System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Aldarc]

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?

As an aside, I'm a big believer in transparency as a GM, especially when it comes to DCs. I don't see the need for the smoke and mirrors to make myself, the GM, out to be the great and terrible Oz.

Many of my games share a similar philosophy. Cortex advocates open rolls. In both the Cypher System and Fate, I generally tell players the difficulty rating. In ICRPG, I follow the creator's practice of placing a d20 in front of the players to establish the base DC of the encounter/room/NPCs.* I have occasionally ported this practice over to other games. Obviously, this isn't really a deal in PbtA or BitD or even Black Hack (roll under attribute).

As counterintuitive as it may seem to FKR assumptions and principles, this practice of rules transparency has led to greater trust between my players and me that has enabled them to focus more on the fiction and make more informed decisions in-character. I think that it's because it removes some of the adversarial conditions between the players and GM. This also fosters the illusion of my neutrality as well. (In truth, I'm pulling hard for the PCs.)

* For example, I could place a d20 with the 13 facing up on the table for the players to see. That means it's a base DC 13 room. The challenges in that room, including monsters, will generally follow that difficulty. The hobgoblins in that room? 13 AC. The DC to open the lock? 13 DC. However, there may be things as part of that encounter that are Easy (-3 DC or 10 DC) or Hard (+3 DC or 16 DC).

 

[S'mon]

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.

'High Trust' here means 'players trust GM to run the game, and don't worry about how he/she resolves stuff". You already don't trust the abstract FKR GM, so it'd be no good for you.

 

[pemerton]

I' been wondering how the Gumshoe skill points expenditure would fit in there.
Putting aside points spent in order to increase chance on D6 until auto-success.
So, comparing static numbers would be Karma res.
But, actually spending those points? (For various reasons, like finding more clues, content introduction, winning over opposition etc. Like a mix of putting more effort into actions as well as screen time available and also plot armor).
A subset of Karma res, maybe?

Here is Edwards (borrowing from Tweet in Everway):

• Drama resolution relies on asserted statements without reference to listed attributes or quantitative elements.
• Karma resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or quantitative elements without a random element.
• Fortune resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind.

. . .
Example #1: a certificate in Prince Valiant may be redeemed (lost) for a player to state that the character instantly subdues an opponent. The mechanic replaces the usual resolution system (comparing tossed coins), which is simply ignored. This illustrates a Drama metagame mechanic replacing a Fortune baseline mechanic and relying on an irreplaceable Resource.​

Spending a point to make the GM tell you something is using a player-side resource to resolve a situation via drama, where the GM does the talking. Spending it to establish that a NPC helps you seems to be using a player-side resource to resolve a situation via drama, where the player does the talking.

I'm not crazy about using gaming the system to describe playing a designed game as a game. There is a massive difference between exploits and just like playing the game in front of you.

My response was a bit different.

I feel that a lot of the resolution seems to rest on consensus - similar to the example I've posted of the ice-drilling-by-way-of-triple-laser-turret in my Classic Traveller game. To the extent that it doesn't, because dice are invoked, it seems like either coin-toss or simple simulationist resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure the GNS taxonomy practically gets me closer to understanding what this theoretical player means by "I want to play this," compared to just asking them. That is, I think I would prefer to proceed organically, from the ground up, rather than programmatically, from the top down. In practice, this is again not talking about fkr in any specific way; one can start with a ruleset and then add and subtract as needed, along the way forgetting about certain parts of the game or playing it "wrong." Incomplete games are appealing to me because, potentially, they allow for some of this organic, figuring-it-out and thus will vary from table to table.

I think you've misunderstood the point of the taxonomy - it's a way of trying to systematically group play preferences to facilitate (primarily) design and (secondarily) play. Its utility derives from the fact that (i) there are a variety of player preferences, and (ii) they can be usefully grouped together.

Even supposing that (ii) is false - personally I think its true - that wouldn't make (i) false.

