Seems legit
He's a super powergamer now!
-
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
He's a super powergamer now!
Oh, no!! Ah ah!
Here is almost midnight, these are my thoughts, let' see how it goes.
Tl;dr fast, flowing, combat heavy, hard choices driven session, influenced by, and actually more cinematic than, PbtA, IME.
procedural content generation (method + why) > Gm via prep and via improv after players action declarations or lack thereof and instead dramatic needs perceived at the table + because table prefers Gm consistency and Gm likes to be surprised by players.
player orients themselves to situation via conversation and whatever mechanical means at their disposal > mec. means are general usage of abilities/stats/spells from char gen and possessions. Conversation is Queen, broad strokes or fine details.
action declared >
action resolution (method and why) > Players declare what their character DO, Gm declares what NPCs/anything else DO, or viceversa. If/when opposing forces reach a point of indecision about outcome: opposed 2D6 are rolled possibly with dis/advantage advocated then voted by table + because we want diegetic declarations, fiction rolling and indulge in cinematic, dramatic details, not in procedures, difficulty ratings and numbers in general.
derived consequences/gamestate change (what and why) > These are generally discussed, or implied, during declarations/dice resolution and thus organically flow thereafter. Gm uses conversation to offer success with complications to players when feels fit.
Gm is expected to frame new scenes accordingly, players to take those changes into account as well.
Tl;dr fast, flowing, combat heavy, hard choices driven session, influenced by, and actually more cinematic than, PbtA, IME.
procedural content generation (method + why) > Gm via prep and via improv after players action declarations or lack thereof and instead dramatic needs perceived at the table + because table prefers Gm consistency and Gm likes to be surprised by players.
player orients themselves to situation via conversation and whatever mechanical means at their disposal > mec. means are general usage of abilities/stats/spells from char gen and possessions. Conversation is Queen, broad strokes or fine details.
action declared >
action resolution (method and why) > Players declare what their character DO, Gm declares what NPCs/anything else DO, or viceversa. If/when opposing forces reach a point of indecision about outcome: opposed 2D6 are rolled possibly with dis/advantage advocated then voted by table + because we want diegetic declarations, fiction rolling and indulge in cinematic, dramatic details, not in procedures, difficulty ratings and numbers in general.
derived consequences/gamestate change (what and why) > These are generally discussed, or implied, during declarations/dice resolution and thus organically flow thereafter. Gm uses conversation to offer success with complications to players when feels fit.
Gm is expected to frame new scenes accordingly, players to take those changes into account as well.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Rounding up some more blog posts about FKR and came across the above and the following...
FKR Rifts.
FKR Rifts.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Model United Nations is probably the most popular Free Kriegsspiel game, in that it's very much similar to the conception and play of FK rather than the loose "make it random" ethos that I pull from FKR. Primarily, the adjudication in MUN is based on selected, impartial referees that have significant subject matter experience with the issues in the scenario. The scenarios are based on the real world, with real world limitations. And the scenarios are limited and finite.
FKR, meanwhile, is trying to establish subject matter expertise over fantastical things that you cannot actually have SMEs for, and instead of a SME referee, it's just what Bob thinks should happen (Trust In Bob!). The scenarios aren't real world events, nor are they generally limited or finite. Claiming that an FKR game like the Napoleon one cited above has much-all in actual common to MUN because there's roleplaying and a team of referees is a real stretch of the paradigm, and says to me that FKR is far too undefined as a concept because it's attempting to smear itself across lots of area and claim it all.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
I’m not part of the OSR, so can’t really answer the question. What’s the attraction of the OSR? If you can tell me what improvement OSR makes over other kinds of gaming, maybe I can answer.
Not sure, though I get the sense that it's more an extension of certain aspects of the osr than a rejection of the osr. For example, extending "rulings not rules" such that that principle is the entire game.
Also, as I mentioned as some point, part of the OSR focuses a lot on rules and systems, even in the context of rules-lite games. Hence the endless number of retroclones that are house-ruled versions of b/x, or modern rules-lite games that have slightly different ways of handling inventory. This can inadvertently lead to a situation where players are looking to their character sheet for answers or GMs who spend time converting stat blocks, whereas the impulse of the osr was for players to focus on being in the world and for gms to present the world. Hence, play worlds not rules. That's my speculation. And for a lot of people (myself included) it's at the level of 'interesting thought experiment' at the moment.
