I don't think so. But, again, it is me answering, I don't blog about FKR.
See above my EDIT of last reply to you
Last edited:
System matters and free kriegsspiel
See above my EDIT of last reply to you
And I, myself Gm, would not run it as such, as an FKR "Play worlds... bla bla", if there were procedures to follow, rules to resolute, in place.Yes.
Edit: Yeah, I think so. If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
This is like saying that since FKR play allows for a hard GM railroad (bad faith play), that the game is flawed and basing a theory of play around this. If people are engaging in bad faith play -- explicitly against the guidance, rules, and principles of play -- then this is not sufficient reason to blame the structure of the game for the experience.
ETA: there's nothing about having a GM that forestall the exact problem from occurring! All you've done is consolidate authority over the scene, you haven't actually prevented this exact example from happening. There's nothing about having a GM that fixes this problem.
Last edited:
OK. I'm not sure if you count memory as looking up the sheet or not. PCs in Prince Valiant have rankings in Brawn, Presence and up to two-dozen skills. They also have equipment lists. And there are canonical resolution procedures.
Cthulhu Dark doesn't count as FKR under this test either, as the Insanity rating is something that has to be remembered and applied in play.
Upthread I posted an ostensibly FKR bloggers formalised set of someone-facing rules for playing AW-flavoured FKR: Apocalypse World, powered by ancient rules
I'm not saying this as a gotcha - I'm just trying to work out what different people are meaning by FKR. I take it that you wouldn't count that system as FKR.
As I posted upthread, Risus is very similar to OtE but with tighter editing, and replacing OtE's combat rules with a simpler, more universal, conflict resolution system that has some resemblance to Prince Valiant. In terms of rules systems it's no lighter than OtE without the combat rules (eg just use opposed checks and drop hit points altogether) or Prince Valiant.
I had the same thought!
@pemerton
Just to be clear, when I say "players looking at their character sheet" I mean: looking for numbers, rules related minutia, "What can I do know?" moments when scrolling a long list of stuff and modifiers. Extra diegetic stuff. "Lets see if I have 1 more point to add to that roll".
Of course actually looking at the sheets is not the issue in itself, this isn't a game of memory, after all.
As you say: equipment. Yes. List of spells if Vancian-like magic. Skills (I'd love to play WFRP with just skills and critical hits tables). Feats (5e with all feats as fluff only, no mechanical bits, for example). Previous fictional events written down. I guess all good to look at.
From that AW FKR (yeah, I know) game you posted:
STATS:
Cool 0, Hard+2, Hot+1, Sharp-1, Weird+1. This translates to:
A violent, good-looking, somewhat dim man with a strange sixth sense.
That's what I mean. Numbers becoming descriptions.
I found good advice from Wizard Lizard's (which is a french woman, by the way) blog:
undergroundadv.blogspot.com
...and also from her in the FKR Discord chat:
So, conversation between referees and players, resolution based on what would make sense in the world, ref as final arbiter over rules, etc.
is a fitting definition to wargames too.
Like, you could use the Landshut rules or Any Planet is Earth etc. to run games where you control one character
or you could take a bird's eye view and run skirmishes or mass battles
and the point is that you can do all of this in the same game.
That's why we say the distinction [between wargames and rpgs] kind of melts away.
Consider the following game elevator pitch: you and your friends play the officers of a mercenary band in pseudo-historical France during the hundred years war. You index cards which describe said officers, or maybe even just "whatever character you want". Maybe someone plays an aide de camp, someone plays the seer and lover of the leader, etc. In play, the referee starts by setting up a battlefield, with chits or miniatures, and have players handle various groups of units, even potentially including the enemy forces.
Then, halfway through the battle, we "zoom in" on some hill with ruins terrain on it where a small squad is.
At that point, the GM hands out index cards with informations about a bunch of men-at-arms, and every player assumes control of one of them. They're in a dungeon under the ruins, looking for an ancient magical weapon that, if safely recovered, would turn the tide of battle their side.
Game becomes a one-on-one dungeon crawl for a few hours.
Half of the dudes die in the dungeon. But one of them comes out with a magic sword that gives him the strength of ten men!
We focus back on the minis/chits and terrain. The ref puts a new figure to represent that magic sword-wielding character on the battlefield.
A dragon shows up, helping the enemy forces. The magic sword hero jumps on it to duel it. The other players keep moving their troops and handling the battle with referee supervision, while in a corner of the table, the sword player fights the dragon (maybe by himself, maybe with ref supervision, maybe another player who isn't too busy gets to play the dragon).
The hero gets killed, the dragon starts rampaging through the mercenary army and most of its forces are destroyed!