Let's take the example of pointing at Star Trek or Earthsea and saying I want to play this. What does that convey? It identifies colour and setting. But it tells us nothing about how decisions will be made about the fiction (ie system). It tells us nothing about how characters will be understood. And it doesn't tell us what matters in situations.

In Star Trek, does the fact that Kirk is a charismatic leader increase his chances of success when the fate of his crew is on the line? In Earthsea, is Ged's survival of his transformation into a bird a function of his magical ability, or his relationship with Ogion? There are multiple viable approaches, but we can't take all of them at once - and pointing to the fictional inspiration doesn't, on its own, tell us which one we're adopting.

My fairly strong impression from the FKR blogs/forums I've read is that the default will be to resolution models that reflect "causal" considerations (eg Ged's power over magic; Kirk's physical or technical capabilities) rather than emotional or relational ones (eg Kirk's relationship to his crew; Ged's relationship with Ogion).

 

[pemerton]

Yeah. I'm not sure MBC can really grok this, though, since his concept of RPGs is so intimately linked to fiction as story. Pemerton does I think, since he understands you can have World-Sim in a non-real world.

@Manbearcat doesn't have a concept of RPGs that is intimately linked to fiction-as-story. I don't know where you're getting that from. He GMs a lot of Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer.

I think he may be a bit more sceptical than me about resolution by extrapolation from fictional positioning. But I'm fairly sceptical myself, once the fiction gets beyond a pretty thin baseline. I think it very quickly bleeds into creation within parameters, as per my post upthread.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I think this is contentious. First, some of those variables are reflected by the dice roll; it's not clear they also need to be reflected in setting a difficulty.

But second, there are a lot of tasks where skilled people do have a reasonable sense of their prospects of success. That's part of what makes a person skilled.

Exactly like most every other game. The DM generally doesn't announce to the player exactly what the DC of a given check is before the player rolls...nor do they announce exactly what and how and why the DC is what it is. The DC in D&D is a black box from the player's perspective.

This isn't my experience.

In some systems, like 4e D&D or Marvel Heroic RP, the difficulty is derived via a transparent process - in the first case, from the DC-by-level chart; in the second by rolling the Doom Pool, which is visible, or by rolling an NPC's abilities which if not already know will tend to fit within a fairly standard range.

In systems where the DC is set based on extrapolation from the fiction, the player will often be able to perform the same extrapolation as the GM performs in setting it. In Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant, if the difficulty is a surprise to the players then I probably haven't done a very good job, as GM, in conveying the fiction.

One of my favorite superhero games is Marvel Heroic. In reading interviews with Cam Banks, the designer, he mentioned that in talking with Marvel writers and editors about the characters and how they gauge things, the folks at Marvel used a simple five step metric for the characters' abilities. Cam mapped this to the d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12 used to measure things in the game.

<snip>

Simple, abstract systems work just as well, if not better, and they have the benefit of fitting in our heads.

I wouldn't describe MHRP as simple! If it counts as FKR, or FKR-adjacent, that would be strange.

You as a player only know what's on your character sheet until the DM informs you.

This isn't true in general. There are even versions of D&D where it's not true - eg the original AD&D OA.

This conversation is mostly about comparing FKR to D&D as it's the most easily assumed shared reference point

Not in my case, or even most of the posts I've read.

The difference between FKR and 3E D&D or Rolemaster is obvious. What I'm less clear on is the difference from Prince Valiant or Apocalypse World or even RuneQuest.

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.

Absolutely! This is similar to my point in my reply to @Malmuria not far upthread.

 

[pemerton]

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.

A RPG needs a setting - ie a background/place for things to happen in, a character, a situation - ie an immediate context or circumstances that calls/prompts the character to action - and a system. The function of the system is to work out what happens when actions are declared for the character.

The system may or may not include mechanics. The system could be (for instance) that if a player/participant declares an action for a character they control, the person to their left says what happens. That would be a RPG.

