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: 8422519" data-attributes="member: 42582">Some of what I'm putting in this post is repetition, but as this is a messageboard I hope to be forgiven by my fellow interlocutors!My compilation of quotes from S'mon sets out (in my view) a perfectly coherent approach to playing a game. I think it is pretty consistent with what I said in my OP about Free Kriegsspiel. In that post I noted that "In the context of a RPG, there are some obvious contexts in which it is not going to be very applicable". Switching from negation to affirmation, it seems best for gameplay where:* The context of resolution is well established - eg to the extent that it is very complex or dynamic, these don't matter to resolution (eg if it's raining, we don't need to know which way any particular rain drop is going to fall or bounce) or that complexity/dynamism can be readily incorporated (as per [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER]'s Clausewitzian incorporation of rolled results); * The adjudicator is familiar with the context of resolution (and is at least as expert as the players); * The parameters that need to be adjudicated are primarily or even exclusively tactical, and do not involve a high degree of evaluative or aesthetic or emotional interpretation.I think Free Kriegsspiel can be applicable to the sort of infantry charge that S'mon has described. Likewise, as early D&D shows, it can be applicable to the examination of some very sparse geography and architecture (ie "dungeons").But I think it is not a very applicable resolution framework for trying to determine (for instance) whether an economy can maintain sufficient civilian morale to ensure the industrial production and the provision of soldiers necessary to prosecute a war on the scale of the First or Second World War. Nor for determining the outcome of the Vienna Conference. Nor for determining the outcome of an occupation by a military victor (contrast, say, France in 1940 to France in 1944-45; or Poland post-1945 to Japan post-1945).The classic D&D dungeon model will break down even if we maintain a focus on architecture and furniture but shift our inquiry from something like KotB to ransacking a typical contemporary Australian or American house. Suppose the PCs are looking for a copy of a will. Does the person even have a will? If so, do they have a copy in their house, or is it with a lawyer who helped them draft it? If in their house, is it in a cupboard in the bedroom, on a bookshelf, in a kitchen drawer, hidden under a floorboard (perhaps more common in adventure fiction than real life?)? What actions do the players have to declare? Is the GM going to itemise every detail of every room - I'm looking around my room at the moment and can see around 1000 books, any of which might have a copy of my will tucked inside one of its covers. And that's before we get to the possibility of more secret hiding places. And this is not the only room in the house, and neither is it the most densely furnished.There is also the question of consequence. In the wargame case, what matters - roughly - is who takes or holds what position with what degree of casualties and what degree of resource consumption. (In the latter case, I'm not sure how far Free Kriegsspiel resolution can reasonably be taken. It can track battlefield artillery stockpiles, I imagine, but as I said above I doubt the ability to meaningful track industrial production; nor extended sieges.) But what about the fate of any given soldier? And the fate of that soldier's family if they get news that the soldier has died? These things are not really relevant to training Prussian officers; and are not really relevant to Lewis Pulsipher-style D&D play; but can easily matter to some RPGing.I think that early RPG designers worked some of these things out! When Classic Traveller sets the throws required to successfully avoid close inspection of papers by officials, to find an official willing to issue licences without hassle, or to avoid a dangerous incident while jumping about in a vacc suit, I don't think those can be explained on a Free Kriegsspiel model. They establish consistent frameworks for resolving certain common situations that arise in Traveller play. As I've already posted (if not in this thread, then the recent Thoughts on Apocalypse World one) these are really anticipations of PtbA-style moves: eg When you deal with an official, Throw + Admin (+5 if Admin-1, +2 per additional level of expertise): on a 10+ they do not closely inspect your papers; otherwise they do inspect them, and the referee will tell you how they respond. (As Marc Miller presents it the throw is 7+ with +2 per level of expertise, but -3 for no expertise; so my maths is the same but more cleanly presented.)Similarly when Gygax sets the saving throw necessary to avoid poison or take half damage from dragon breath; or specifies the chance for successful divine intervention; this is not Free Kriegsspiel logic. It is establishing (i) both flavour and capability across the various classes, and (ii) a framework for level progression. The 4e paladin with Valiant Strike gaining +1 to hit per adjacent foe is a direct descendant of Gygax here - this helps define the flavour and capability of a STR paladin, as someone who valiantly hurls themself into the fray heedless of the number of foes.I don't see any need to deprecate free kriegsspiel resolution. But nor do I see any need to assert that it can do things that it pretty obviously can't! (And I feel that the notion of trust really is unhelpful. As I've posted upthread, the only major RPG I can think of which does not rely on the GM to adjudicate fictional positioning is 3E D&D. And maybe even that is a bit unfair - my picture of 3E is as much or more from reputation than actual play experience.)</blockquote>

Verification