System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Manbearcat]

So, I read the game. I find that it's interesting that there's more space dedicated to charts that don't really matter to how the games plays than discussion about the core conceits, principles, or agenda of play. And that the resolution method is Bob says unless it's especially risky or unlikely to succeed, then it's a ~40% chance to succeed? Honestly, the largest problem I have is that the game leaves so much up in the air for the GM to determine how things happen while encouraging players to lean into some source material -- the issue here is that I can lean hard on this source material but if the GM hasn't or doesn't like that particular bit of material, I'm just straight out hosed for doing what the game told me should work.

Agreed.

What's more, a spread for a game like that (1 System Say / 6 GM Say / 3 Player Say) isn't actually Zero Sum. I was just using it for illustration.

The "boots on the ground" reality is that a GM Facing game with very low System Say serves to reduce Player Say while the inverse is also true; a Table Facing game with higher System Say serves to amplify Player Say.

So in reality, a 1 / 6 / 3 game is actually more like 1 / 6 / 2 (or even 1.5) at the outset. As any particular GM : Player matrix gains more exposure/traction in a game, however, this reducing effect will throttle back until it becomes a positive feedback loop (therefore becoming amplifying) This is because the GM Facing aspect of play will turn into Table Facing as (in theory) the GM's Say will effectively morph into the System's Say as the predictive capacity of a player's model improves with exposure; the "System's Say" here being (Bob) the GM. Learn and internalize (Bob) the GM's model and predilections and your (Player's) Say may increase from 1.5 to 2 to 2.5 to 3 and onward; "Skilled Play."

 

[Numidius]

Allow me a thought experiment, and see if it makes sense.

Let's pretend you (I mean you and your group) are so in love with the Duskvol setting, after playing Blades a lot, that you want to explore it from every angle possible, maybe even expand on the lore.

You decide to liberally make any type of character that comes to mind, regardless of status and importance, and play them as well in any situation you want.

While hacking the character's sheet in order to accomodate this, you realize what's really needed is a name, a role in the setting, maybe a brief description, anything else comes up in play; flashbacks are a thing, after all.

Since characters & situations are so disparate, you prefer to let go of the game structure, as you can blend those phases of play instinctively, and opt for a simpler resolution mechanic, rolling an appropriate bunch of D6s when you feel it's about time, consequences being adjudicated, case by case, by the Gm, after discussion, of course, detailed as the moment demands. Stress no longer a thing.

Maybe new people are introduced to the game, it becomes an open table, or the players have so many PCs each, that you find more convenient the Gm just rolls an x-in-6 single D6 resolution, when needed and quickly go back to the fiction.

Eventually a battle royale between major Pc and Npc factions occurs, PvPvGm, and you decide big dice pools are now deployed to represent the various assets at their disposal, and go further assigning dice to anything else will play a factor in a given situation. Rolls are now opposed in a manner straight from Risk.

All hell breaks loose. Situations not directly involved in the ongoing clashes are resolved how the Gm sees fit.
In the aftermath you spend the next sessions, basically roleplaying freeform, discussing, bargaining, re-organizing the new status quo, if any, in the setting.

Time to make new characters, new blood in town, all members of a small enterprise with great ambition. This time you want to fine detail their abilities, possessions and connections before play begins...

 

[hawkeyefan]

What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.

I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.

I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.

 

[pemerton]

As a player, I quite often lack knowledge relevant to the situation my character finds themselves in, especially in relation to determining stakes and odds. I, for instance, have no experience with picking locks, but my character might, so my knowledge is not terribly useful here for determining stakes. So this can be done a few ways -- the game can provide me with this information based on how it resolves conflicts (ie, stats, skills, resolution methods, etc) so that I can make an informed decision this way despite my lack of actual experience with picking locks (the system's say). Or, the game might use consensus building, where we discuss it at the table and find a way forward for this conflict by establishing stakes and building out a shared knowledge of the situation (the table's say). Or, it might just say that Bob says what happens and I don't have any way to gain knowledge because it's not shared (the GM's say). Or, it might be that the player just gets to declare what happens here (the player's say). Or, it could use some combination of the three. So, without additional clarity on what you mean by player knowledge here, I don't have an answer for you.

I'm not @Numidius, but I do have my own thoughts on this.