Suddenly, the referee begins describing things from the subjective point of view of the initial "party" I described.
There's this massive army killing your troops and they're coming for you next, what do you do?
Maybe some stay and fight to the death,
Maybe some try to run away,
but it's back in first person view.
Later on, the party is safe and sound (minus the second in command, who bravely stood with the men) hidden in a cave. With no troops to handle, the rest of the session will be played in 1st person.
Next session begins with bandits (50 of them) ambushing the heroes. They first need to figure out how to stall their capture or fight and not die, until eventually a cavalry of rohirim arrive! These, again, are played by players, same for the bandit army.
Etc.
Because the referee handles all rules (all one or three of them in case of contemporary FKR, though back in the days it seems they also kind of liked having a lot of rules to back up their refereeing, sometimes. Depends on the GM, depends on who you speak with), this kind of stuff is seamless compared to if you were using a framework like 5e.
Just to be clear, when I say "players looking at their character sheet" I mean: looking for numbers, rules related minutia, "What can I do know?" moments when scrolling a long list of stuff and modifiers. Extra diegetic stuff. "Lets see if I have 1 more point to add to that roll".
Of course actually looking at the sheets is not the issue in itself, this isn't a game of memory, after all.
As you say: equipment. Yes. List of spells if Vancian-like magic. Skills (I'd love to play WFRP with just skills and critical hits tables). Feats (5e with all feats as fluff only, no mechanical bits, for example). Previous fictional events written down. I guess all good to look at.
From that AW FKR (yeah, I know) game you posted:
STATS:
Cool 0, Hard+2, Hot+1, Sharp-1, Weird+1. This translates to:
A violent, good-looking, somewhat dim man with a strange sixth sense.
That's what I mean. Numbers becoming descriptions.
I found good advice from Wizard Lizard's (which is a french woman, by the way) blog:
Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!
Blog about OSR OD&D and Into the Odd
undergroundadv.blogspot.com
...and also from her in the FKR Discord chat:
So, conversation between referees and players, resolution based on what would make sense in the world, ref as final arbiter over rules, etc.
is a fitting definition to wargames too.
Like, you could use the Landshut rules or Any Planet is Earth etc. to run games where you control one character
or you could take a bird's eye view and run skirmishes or mass battles
and the point is that you can do all of this in the same game.
That's why we say the distinction [between wargames and rpgs] kind of melts away.
Consider the following game elevator pitch: you and your friends play the officers of a mercenary band in pseudo-historical France during the hundred years war. You index cards which describe said officers, or maybe even just "whatever character you want". Maybe someone plays an aide de camp, someone plays the seer and lover of the leader, etc. In play, the referee starts by setting up a battlefield, with chits or miniatures, and have players handle various groups of units, even potentially including the enemy forces.
Then, halfway through the battle, we "zoom in" on some hill with ruins terrain on it where a small squad is.
At that point, the GM hands out index cards with informations about a bunch of men-at-arms, and every player assumes control of one of them. They're in a dungeon under the ruins, looking for an ancient magical weapon that, if safely recovered, would turn the tide of battle their side.
Game becomes a one-on-one dungeon crawl for a few hours.
Half of the dudes die in the dungeon. But one of them comes out with a magic sword that gives him the strength of ten men!
We focus back on the minis/chits and terrain. The ref puts a new figure to represent that magic sword-wielding character on the battlefield.
A dragon shows up, helping the enemy forces. The magic sword hero jumps on it to duel it. The other players keep moving their troops and handling the battle with referee supervision, while in a corner of the table, the sword player fights the dragon (maybe by himself, maybe with ref supervision, maybe another player who isn't too busy gets to play the dragon).
The hero gets killed, the dragon starts rampaging through the mercenary army and most of its forces are destroyed!
Suddenly, the referee begins describing things from the subjective point of view of the initial "party" I described.
There's this massive army killing your troops and they're coming for you next, what do you do?
Maybe some stay and fight to the death,
Maybe some try to run away,
but it's back in first person view.
Later on, the party is safe and sound (minus the second in command, who bravely stood with the men) hidden in a cave. With no troops to handle, the rest of the session will be played in 1st person.
Next session begins with bandits (50 of them) ambushing the heroes. They first need to figure out how to stall their capture or fight and not die, until eventually a cavalry of rohirim arrive! These, again, are played by players, same for the bandit army.
Etc.
Because the referee handles all rules (all one or three of them in case of contemporary FKR, though back in the days it seems they also kind of liked having a lot of rules to back up their refereeing, sometimes. Depends on the GM, depends on who you speak with), this kind of stuff is seamless compared to if you were using a framework like 5e.
