On my to-do list is to write a Star Wars scenario for The Green Knight. I don't think much change to the special abilities or skills is needed - maybe a Pilot skill?, but I did get stymied trying to think about how that would work in a multi-player scene. The Green Knight doesn't work if only one player steps forward to try and resolve the situation.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
System matters and free kriegsspiel
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
The problem with the use of "high trust" follows closely with what you say here -- if "trust" just means playing in a satisfactory way, then it's just a banality. All games then require trust to work or they fall apart and all games do best with "high" trust. FKR is then leaning on a distinction that doesn't exist.
Which then leaves open the thought that it must mean something else because no one's just going to insist on trivialities, right? And, indeed, what I get from that term isn't that it means satisfactory play but rather than players have to submit to the GM's judgement and that this submission will result in good play. The problem is that there's no causality provided here and no procedure for how that happens and no guiding principles that ensure it. It's just a statement that following along with the GM results in good play. I've done that, it didn't.
I'm not advocating for using the word "trust," I'm just giving you my reading of some of those FKR blogposts. For example, chess requires two players, the board and pieces, and the rules. The rules distinguish clearly between legal and illegal moves. It's rather binary. As a consequence, you don't need to trust, like, or even know your opponent, unless you can't see/perceive the board in some way. So it might be considered "low trust" in that way, though again, maybe that's not the most helpful or accurate language.
And if you have a gm that is intent on making the players submit to their vision, would any written procedures or guiding principles prevent it?
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Look through Pathfinder Second Edition's page and you will find the text thoroughly peppered by phrases like the GM might or the GM will determine. The phrase the GM appears 385 times in a 642 page book. It appears 380 times in the text of Legend of the Five Rings 5th Edition's 337 page Core Rulebook. It appears 159 times in Infinity's 544 page Core Rulebook which devotes a substantial amount to setting material. Storyteller appears 339 times in Exalted Third Edition's 686 page Core Rulebook.
The importance of GM judgement to games like Buring Wheel, Blades in the Dark, and Apocalypse World have been well covered elsewhere.
I am at a sincere loss for a single roleplaying game released in the last 5 years that has some sort of aversion to GM judgement, where GMs are not called on to make judgement calls damn near 100+ times a session. Including some of most detailed crunchy games on the current market. This is a hobby that requires a phenomenal amount of trust between participants no matter what game you end up playing. To argue otherwise is to radically misjudge the landscape of modern game design.
I can totally understand wondering what is the point to these 500 page rulebooks if I'm going to make all these judgement calls anyway. I can understand asking what the game is contributing to the process and getting to a place where for the experience you are looking for the answer could be nothing. That's not the same thing at all as claiming a special degree of required trust.
The importance of GM judgement to games like Buring Wheel, Blades in the Dark, and Apocalypse World have been well covered elsewhere.
I am at a sincere loss for a single roleplaying game released in the last 5 years that has some sort of aversion to GM judgement, where GMs are not called on to make judgement calls damn near 100+ times a session. Including some of most detailed crunchy games on the current market. This is a hobby that requires a phenomenal amount of trust between participants no matter what game you end up playing. To argue otherwise is to radically misjudge the landscape of modern game design.
I can totally understand wondering what is the point to these 500 page rulebooks if I'm going to make all these judgement calls anyway. I can understand asking what the game is contributing to the process and getting to a place where for the experience you are looking for the answer could be nothing. That's not the same thing at all as claiming a special degree of required trust.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Taking this ad argumentum, this is exactly what I think is trying to be conveyed by "high trust:" that it means more flexible and interesting than a low trust game like chess. It's not really about trust -- trust is a high value word that's being used as a stand in for the point -- not giving your GM total control means you lack trust, and that's obviously bad because it's bad in other situations. It's this weird attempt to coopt a term because it sounds good. I see the same thing with the use of "living world." It's a term that sounds good but you cannot get it defined by anyone.
FKR play is all about submitting to the GM's vision of the game. I don't follow why this is being cloaked with "trust." It's not about trust.
This is the core conceit of FKR -- that the umpire/GM knows best and will provide a good game if you submit to their vision/rulings/plan. So this question seems misplaced unless we're assuming bad faith play. Having players submit to the GM's vision is part of good faith play in FKR.
I found this on reddit. (My copy-and-paste has killed the links in the original.)