I think you can guess how I'd handle this in 4e (DC-by-level chart; Thievery skill; etc) - if part of a skill challenge, then success or failure also trigger obligations on the GM to reframe/advance the situation as appropriate to both (i) reflect the outcome and (ii) keep the challenge alive (assuming it wasn't the final check). Burning Wheel is rather similar except that it uses an "objective" DC chart. Neither of these tell us much about FKR, though.

In Cthulhu Dark, the rule is to build a pool: 1 die of it's humanly possible (which picking a lock is), 1 die if it's within your sphere of occupational expertise (in my experience this is sometimes obvious and sometimes needs a bit of table discussion to settle it) and 1 die if you risk your sanity. The higher the roll, the better the outcome. If there is a chance of failure (which at our table is normally the GM's decision unless another PC is opposing) you fail if you don't beat the single die rolled to establish the opposition. What the precise outcomes are is established by the GM's narration following from the fiction and having regard to how high roll was and whether it was success or failure. I gather this is supposed to be somewhat closer to FKR. A bit like AW, the player's sense of odds and stakes is informed by their knowledge of the fiction and the resolution framework rather than any real-world understanding of how to pick locks.

In Classic Traveller, the action resolution framework is a bit more ad hoc and requires the table to bring in a few assumptions and make a few inferences. There are places where the rules call for Electronics and Mechanical checks, and PCs have expertise in these skills, and the equipment list includes toolkits and lockpicks, so we can infer that technical endeavours sometimes require checks. This is reinforced by some general discussion of how the referee might set checks and apply mods for availability (or not) of tools, for the PC's stats, etc. I tend to default to 10+ if it sounds tricky, and somewhere between 6+ and 8+ if it sounds easy to a bit hard, with mods for expertise (+1 per level) and the odd stat mod (say, +1 if a relevant stat is 9+). The players can't easily work out the odds until the throw has been called for; but then in Classic Traveller there is no investment in PC building and no player currency to spend on checks, so the moderate ignorance doesn't really disempower anyone. I think this is supposed to be close to FKR.

 

[pemerton]

I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results. We could even go through an exercise of looking at different games and evaluating their lock picking rules from a G-N-S perspective (which rules lead to fun and streamlined gameplay? Which are most realistic? Which is most suitable for the kind of story we are collaboratively telling).

On this, I agree very much with @Ovinomancer that noting that all roll dice and interpret results doesn't take us very far. Rolling to disarm a trap on a chest in a classic D&D module is pretty different - in terms of how it flows from the fiction and feeds back into it - from when, in my Classic Traveller game, a player had to make an Electronics throw to determine whether his PC could modify a communicator to use it to jam a signal between a spotter and a ship in orbit that was blasting away at the PCs' ATV.

In classic D&D, the attempt uses a turn in an action economy (based around light sources, wandering monsters, etc); and determines whether or not the PCs (i) lose hp, which are hard to recover within that action economy framewor, and (ii) gain treasure, which is the main source of XP.

In our Traveller game, there is no action economy, and no reward at stake. There is no puzzle to be solved. If the check fails, then we have a situation in which the spotter continues to call down fire - and we just move on from there. The contrast would be with the evasion rolls to avoid fire, which are located within a tight resolution structure (I used the system found under the Ship's Boat rules in Book 1, generalising it to all attempts to evade fire in a vehicle).

It’s a misunderstanding of FKR to think it rejects all rules at all times. The rules must conform to and support the fiction. If not, dump the rules that don’t. In FKR the DM is the rules. But the DM‘s rules, rulings, decisions should conform to the fictional world being presented.

I don't really see how the rules must conform to and support the fiction gets us to the DM is the rules. I mean, that first thing is true of any good RPG. But it gets us to systems as varied as Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller - and none of them are the DM is the rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.

I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.

I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.

I referenced this earlier-

To use an example that has been bandied about for a while, the rule-lite version of Cthulhu Dark makes this continuum explicit (here, "Keeper" = GM)-

Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail?
Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.
These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.

Empower the Keeper, and this runs like FKR. Disempower the Keeper and make it more collaborative (or have additional rules regarding the fiction), and it might seem like a Fiction First system. Are they actually that different?

I don't have the actual answer, but I do think it's instructive and interesting that people likely find the major point of differentiation in the formal allocation of authority.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.

