System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Campbell]

I think the language of need, of what is essential is not really all that useful in terms of roleplaying game design. It implies there is only one right answer, instead of many depending on what your group is looking for. I think it's a lot more useful to consider what the game is contributing based on the needs of the specific group.

I have played 3 different super hero games - Masks, Marvel Heroic, and Mutants and Masterminds. They have different specificity.

In Masks fictional positioning is every thing. We might know you have elemental control as a power. That's it. No details are given.
Mutants and Masterminds dives in deep (not as deep as HERO obviously).
Marvel Heroic sits in the middle.

Each game provides something different, focuses on different salient details about the fiction. I would gladly play any with the right group. I think there are a lot of cases where specificity is helpful, especially games that are essentially defining a genre of play unto themselves. Games where the source material is the game. Games like Legend of the 5 Rings, Exalted, Vampire - The Masquerade, and Pathfinder Second Edition are specific because they are defining a genre for us all to experience. That has real value. So does something like Dune, Cortex, or World of Dungeons which are more abstract.

 

[Malmuria]

To quote Coco Chanel, "before your rpg leaves the house, it should look in the mirror and take one rule off."

 

[overgeeked]

I think the language of need, of what is essential is not really all that useful in terms of roleplaying game design. It implies there is only one right answer, instead of many depending on what your group is looking for. I think it's a lot more useful to consider what the game is contributing based on the needs of the specific group.

I disagree because one of the explicit goals of FKR is minimalism. So the question of what is needed, what is essential, as opposed to what is wanted or preferences is incredibly useful and relevant. It's not a judgement of games with more rules. But you can't have a conversation about a minimalist design philosophy if you cannot talk about what is the absolute minimum needed to be a roleplaying game. Near as I can tell, you need: 1) one character to play, and; 2) one game mechanic. That's the minimum. Drop either and you drop the word "roleplaying" or "game" from the description. It certainly might not be the best, and it's certainly not everyone's preference, but where the absolute minimum needed to qualify as an RPG is a valid topic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, the game books disagree with you. They quite explicitly give the D&D DM exactly that power.

Yes, I realize that. But it's not one that any group expects to be used all the time. It's not meant to be applied willy nilly. The spirit of that rule is that you should alter things to suit the situation or the specific group of players as needed. There's no need to be slavishly loyal to the rules as written.

If a GM used this in the manner you're implying....where he's just usurping the rules and the players' expectations without valid reasons for doing so....that's just bad GMing.

And then again, there are many games that specifically don't allow this.

I disagree. The skill bonus and DC don't really model reality or the fiction very well at all. The character wouldn't know "+8 vs DC15" they'd know "that looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult." And I see no functional difference between "+8 vs DC15" and "roll the dice, higher is better" except that it telegraphs the number needed first...which is explicitly a level of precision a person in the real world or a character in the fiction would not have.

Except that's not how it works in the real world. We almost never have precise understanding of our chances of any given task succeeding. There are generally too many variables for even the human brain to account for. "It looks like a fairly difficult task, but not too difficult; I can probably do it, but not certainly" is the closest we ever really get. You think you have a 100% chance to remember what you went into the other room to get...only to completely forget what it was you were after. You think you have a 100% chance to walk across the room without issue...only to trip over something you couldn't even see...or your own feet. You think the clever thing you thought of will 100% make a particular person laugh...only for them to be put off by what you said. The world is filled with variables we simply don't know. It's an affect of gaming -- not reality -- that we expect to fully comprehend those variables.

What they would not be doing is having precise measures of skill and comparative difficulty through which to filter their decision making. Accuracy is the crux. As gamers we're used to that kind of accuracy, but it's an affect of gaming, not something that's a model of the real world. At best we have comparative reference points...but never absolutes. So "that wall looks easy to me" not "I have a 75% chance to climb it."

There is no certainty. It's an approximation. The dice are what makes it uncertain. I think you're underestimating peoples' ability to know the odds of success for a given task.

But even still.....the numbers are doing the same job that the GM's verbal description is meant to do, right? The PC wants to climb a wall...that's the stated goal. Whether we use numbers or words to convey this to the player....really, what's the difference?

For me, the numbers are more accurate, and closer to correlating with how the character would feel about the task.

So exactly like most other RPGs. Would you say the DM in D&D is neutral? They have the exact same level of control over the game as the FKR Ref.

I think it depends on the game, and even the edition of D&D. In modern iterations of the game my answer would be no, the DM is not neutral. Not in the sense that the term had been used earlier on.

I think most editions of D&D hew closer to the level of control by the GM that FKR games seem to, but probably not quite as far. FKR seems to take the already authority heavy role of the GM in D&D and increase it. But that's generally speaking; I would expect some variance among specific FKR games.