Assuming it's accurate:
(1) and (4) seem related. That is, part of how we make the rulebook thinner is by assuming rules and principles that aren't stated. This has been discussed in this thread in the contrast between Dark Empire and Cthulhu Dark.
(2) together with (6) suggests that a key principle is that the GM will extrapolate from fictional position in a way that is neutral and as faithful as possible to the fiction conceived realistically. That also suggests that in-fiction causal processes are a close object of scrutiny, in play. I think it was @Malmuria upthread who suggested that one way to deal with a trap in FKR play is to describe what one does with pliers and wire-cutters. (This would contrast with an approach to dealing with a trap that involves a prayer to the heavens - that sort of play doesn't seem to lend itself to realism nor to have much in common with manipulating an imaginary world to your advantage.
If we ignore tactical and focus just on infinity then there are many RPGs that have effectively infinite action declarations: Apocalypse World is one that has been discussed recently by many participants in this thread; so is Burning Wheel; in my play experience so is 4e D&D. But if we add back in the tactical and also the manipulating to your advantage and problem solving, then the picture seems to be clearer: those are play priorities that (for me, at least) are closely associated with classic D&D.
(2) and (5) seem to conform with what @Ovinomancer said not far upthread: it is the referee's vision of the range of possible outcomes, the likelihoods, etc that shapes or even determines the outcomes of action resolution.
(3) seems like a slogan that just reiterates infinity.
And finally, I find it curious that (5) is not worded as It's only going to work if the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings. Instead as being framed as a pretty plausible set of requirements for the GM - which is how Moldvay, for instance, frames the very similar things he says in his Basic rulebook - it is framed as a requirement for the players! That is much more like AD&D 2nd ed rulebooks than classic D&D ones.
I don't really understand the reason for that curious wording unless, as @Ovinomancer has said, it's yet another way of emphasising the priority of the GM's conception of the fiction.
You may have heard of FKR recently, an emerging style of RPG play that takes inspiration from old-fashioned Free Kriegsspiel wargames and pre-DnD RPG campaigns. It's something like a fork of the OSR. Here's some of the principles that I've observed, with links if you want to dive deeper into the rationale:
1.) FKR tends to be very minimalistic, rules wise, although it usually isn't completely freeform. Opposed 2d6 rolls are common, although other dice conventions can be used as needed. A common trend seems to be starting out very bare-bones and then adding in rules as the campaign continues, based on what it needs. These mini-systems are frequently tweaked, replaced, or thrown out as the campaign evolves. The rules are the servant, not the master of the game. FKR uses table-centric design.
2.) FKR strips out most of the rules in order to increase realism. FKR places a high priority on immersion and realism by giving the DM a lot of authority over the rules. They can decide what to roll, when to roll, the range of possible outcomes, etc. The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster.
3.) FKR has less rules to let players do more.
4.) FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks.
5.) FKR is a High-Trust play style. It's only going to work if you trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings.
6.) Boardgames (and some very crunchy RPGs) derive their fun from manipulating abstract rules to your advantage. FKR derives its fun from manipulating an imaginary (but logically consistent) world to your advantage. It plays worlds, not rules. It emphasizes the joy of tactical infinity. You don't use mechanics to solve problems, you use real, open-ended problem solving skills to solve problems.
1.) FKR tends to be very minimalistic, rules wise, although it usually isn't completely freeform. Opposed 2d6 rolls are common, although other dice conventions can be used as needed. A common trend seems to be starting out very bare-bones and then adding in rules as the campaign continues, based on what it needs. These mini-systems are frequently tweaked, replaced, or thrown out as the campaign evolves. The rules are the servant, not the master of the game. FKR uses table-centric design.
2.) FKR strips out most of the rules in order to increase realism. FKR places a high priority on immersion and realism by giving the DM a lot of authority over the rules. They can decide what to roll, when to roll, the range of possible outcomes, etc. The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster.
3.) FKR has less rules to let players do more.
4.) FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks.
5.) FKR is a High-Trust play style. It's only going to work if you trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings.
6.) Boardgames (and some very crunchy RPGs) derive their fun from manipulating abstract rules to your advantage. FKR derives its fun from manipulating an imaginary (but logically consistent) world to your advantage. It plays worlds, not rules. It emphasizes the joy of tactical infinity. You don't use mechanics to solve problems, you use real, open-ended problem solving skills to solve problems.
