolation of OSR principles to a certain extreme. I think the most relevant historical connection would be if you can call what Arneson and others were playing as FK wargames, and if something of that mentality informed how they developed early dnd.

Ancient Roleplaying, or Free Kriegsspiel Revolution (FKR): What The Heck Is That? | Free Kriegsspiel Revolution

url=https://youtu.be/vA4ywGK4ePM?t=6]A bit of mood music for you[/url]} KRIEGSSPIEL! For those of us who do not speak German, kriegsspiel simply means "wargame." It was primarily conveived of by Prussian military officers in the 1800s as a tool for simulating battlefield skirmishes and adapting

boardgamegeek.com

 

[Numidius]

My experience, before even reading about the FKR movement, was that after some time, in an ongoing campaign, game-play tended to "devolve" mostly on conversation and less and less on the actual rules, or procedures.

In one shots, the freeform ad-hoc Gm fiat approach helped to wrap it up before end of session.

Until my tendencies converged with the FKR, and it picked my interest.

So as a Gm I've seen it working fine; as a player I wouldn't be so sure, honestly. Never met a Gm which convinced me completely.