Exactly like most other RPGs.

That...in D&D...the DM is free to ignore. Less so in other games, granted.

It's not problematic. It's counter to your preference. That's all.

No, it's problematic plain and simple.

Let's say our party of PCs runs into a dragon. Oh no, we're all gonna crap our pants! Oh ho, not me.....I made my save!

If the DM then tells me "You did....but the dragon fear still affects you. You can't take actions other than to flee!" I see that as a problem, and I expect most folks would agree. Yes, he is technically allowed to do this as you've pointed out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is problematic.

It's crappy GMing. And taking this over to FKR, the main difference to me seems to be that the players would simply not be aware that this BS was going on, where as in D&D they very well may. And in many other games, it would be immediately obvious, and at least poor form, if not outright cheating.

Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules? To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?

This conversation is mostly about comparing FKR to D&D as it's the most easily assumed shared reference point, but the FKR isn't necessarily a reaction to just D&D. I actually like the "weird" non-standard way earlier D&D editions handled various things. If I have the option, I'd rather use the various polyhedrons I've collected over the years instead of just the d20 the vast majority of the time. If I have to use one die for everything, I'd rather use at least two that are added together so there's a bell curve to work with.

Maybe. But the FKR designers and Referees have the benefit of hindsight and the 50 odd years of game design to draw from to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. They can see what stacking rule upon rule upon rule leads to.

Sure, this would be very similar to what I'd say about all game design over the past few decades. They've seen a lot of the mistakes in action and can design with the intent of avoiding them.

 

[aramis erak]

It's crappy GMing. And taking this over to FKR, the main difference to me seems to be that the players would simply not be aware that this BS was going on, where as in D&D they very well may. And in many other games, it would be immediately obvious, and at least poor form, if not outright cheating.

Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules? To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?

You're thinking of it from a trad view, where they GM is bypassing rules.

From the rules ultralight and the FKR approaches, no roll is ever dictated by rules; the rule exists only to be called upon when the GM feels a roll is appropriate.

This is why high trust is essential for it to work. If the players stop trusting the GM to be fair, FKR and/or ultralight games tend to fall apart, since the lack of clarity generally drive further wedges.
And a GM in D-head mode very quickly becomes evident, and players lose trust.

In other words, a jerk GM usually loses players in FKR or ultralight games because their players feel either persecuted or being Monty-Halled...

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, I realize that. But it's not one that any group expects to be used all the time. It's not meant to be applied willy nilly. The spirit of that rule is that you should alter things to suit the situation or the specific group of players as needed. There's no need to be slavishly loyal to the rules as written.

Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.

If a GM used this in the manner you're implying....where he's just usurping the rules and the players' expectations without valid reasons for doing so....that's just bad GMing.

I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.

There is no certainty. It's an approximation.

If you know that you have a 75% chance to accomplish a task, that's certainty...in your chances to accomplish the task. Not certainty that you will succeed. It's a level of precision in knowledge that simply doesn't exist in the real world for most things that would require a roll in a game.

I think you're underestimating peoples' ability to know the odds of success for a given task.

Depends on the task. If you're suggesting that you can look at a wall and know down to the percentage point how likely you are to climb it, then yeah, I call BS. If you're suggesting that you can look at a car swerving out of its lane and into yours on a rainy night and claim that you'd know down to the percentage point how likely you are to avoid a collision, then yeah, I call BS. Some things are certain. Some things are uncertain. Some things are right out. But for those uncertain things, you're not going to know a percentage chance of success or failure in the real world.

But even still.....the numbers are doing the same job that the GM's verbal description is meant to do, right? The PC wants to climb a wall...that's the stated goal. Whether we use numbers or words to convey this to the player....really, what's the difference? For me, the numbers are more accurate, and closer to correlating with how the character would feel about the task.

No. The numbers provide a level of specificity that's unrealistic for the character to know.

No, it's problematic plain and simple.

No, it's not. It's your preference. Plain and simple.

Let's say our party of PCs runs into a dragon. Oh no, we're all gonna crap our pants! Oh ho, not me.....I made my save!

If the DM then tells me "You did....but the dragon fear still affects you. You can't take actions other than to flee!" I see that as a problem, and I expect most folks would agree. Yes, he is technically allowed to do this as you've pointed out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is problematic.

Ah. Right, so that's your example of what you're talking about and what you're objecting to. But that's not what I'm talking about, at all. I agree, the above example is problematic. But that's still not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about, in that example, would be the DM setting the DC for the save. That's it. The DM is free to set the DC, but that includes automatic failure, automatic success, dis/advantage, and any number. The DM does not have to report that DC to the players. So the players make the roll, then the DM reports success or failure. If the DM sets the DC...then changes it so more people fail or pass...that's a jerk move and bad DMing. The DM, and Referee, should be a fair and neutral arbiter. Set the challenge and let it play out. Let the dice fall where they may. But it's beyond ludicrous to assume that if the DM doesn't report the DC ahead of time then ipso facto they're cheating.

Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules?

Why do DMs and GMs the world over use house rules?

To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?

There are no hidden rules in FKR. All the rules are right there. Roll 2d6, higher is better. You mean the "DC" of a given task. Why hide that? Because the character would not have the level of precision of knowledge about their chances of success.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.

I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.

If you know that you have a 75% chance to accomplish a task, that's certainty...in your chances to accomplish the task. Not certainty that you will succeed. It's a level of precision in knowledge that simply doesn't exist in the real world for most things that would require a roll in a game.

Depends on the task. If you're suggesting that you can look at a wall and know down to the percentage point how likely you are to climb it, then yeah, I call BS. If you're suggesting that you can look at a car swerving out of its lane and into yours on a rainy night and claim that you'd know down to the percentage point how likely you are to avoid a collision, then yeah, I call BS. Some things are certain. Some things are uncertain. Some things are right out. But for those uncertain things, you're not going to know a percentage chance of success or failure in the real world.

No. The numbers provide a level of specificity that's unrealistic for the character to know.

No, it's not. It's your preference. Plain and simple.

Ah. Right, so that's your example of what you're talking about and what you're objecting to. But that's not what I'm talking about, at all. I agree, the above example is problematic. But that's still not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about, in that example, would be the DM setting the DC for the save. That's it. The DM is free to set the DC, but that includes automatic failure, automatic success, dis/advantage, and any number. The DM does not have to report that DC to the players. So the players make the roll, then the DM reports success or failure. If the DM sets the DC...then changes it so more people fail or pass...that's a jerk move and bad DMing. The DM, and Referee, should be a fair and neutral arbiter. Set the challenge and let it play out. Let the dice fall where they may. But it's beyond ludicrous to assume that if the DM doesn't report the DC ahead of time then ipso facto they're cheating.

Why do DMs and GMs the world over use house rules?

There are no hidden rules in FKR. All the rules are right there. Roll 2d6, higher is better. You mean the "DC" of a given task. Why hide that? Because the character would not have the level of precision of knowledge about their chances of success.

I covered this. The human brain, in the moment, doesn't put things into percentage points, but the ability to actually judge and make choices based on that judgement is extremely strong. I am not my character, though, I am not in the same situation, with the history and experience and training my character has. There is nothing you as GM can describe to give me the innate understanding of the chances of success I would have in real life -- this is impossible as you cannot convey that information in a way my brain will able to process into that innate knowing. An approximation of that innate knowing is the skill bonus or % of success. You're arguing that because I don't think in percentages when I'm making a choice -- like when I played goalkeeper in soccer and knew very precisely how my throw distance affected my accuracy (I could throw to midfield from the top of the 18, but my accuracy was poor, I could hit a cone with almost perfect accuracy about 15 yards shy of midfield, and put any spin you'd want on the ball there). It wasn't in percentages, but I knew, very closely, my capabilities. Hit a sprinting midfielder by putting the ball at their feet with topspin so it runs in front of them? I knew where I could do that and where I couldn't and where it was iffy.

Since you cannot impart this knowledge in an innate way, this is what the percentages and mechanics do -- they root me in understand what my character just knows they can do but you couldn't possible explain to me, especially in that iffy area where things are rapidly shifting from all the time to can't do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're thinking of it from a trad view, where they GM is bypassing rules.

From the rules ultralight and the FKR approaches, no roll is ever dictated by rules; the rule exists only to be called upon when the GM feels a roll is appropriate.

This is why high trust is essential for it to work. If the players stop trusting the GM to be fair, FKR and/or ultralight games tend to fall apart, since the lack of clarity generally drive further wedges.
And a GM in D-head mode very quickly becomes evident, and players lose trust.

In other words, a jerk GM usually loses players in FKR or ultralight games because their players feel either persecuted or being Monty-Halled...

Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing.

I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount.

How do you know if the GM in a FKR game is adjudicating things per whatever process there may be versus just deciding anything they like at every moment of play? One is the kind of "high-trust" that folks are citing, the other is the absolute subversion of that.....and I am struggling to see how anyone can tell the difference.

Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game know if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions?

How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.

I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.

Right, but it's not used in the way you're saying. Or it's not meant to be used that way, and when it is, most would classify it as bad GMing. And although it may be overlooked or forgiven here and there, the more often it's used, the worse most would say play will be.

If you know that you have a 75% chance to accomplish a task, that's certainty...in your chances to accomplish the task. Not certainty that you will succeed. It's a level of precision in knowledge that simply doesn't exist in the real world for most things that would require a roll in a game.