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,

I still think that trust is a red herring. How is Apocalypse World going to work, if the GM can't be trusted to do their job? Or 4e D&D, in a skill challenge or as soon as a player improvises an action? Or any RPG that requires adjudication of the fiction.

This is why I keep coming back to 3E D&D, and "cubes-to-cubes" adjudication with only leftward-facing arrows (ie reading fiction of objective rules-driven processes, like dice rolls) but no rightward-facing ones.

 

[S'mon]

I still think that trust is a red herring. How is Apocalypse World going to work, if the GM can't be trusted to do their job? Or 4e D&D, in a skill challenge or as soon as a player improvises an action? Or any RPG that requires adjudication of the fiction.

But some people apparently trust the process (& thus the abstract GM) in AW or in 4e D&D, but apparently don't trust the process in FK.

"I trust what's going on in AW/4e, so by default I trust the AW/4e GM, unless proven otherwise. I don't trust what's going on in FK, so I don't trust the FK GM".

So trust is not at all a red herring. Plenty of people here make clear they trust the process in some games, but not in FK.

I definitely think some of these FK blogs/GMs are not doing FK any favours. Trust requires effort on both sides, FK GMing requires particular effort to engender trust; I've discussed some techniques up-thread, notably transparency and declare-then-roll.

 

[Aldarc]

I still think that trust is a red herring. How is Apocalypse World going to work, if the GM can't be trusted to do their job? Or 4e D&D, in a skill challenge or as soon as a player improvises an action? Or any RPG that requires adjudication of the fiction.

Nigel Tufnel: FKR trust all goes to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most games' trust goes up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's higher trust? Is it any higher?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one higher, isn't it. It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know will be playing their games at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your game. Where can your trust go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need the extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put your trust up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One higher.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten higher and make ten be the top trust number and make that trust a little higher?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] FKR trust goes to eleven.

 

[pemerton]

But some people apparently trust the process (& thus the abstract GM) in AW or in 4e D&D, but apparently don't trust the process in FK.

"I trust what's going on in AW/4e, so by default I trust the AW/4e GM, unless proven otherwise. I don't trust what's going on in FK, so I don't trust the FK GM".

So trust is not at all a red herring. Plenty of people here make clear they trust the process in some games, but not in FK.

I don't think that's the right interpretation.

Of all RPGs ever published, Apocalypse World has to be one of the clearest in telling the GM what the principles are that should govern what they say. And it doesn't require any reasoning about (eg) how hard a climb is, or how easy a person is to persuade. All it requires is building on established narrative trajectories.

I think what is generating some of the controversy around FKR is the (apparent) denial that principles are needed, together with the assertion that the extrapolation is all about the causal logic of the fiction rather than its narrative trajectory. (That's why the comparison to the Prussian officer referee's experience keeps coming back around.)

No matter how much I trust you - S'mon - I just don't have the same reason to think you can resolve my description of how I jumpstart a helicopter as I do to think you can resolve my description of how I draft an insurance contract that favours me over the other party! Yet FKR seems to call upon you to do both those things, whereas AW doesn't need you to do either.

I definitely think some of these FK blogs/GMs are not doing FK any favours.

That I tend to agree with, if they're intended for outreach. (I'm not sure if they are.)

I also think it would be helpful to see some more reflection on possible trajectories in play. For instance, one solution to the helicopter problem is to let me roll two dice rather than one when I try and jumpstart it if my descriptors include mechanic or helicopter pilot. (This is, literally in one case and in effect for the others, how Cthulhu Dark and Over the Edge and Risus handle it.) But to me at least, the boundary between thinking about what I might be good at given my descriptors, and playing "rules" rather than "the world" is not a bright line one. How do FKRers handle these pressures that seem like they might be latent in some of their approaches? Or the pressure to create stable if sometimes baroque subsystems that Gygax and Arneson clearly felt as part of their play-and-design process?

Thinking about these things doesn't seem to me an admission of failure. And I think it would help outsiders orient themselves a bit more towards the implicit principles and systems at work in some of these games.