System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Numidius]

Well it's like turning up to a chess club, I guess. It's fine if you're happy to hack your way through a standard D&D-ish or even CoC-ish module. But it's certainly handle-with-care if you're going to play anything at all which involves revealing or risking onseself.

I find it useful to start with a D&D/Cthulhu module, or scenario, as a basis and then follow players proclivities, implicit or explicit, adding my own twist, making the game more personal, see where it goes, while having the main "mission" still running in the background, to which fall back in on demand.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree, obviously. I'll admit that's a little bit hyperbollic; I'd say that those blindnesses you mention are mental disabilities, tho'.

At that point you're defining "mental disability" so broadly probably almost everyone has them in some area.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A bit like being a lecturer, I think a GM needs a degree of self-confidence/self-belief in order to do it at all. The biggest limiter on number of GMs is people afraid they won't be good enough. So in practice, self-belief is the main qualifier.

Do you think so? My impression over the years is it has as much to do with people willing to do the work, and people who find the idea interesting at all.

 

[Campbell]

I think there's a lot to be said for finding the sorts of play that work for you as a GM and finding the right people to play with. For years I did not think I was cut out to run games. I was also broadly uncomfortable with the sort of projection of GM authority and assumed leadership style most traditional games presented. Turns out it was the type of game I was trying to run and some people I was playing with that were just not a good fit for the way I like to run games. Not that I was bad or they were bad. It was just a poor fit.

 

[overgeeked]

I find it useful to start with a D&D/Cthulhu module, or scenario, as a basis and then follow players proclivities, implicit or explicit, adding my own twist, making the game more personal, see where it goes, while having the main "mission" still running in the background, to which fall back in on demand.

Yeah, I've done similar. It's a lot more work than just running something straight and potentially having to railroad players. I would turn the module/scenario into a mini sandbox that players could work through in mostly any order. Lots of turning linear plots into node-based design and using advice from places like the Alexandrian to flesh out the mysteries and make sure the clues all connected up. After doing that for a bit I just switched to West Marches and open-world sandbox games. It's about the same amount of work (measured in time), but it's way easier to manage. It's easier to simply say "here be dragons" and work out the ramifications of that than take what someone else wrote as a linear adventure and try to change it into a non-linear adventure.

 

[Manbearcat]

Does anyone have a good excerpt of their FKR play that is representative?

It seems that it’s agreed that the play loop excerpt depicted upthread (by someone who I thought was a seminal mind in FKR…but let’s put that aside for now) was brutal.

How about someone post a quick excerpt of play featuring:

* GM framed conflict.

* Conversation to clarify/further orient player to the situation so they can make a action declaration.

* Action declaration.

* The resolution scheme the GM came up with for that moment and the “why” (and please don’t answer “play the world”…nuts and bolts and elbow grease please).

* The result and the consequence.


That would be helpful to functionally move conversation.

 

[Numidius]

Yeah, I've done similar. It's a lot more work than just running something straight and potentially having to railroad players. I would turn the module/scenario into a mini sandbox that players could work through in mostly any order. Lots of turning linear plots into node-based design and using advice from places like the Alexandrian to flesh out the mysteries and make sure the clues all connected up. After doing that for a bit I just switched to West Marches and open-world sandbox games. It's about the same amount of work (measured in time), but it's way easier to manage. It's easier to simply say "here be dragons" and work out the ramifications of that than take what someone else wrote as a linear adventure and try to change it into a non-linear adventure.

I think I agree. The scenarios I'm referring to are quite sandboxy, while having a final goal of "resolving it".

 

[Numidius]

Does anyone have a good excerpt of their FKR play that is representative?

It seems that it’s agreed that the play loop excerpt depicted upthread (by someone who I thought was a seminal mind in FKR…but let’s put that aside for now) was brutal.

How about someone post a quick excerpt of play featuring:

* GM framed conflict.

* Conversation to clarify/further orient player to the situation so they can make a action declaration.

* Action declaration.

* The resolution scheme the GM came up with for that moment and the “why” (and please don’t answer “play the world”…nuts and bolts and elbow grease please).

* The result and the consequence.


That would be helpful to functionally move conversation.

Just read this from one of the FKR bloggers on discord...

I tend to float somewhere on the border of the diceless frontier most of the time. After several years of doing so, I am increasingly comfortable with an authoritative ruling and moving forward to the next decision point. Most often, if I call for a roll, it is always in reaction to something which has a decided uncertain (and interesting) outcome. Typically I do 2d6 vs 7 or 9, and keep it simple, deciding between either target number based on contextual advantage.

In short, no player ever rolls to do something at my tables. They act, we adjudicate together, I call for a roll if something untoward is likely to occur as a result.

I’d always rather overdeliver on information than otherwise. Informed players make dynamic decisions which produce interesting sessions.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just read this from one of the FKR bloggers on discord...

I tend to float somewhere on the border of the diceless frontier most of the time. After several years of doing so, I am increasingly comfortable with an authoritative ruling and moving forward to the next decision point. Most often, if I call for a roll, it is always in reaction to something which has a decided uncertain (and interesting) outcome. Typically I do 2d6 vs 7 or 9, and keep it simple, deciding between either target number based on contextual advantage.

In short, no player ever rolls to do something at my tables. They act, we adjudicate together, I call for a roll if something untoward is likely to occur as a result.

I’d always rather overdeliver on information than otherwise. Informed players make dynamic decisions which produce interesting sessions.

I appreciate it, but this doesn't help me. I've got tons and tons and tons of play excerpts from my various games on here in the format I'm looking for. You can refer to any of those for clarity. But here is what I'm looking for:

GM: The situation surrounding your perilous journey is <x, y, and z>.

Player: So if we go the x route then <suite of possible consequences>...but if we go the y route then we're moving headlong into z. Alright, what about if we <did this other thing>? Do the weather conditions look like they'll hold or is a chill wind blowing?

GM: <decides how to mechanize if a chill wind is blowing or makes a principled decision about a chill wind blowing based more on just "playing the world" (because the world can be played with both chill winds and without)> Looks like a chill wind is blowing!

Player: Alright, well, we're going to <do this thing that seems like it needs either a group check or contest of some kind against the elements or some kind of trekking move resolution>.

GM: Alright, everyone roll <whatever> and I'll roll <whatever>. If you get <however many> successes against my roll, then you succeed (why are we going this route to resolve this conflict?). If you don't, something goes wrong.

Players: <Fail to get the necessary successes> Sucktacular!

GM: Alright <this thing happens> (what is the thing and why does it happen vs some other thing happening - ANSWER THIS WITHOUT SAYING "PLAY THE WORLD"...because the world can be played with multiple possible results).

---

That is what I'm looking for. That level of post-mortem is instructive.

 

[Manbearcat]

Soooooooooo…anyone have a play excerpt in the format of the above so we/I can evaluate what’s actually happening at the table? I (and @pemerton ) have taken the time and posted dozens and dozens of detailed play excerpts from our games (for just this purpose as well as personal self-reflection). Is it too much to ask to get one FKR excerpt from play (since apparently we all agree that the excerpt was awful from the guy who is a big player in the FKR community…that excerpt has done a lot of damage to my understanding).

Anyone?

Preferably one moment of consequential noncombat action resolution.