Assuming it's accurate:
(1) and (4) seem related. That is, part of how we make the rulebook thinner is by assuming rules and principles that aren't stated. This has been discussed in this thread in the contrast between Dark Empire and Cthulhu Dark.
(2) together with (6) suggests that a key principle is that the GM will extrapolate from fictional position in a way that is neutral and as faithful as possible to the fiction conceived realistically. That also suggests that in-fiction causal processes are a close object of scrutiny, in play. I think it was @Malmuria upthread who suggested that one way to deal with a trap in FKR play is to describe what one does with pliers and wire-cutters. (This would contrast with an approach to dealing with a trap that involves a prayer to the heavens - that sort of play doesn't seem to lend itself to realism nor to have much in common with manipulating an imaginary world to your advantage.
If we ignore tactical and focus just on infinity then there are many RPGs that have effectively infinite action declarations: Apocalypse World is one that has been discussed recently by many participants in this thread; so is Burning Wheel; in my play experience so is 4e D&D. But if we add back in the tactical and also the manipulating to your advantage and problem solving, then the picture seems to be clearer: those are play priorities that (for me, at least) are closely associated with classic D&D.
(2) and (5) seem to conform with what @Ovinomancer said not far upthread: it is the referee's vision of the range of possible outcomes, the likelihoods, etc that shapes or even determines the outcomes of action resolution.
(3) seems like a slogan that just reiterates infinity.
And finally, I find it curious that (5) is not worded as It's only going to work if the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings. Instead as being framed as a pretty plausible set of requirements for the GM - which is how Moldvay, for instance, frames the very similar things he says in his Basic rulebook - it is framed as a requirement for the players! That is much more like AD&D 2nd ed rulebooks than classic D&D ones.
I don't really understand the reason for that curious wording unless, as @Ovinomancer has said, it's yet another way of emphasising the priority of the GM's conception of the fiction.
Manbearcat
Legend
I'm also wondering about the realities of "trust (high especially)" undergirding this whole thing.
I agree that it feels like a marketing word as a stand-in for another concept or another thing.
In that way it feels a lot like "fun" as a guiding principle in TTRPGing. Its simultaneously sufficiently opaque so as to be indecipherable and wholly pervasive as a concept which underwrites the zoomed out goal of all TTRPG play and all social contracts that participants enter into to play at all. And, frustrating as all hell to me, it might be weaponized by someone who wants to avoid analysis (either via a Kafka Trap or a Motte and Bailey advance and retreat defense) of play/design.
Here is what I think the word "trust (high in particular" might be doing in an FKR sense:
"High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>."
That is a mouthful yes. But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play. All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes). Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games. A GM can UTTERLY SUCK at running those games and a GM can be brilliant. A player (or host of them) can UTTERLY SUCK at playing those games and a player (or host of them) can be brilliant.
However, "high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <for reasons x and/or y>?" That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the "acquiescence to GM" component of the Venn Diagram).
I agree that it feels like a marketing word as a stand-in for another concept or another thing.
In that way it feels a lot like "fun" as a guiding principle in TTRPGing. Its simultaneously sufficiently opaque so as to be indecipherable and wholly pervasive as a concept which underwrites the zoomed out goal of all TTRPG play and all social contracts that participants enter into to play at all. And, frustrating as all hell to me, it might be weaponized by someone who wants to avoid analysis (either via a Kafka Trap or a Motte and Bailey advance and retreat defense) of play/design.
Here is what I think the word "trust (high in particular" might be doing in an FKR sense:
"High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>."
That is a mouthful yes. But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play. All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes). Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games. A GM can UTTERLY SUCK at running those games and a GM can be brilliant. A player (or host of them) can UTTERLY SUCK at playing those games and a player (or host of them) can be brilliant.
However, "high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <for reasons x and/or y>?" That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the "acquiescence to GM" component of the Venn Diagram).
….that was posted on the first page of this thread.
Post in thread 'System matters and free kriegsspiel'
System matters and free kriegsspiel
Are we really 300 posts in and just now starting to look at what people who use the terms say about the games?
OK. So your point is that you found it too? Does that mean you think it's accurate?
No. My point is that we are 300 posts deep, and just now you’ve started googling about it?
When it was given to you on the first page?
(as for accuracy, I think it is an enthusiast’s description. You have to be to advocate and design for minimalist rule sets. Given the relative newness of this, the ardor and imprecise boundaries are expected.)
Last edited:
