This thread has been prompted by some of the recent discussions of the topics mentioned in the thread title.
System matters
To the best of my knowledge, Ron Edwards is the person who coined this slogan.
When Edwards and those influenced by him (eg Vincent Baker) talk about system they're not focusing on things like whether turning undead uses 2d6 (Moldvay Basic) or 1d20 (AD&D). Of course those sorts of rule minutiae are not irrelevant - not only does the use of dice affect the experience of play, it affects the maths (eg a +1 amulet of turning behaves differently on a 2d6 spread compared to the linear 1d20). But the core of system is something else.
The core of system is what the shared fiction consists in and how that shared fiction is established. In this post, I'm not even going to try and point to all the considerations that can go into this. But some of them are:
Different ways of answering these questions produce pretty different RPGing experiences. Those differences go not only to the content of the shared fiction (including outcomes of action declarations), but also - and at least as importantly - the process and experience of establishing the shared fiction. It's not clear what an argument to the contrary would even look like.
Free kriegsspiel
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.
Historically, there are well-known connections between free kriegsspiel-type wargaming and (proto-)RPGing. Arneson and Wesely are prominent figures in this respect. But rather than looking at the relationship historically, we can look at it in "logical" terms, ie what sort of system is free kriegsspiel?
I'm not going to try and answer that question fully in this post. But here are some features of free kriegsspiel as a system:
It's obvious that a RPG that exhibits these features is going to be pretty distinctive, relative to the overall known variety of RPGs. The first point, about the neutrality of the umpire, excludes approaches to GMing that deliberately lean into particular thematic or emotional elements of the fiction. The second point, about the "fixedness" of the opposition, excludes many approaches to RPGing which assume a degree of dynamic improvisation of adversity. The third and fourth points are at odds with a whole lot of approaches to "augments", "fate points", etc - especially those which flow from a player's ability to activate idiosyncratic or "subjective" aspects of their PC build, like relationships or emotional commitments, as a contribution to the success of a declared action.
Some obvious limits of free kriegsspiel
Free kriegsspiel is intended as a system of adjudication of tactical decisions made in a domain in which the adjudicator has expertise and the context of resolution is already established.
In the context of a RPG, there are some obvious contexts in which it is not going to be very applicable:
These contexts would include a wide variety of urban and social situations.
Many RPGers advocate GM decides as an approach to such situations. It's worth noting that, whatever one thinks of that sort of approach, it's not free kriegsspiel. It's much closer to GM as storyteller.
System matters
To the best of my knowledge, Ron Edwards is the person who coined this slogan.
When Edwards and those influenced by him (eg Vincent Baker) talk about system they're not focusing on things like whether turning undead uses 2d6 (Moldvay Basic) or 1d20 (AD&D). Of course those sorts of rule minutiae are not irrelevant - not only does the use of dice affect the experience of play, it affects the maths (eg a +1 amulet of turning behaves differently on a 2d6 spread compared to the linear 1d20). But the core of system is something else.
The core of system is what the shared fiction consists in and how that shared fiction is established. In this post, I'm not even going to try and point to all the considerations that can go into this. But some of them are:
* What sorts of elements make up the player-character? For instance, does the PC include relationships with others as part of the build?
* How do those elements affect action resolution? For instance, if a PC is acting to protect someone with whom they have a relationship, does that feed into the resolution process?
* Which participant establishes the situations that confront the PCs? For instance, does the system use "kickers" (player-authored starting situations)?
* What principles govern the establishment of situations? For instance, if a GM has the authority to establish situation, do they have to have regard to any elements of PC build in doing so? If situation is related to pre-authored backstory, how is this relationship mediated (eg via a map and a key)?
* What authority does the GM have to determine that a PC fails in a declared action? For instance, is the GM entitled to declare failure (or say "no") by reference to pre-authored and as-yet unrevealed fiction?
Different ways of answering these questions produce pretty different RPGing experiences. Those differences go not only to the content of the shared fiction (including outcomes of action declarations), but also - and at least as importantly - the process and experience of establishing the shared fiction. It's not clear what an argument to the contrary would even look like.
Free kriegsspiel
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.
Historically, there are well-known connections between free kriegsspiel-type wargaming and (proto-)RPGing. Arneson and Wesely are prominent figures in this respect. But rather than looking at the relationship historically, we can look at it in "logical" terms, ie what sort of system is free kriegsspiel?
I'm not going to try and answer that question fully in this post. But here are some features of free kriegsspiel as a system:
* The umpire does not have an interest in the outcome of action declarations; their interest is in the "truth" of the situation;
* Following from the above, the umpire is not advocating for the opposition - the adversity posed by the opposition has already been established, and is simply part of the circumstances that the umpire is adjudicating;
* The umpire is able to understand and interpret the connection between the player's "gamepiece" and the declared action just as well as the player is;
* Once the action is declared, the player has no more control over how it unfolds or resolves - it is "out there" in the world of the fiction, for the umpire to adjudicated.
It's obvious that a RPG that exhibits these features is going to be pretty distinctive, relative to the overall known variety of RPGs. The first point, about the neutrality of the umpire, excludes approaches to GMing that deliberately lean into particular thematic or emotional elements of the fiction. The second point, about the "fixedness" of the opposition, excludes many approaches to RPGing which assume a degree of dynamic improvisation of adversity. The third and fourth points are at odds with a whole lot of approaches to "augments", "fate points", etc - especially those which flow from a player's ability to activate idiosyncratic or "subjective" aspects of their PC build, like relationships or emotional commitments, as a contribution to the success of a declared action.
Some obvious limits of free kriegsspiel
Free kriegsspiel is intended as a system of adjudication of tactical decisions made in a domain in which the adjudicator has expertise and the context of resolution is already established.
In the context of a RPG, there are some obvious contexts in which it is not going to be very applicable:
* If the context of resolution is not already established - eg it is very complex or dynamic in ways that would matter to resolution;
* If the adjudicator is not especially familiar with the context of resolution (and doubly so if the players are more expert than the adjudicator);
* If the parameters that need to be adjudicated are not really tactical, but involve a high degree of evaluative or aesthetic or emotional interpretation.
These contexts would include a wide variety of urban and social situations.
Many RPGers advocate GM decides as an approach to such situations. It's worth noting that, whatever one thinks of that sort of approach, it's not free kriegsspiel. It's much closer to GM as storyteller.