Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8421125" data-attributes="member: 42582">I found <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/lvcjqz/a_brief_introduction_to_the_emerging_fkr_free/" target="_blank">this</a> on reddit. (My copy-and-paste has killed the links in the original.)You may have heard of FKR recently, an emerging style of RPG play that takes inspiration from old-fashioned Free Kriegsspiel wargames and pre-DnD RPG campaigns. It's something like a fork of the OSR. Here's some of the principles that I've observed, with links if you want to dive deeper into the rationale: 1.) FKR tends to be very minimalistic, rules wise, although it usually isn't completely freeform. Opposed 2d6 rolls are common, although other dice conventions can be used as needed. A common trend seems to be starting out very bare-bones and then adding in rules as the campaign continues, based on what it needs. These mini-systems are frequently tweaked, replaced, or thrown out as the campaign evolves. The rules are the servant, not the master of the game. FKR uses table-centric design. 2.) FKR strips out most of the rules in order to increase realism. FKR places a high priority on immersion and realism by giving the DM a lot of authority over the rules. They can decide what to roll, when to roll, the range of possible outcomes, etc. The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster. 3.) FKR has less rules to let players do more. 4.) FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks. 5.) FKR is a High-Trust play style. It's only going to work if you trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings. 6.) Boardgames (and some very crunchy RPGs) derive their fun from manipulating abstract rules to your advantage. FKR derives its fun from manipulating an imaginary (but logically consistent) world to your advantage. It plays worlds, not rules. It emphasizes the joy of tactical infinity. You don't use mechanics to solve problems, you use real, open-ended problem solving skills to solve problems.Assuming it's accurate:(1) and (4) seem related. That is, part of how we make the rulebook thinner is by assuming rules and principles that aren't stated. This has been discussed in this thread in the contrast between Dark Empire and Cthulhu Dark.(2) together with (6) suggests that a key principle is that the GM will extrapolate from fictional position in a way that is neutral and as faithful as possible to the fiction conceived realistically. That also suggests that in-fiction causal processes are a close object of scrutiny, in play. I think it was [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] upthread who suggested that one way to deal with a trap in FKR play is to describe what one does with pliers and wire-cutters. (This would contrast with an approach to dealing with a trap that involves a prayer to the heavens - that sort of play doesn't seem to lend itself to realism nor to have much in common with manipulating an imaginary world to your advantage.If we ignore tactical and focus just on infinity then there are many RPGs that have effectively infinite action declarations: Apocalypse World is one that has been discussed recently by many participants in this thread; so is Burning Wheel; in my play experience so is 4e D&D. But if we add back in the tactical and also the manipulating to your advantage and problem solving, then the picture seems to be clearer: those are play priorities that (for me, at least) are closely associated with classic D&D.(2) and (5) seem to conform with what [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] said not far upthread: it is the referee's vision of the range of possible outcomes, the likelihoods, etc that shapes or even determines the outcomes of action resolution.(3) seems like a slogan that just reiterates infinity.And finally, I find it curious that (5) is not worded as It's only going to work if the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings. Instead as being framed as a pretty plausible set of requirements for the GM - which is how Moldvay, for instance, frames the very similar things he says in his Basic rulebook - it is framed as a requirement for the players! That is much more like AD&D 2nd ed rulebooks than classic D&D ones.I don't really understand the reason for that curious wording unless, as [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] has said, it's yet another way of emphasising the priority of the GM's conception of the fiction.</blockquote>

Verification