Aldarc
Legend
Over the Edge and FUDGE were explicit influences for Risus, Fate, and Cortex. This is one reason why I typically think of them as coming from a similar game philosophy that places an importance on fictional tags for establishing the character: e.g., Clichés (Risus), Aspects (Fate), and Distinctions (Cortex). So even if these games have different underlying architecture - Cortex (Savage Worlds), Fate (FUDGE), etc. - their fictional tags are an important part of how they understand character. One could, for example, potentially make a d20 based game that operates along similar game design philosophy and principles as Fate, Cortex, and Risus.
There are a number of fiction-first games that run pretty close to what FKR is doing. FKR, however, seems to reject the points of design that draws attention to its design or mechanics. So, for example, if I Create an Advantage in Fate, then I am creating an Aspect (a fictional tag) for the scene: e.g., "Blinded by Pocket Sand."
An Aspect is essentially anything in the fiction that has enough in-fiction significance to have mechanical weight or interactivity for characters. It can be invoked for a +2 to the player's roll against the effected NPC. The NPC has to spend at least one turn to try getting rid of the Aspect. Creating this Advantage may simply require beating +2 on the Difficulty Ladder. How we do this in Fate may depend on the dials and knobs in place (e.g., Skills, Approaches, Rated Aspects, Stunts, etc.), but I may still spend a Fate point to invoke one of my character Aspects to make this succeed: e.g., "Unpredictable Conspiracy Theory Redneck."
Though Cortex varies in its system architecture, it may produce a similar result as Fate: e.g., player inflicts a Complication on the NPC ("Blinded by Pocket Sand") or player creates a temporary Asset ("Pocket Sand!").
FKR would seem to say that all of these rules are completely unnecessary. The player declares that they use pocket sand, and the GM declares that it works or makes the player roll for it. (Or possibly the GM simply declares that it doesn't work.) The dice resolution systems for FKR varies, so I won't presume what those are. However, players in Fate can reliably make this happen, and they know how they can reproduce the effect (i.e., Create an Advantage). It's also something that can be inflicted on them.
I suspect that the differing reasons why Fate (or other games) may want these rules and why FKR doesn't could highlight some real insight into these two different sorts of games approach the nature of fiction, rules, and the participants. I respect the idea that FKR is fiction-first - (not sure why FKR doesn't just say that rather than "play worlds not rules") - but there seems to be a different attitutde towards the fiction that I can't quite put my finger on.
Like I understand that a human processor is (potentially) faster at adjudicating fiction without rules, but I'm not necessarily sure that the fastest possible speed is necessarily the optimal thing.. IMHO, the rules are an underestimated contributing factor for the pacing of the game. The rules can draw attention to dramatic moments in the fiction.
Last edited:
A further comment on this: Prince Valiant is classic Greg Stafford design. So there is nothing like WotC D&D feats, or other quirky exception-based stuff that generates pure mechanical manipulation. (With one exception: players can get Gold Stars on their PC sheets that entitle them to a bonus die once per session.)
So there is no difference between playing one's PC's stats and playing one's PC's in-fiction strengths.
This contrasts with eg Burning Wheel, or 4e D&D.
Manbearcat
Legend
Can @overgeeked , @Numidius , @Malmuria , or @Snarf Zagyg unpack what the difference is between "play worlds, not rules" from the credibility test that takes place for each component of situation framing > action declaration > consequence handling in all games governed by genre logic that are emulating said genre?
Is it the same thing? Subtly different?
If its the same thing, then the only difference would be:
"play worlds and rules"
vs
"play worlds not rules"
So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:
* GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)? GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.
* Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves.
* GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space.
So that is the typical procedure/loop for most of the games I've GMed in the last 65 million years (the KT Boundary Event was actually the beginning of TTRPGing...bit of trivia for everyone to pop out at your next dinner party...you're welcome).
What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the and and the not here?
I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step. But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc). I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process. I'm there. But in a game, I have to have something...so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff. So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).
So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?
Is it the same thing? Subtly different?
If its the same thing, then the only difference would be:
"play worlds and rules"
vs
"play worlds not rules"
So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:
* GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)? GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.
* Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves.
* GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space.
So that is the typical procedure/loop for most of the games I've GMed in the last 65 million years (the KT Boundary Event was actually the beginning of TTRPGing...bit of trivia for everyone to pop out at your next dinner party...you're welcome).
What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the and and the not here?
I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step. But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc). I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process. I'm there. But in a game, I have to have something...so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff. So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).
So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?
The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player. So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question, just about my character relative to other characters. Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.