Depends on the task. If you're suggesting that you can look at a wall and know down to the percentage point how likely you are to climb it, then yeah, I call BS. If you're suggesting that you can look at a car swerving out of its lane and into yours on a rainy night and claim that you'd know down to the percentage point how likely you are to avoid a collision, then yeah, I call BS. Some things are certain. Some things are uncertain. Some things are right out. But for those uncertain things, you're not going to know a percentage chance of success or failure in the real world.

No. The numbers provide a level of specificity that's unrealistic for the character to know.

Let me approach this differently. I don't want to seem like I'm advocating specifically for the DC/Modifier system in and of itself. It does the job, but it's not my favorite or anything. What's important to me is not the specifics of the rule, but more that the rules are known in some way to the player so that they can then make an informed decision.

What is the point of the GM describing the situation to the player? The PC has come to the wall and they need to climb it and there's some risk of failure. What is the point of describing the wall and its features?

The point is to inform the player, right? I would think we can agree on that. I hope we can.

What rules like the DC system can do is make that information clearer. The goal is not so much about giving precise numbers as it is summarizing the situation in a precise manner. So that nothing gets lost in translation when a GM says something like "pretty difficult" or some other phrase that could be interpreted by the player in a significantly different way than the GM intended.

It's about letting the player know about the situation more accurately, to bring their understanding more in line with the character's.

No, it's not. It's your preference. Plain and simple.

Ah. Right, so that's your example of what you're talking about and what you're objecting to. But that's not what I'm talking about, at all. I agree, the above example is problematic. But that's still not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about, in that example, would be the DM setting the DC for the save. That's it. The DM is free to set the DC, but that includes automatic failure, automatic success, dis/advantage, and any number. The DM does not have to report that DC to the players. So the players make the roll, then the DM reports success or failure. If the DM sets the DC...then changes it so more people fail or pass...that's a jerk move and bad DMing. The DM, and Referee, should be a fair and neutral arbiter. Set the challenge and let it play out. Let the dice fall where they may. But it's beyond ludicrous to assume that if the DM doesn't report the DC ahead of time then ipso facto they're cheating.

I think the DC is likely set by the monster stat-block. Now, maybe there is some reason to increase or decrease it based on the fiction....this is a unique dragon who's particularly fearsome or has been empowered by magic or some other thing.....and that's fine, but again in my opinion, should be disclosed to the players. This way, they make the roll, and they know the results.

Why not let them know? Why keep it secret?

Why do DMs and GMs the world over use house rules?

House rules are a bit different than overriding the rules in the moment. There's (ideally) some review that has taken place where a house rule was determined to be necessary, or preferred. In my 5E game, if a PC drops to 0 HP they gain a level of exhaustion. This is something we decided as a group, after seeing enough whack-a-mole in combat that it became annoying. So we discussed the situation and added something to incentivize not dropping to 0 HP.

That's quite different thing than changing the rules mid-play.

There are no hidden rules in FKR. All the rules are right there. Roll 2d6, higher is better. You mean the "DC" of a given task. Why hide that? Because the character would not have the level of precision of knowledge about their chances of success.

It doesn't sound like there are DCs at all based on what you're describing. Perhaps there are when it's not an opposed roll, but I don't know. My guess is that most FKR games will handle this differently. But in some of the blog posts I've read, and in some of your posts and others, it seems like the GM may just decide how things go, or may call for a roll to determine it, using some kind of factors and decision making process that players may or may not know. And even if they know the general process, they may or may not be privy to the factors the GM has decided to deem relevant in any specific instance.

But when it is a 2d6 highest wins, does the GM roll in front of the player? If not, why not? If so, why?

 

[aramis erak]

Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing.

I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount.

How do you know if the GM in a FKR game is adjudicating things per whatever process there may be versus just deciding anything they like at every moment of play?

You never truly do.

One is the kind of "high-trust" that folks are citing, the other is the absolute subversion of that.....and I am struggling to see how anyone can tell the difference.

It's a matter of feel. If a player's getting shut down more than the others, or the players as a whole are getting frustrated... or, as I noted, if the GM's giving you monty haul level treasures to hide that he's directing the story strongly...

Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game know if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions?

How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?

If they're only mildly so, you probably can't, at least right off. It's the case of asking yourself, "Are the decisions making sense? Are the rolls being called for appropriate? Am I being singled out (for better or worse) more than the others? Am I getting enough screen time? Is the GM spending too much time narrating?

It's all the same stuff that you watch for as a player at a trad game, except for "is that how the rules say to do ___?"

Also, remember, some people don't care about fairness, so for them, the GM being fair is irrelevant; only whether they're enjoying the story.