I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.

I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.

I don't see it as falling in FKR because it has a required resolution system that's table facing. I mean, I've only read that free version, but that's how that works as I read it -- you roll when you try to do things that are important. It's not the GM says what happens but could ask you to roll, if they want. This, as far as this thread has convinced me, makes CD a non-FKR game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I referenced this earlier-



I don't have the actual answer, but I do think it's instructive and interesting that people likely find the major point of differentiation in the formal allocation of authority.

Have you played the game at all?

I get that the core mechanic is light enough to be applied in a variety of ways....it works for just about any action declaration that a player may make for a character.....so in that sense, it feels like it fits into the idea of "play worlds, not rules". But the mechanics are entirely player facing, which seems against some of the comments posed in this thread.

To take one element of the game, there's the bit where if you get into a confrontation with a mythos creature, you die. This was something that made my group pause, but I convinced them to try the game anyway. I can't imagine how the game or the experience would be improved by not sharing this rule with them. If one of the PCs attempted to directly attack or engage a mythos creature, and I simply said "Oh okay....yeah, it eats you" I don't see how that's a better option.

I see the rules as written as informing them of the reality of the fictional world, and which gives them information that will inform how they make decisions as players.

I don't see this awareness as "playing the rules"; do you?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Have you played the game at all?

No, of course not. I only mention it regularly and easily cite to its provisions.

That's a productive way to start a conversation!

I get that the core mechanic is light enough to be applied in a variety of ways....it works for just about any action declaration that a player may make for a character.....so in that sense, it feels like it fits into the idea of "play worlds, not rules". But the mechanics are entirely player facing, which seems against some of the comments posed in this thread.

To take one element of the game, there's the bit where if you get into a confrontation with a mythos creature, you die. This was something that made my group pause, but I convinced them to try the game anyway. I can't imagine how the game or the experience would be improved by not sharing this rule with them. If one of the PCs attempted to directly attack or engage a mythos creature, and I simply said "Oh okay....yeah, it eats you" I don't see how that's a better option.

I see the rules as written as informing them of the reality of the fictional world, and which gives them information that will inform how they make decisions as players.

I don't see this awareness as "playing the rules"; do you?

I think you are confusing a lot of different things here. But to simplify- if you think that the ruleset of Cthulhu Dark (to use one example that I brought up) or Dark Empires (to use another example that I brought up) are "player facing" because the players might happen to know that one system has monsters that kill you dead (which they should know from the fiction) and the other uses opposed 2d6 rolls ... well, okay!

Again, though, you can look back to the front page of this thread and you can see that I provided a link to one post that had several salient details of FKR games- none of them are what you are describing. But maybe they're wrong! Who knows. It's a mysterious world out there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, of course not. I only mention it regularly and easily cite to its provisions.

That's a productive way to start a conversation!

It was meant as a genuine question not a challenge. I don't know what games you may or may not have played, nor what you regularly cite in discussion. I've only played it twice. I GMed one session, and played in a second. My experience with it is limited.

I think you are confusing a lot of different things here. But to simplify- if you think that the ruleset of Cthulhu Dark (to use one example that I brought up) or Dark Empires (to use another example that I brought up) are "player facing" because the players might happen to know that one system has monsters that kill you dead (which they should know from the fiction) and the other uses opposed 2d6 rolls ... well, okay!

I'm asking specifically about Cthulhu Dark and about the bit where if a PC engages a mythos creature, that PC will die. Is this something the players are aware of? Or is it something that they are not aware of?

To me, this is a rule that lets the players know what kind of fiction this will be. It's not pulpy adventure cthulhu or Delta Green where there may be some manner of victory at times.

FKR ethos, as it seems to be presented, may advocate for removing this codified rule from the game, and instead relying on the GM to make that call.

Do you think Cthulhu Dark would work better if that was the case? I'm genuinely asking.

Again, though, you can look back to the front page of this thread and you can see that I provided a link to one post that had several salient details of FKR games- none of them are what you are describing. But maybe they're wrong! Who knows. It's a mysterious world out there.

Yes, well we're on page 8 of a discussion, and others have been involved and shared their thoughts. You'll forgive me if I don't limit my comments solely to your first post in the thread.

But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.