# System matters and free kriegsspiel



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2021)

This thread has been prompted by some of the recent discussions of the topics mentioned in the thread title.

*System matters*
To the best of my knowledge, Ron Edwards is the person who coined this slogan.

When Edwards and those influenced by him (eg Vincent Baker) talk about _system_ they're not focusing on things like whether turning undead uses 2d6 (Moldvay Basic) or 1d20 (AD&D). Of course those sorts of rule minutiae are not irrelevant - not only does the use of dice affect the experience of play, it affects the maths (eg a +1 amulet of turning behaves differently on a 2d6 spread compared to the linear 1d20). But the core of system is something else.

The core of system is _what the shared fiction consists in _and _how that shared fiction is established_. In this post, I'm not even going to try and point to all the considerations that can go into this. But some of them are:

* What sorts of elements make up the player-character? For instance, does the PC include relationships with others as part of the build?​​* How do those elements affect action resolution? For instance, if a PC is acting to protect someone with whom they have a relationship, does that feed into the resolution process?​​* Which participant establishes the situations that confront the PCs? For instance, does the system use "kickers" (player-authored starting situations)?​​* What principles govern the establishment of situations? For instance, if a GM has the authority to establish situation, do they have to have regard to any elements of PC build in doing so? If situation is related to pre-authored backstory, how is this relationship mediated (eg via a map and a key)?​​* What authority does the GM have to determine that a PC fails in a declared action? For instance, is the GM entitled to declare failure (or say "no") by reference to pre-authored and as-yet unrevealed fiction?​
Different ways of answering these questions produce pretty different RPGing experiences. Those differences go not only to _the content of the shared fiction (including outcomes of action declarations)_, but also - and at least as importantly - _the process and experience of establishing the shared fiction_. It's not clear what an argument to the contrary would even look like.

*Free kriegsspiel*
My understanding of _free kriegsspiel_ is that it is a process of adjudicating much if not all of the action declarations in a wargame: instead of using formal charts and tables, the umpire decides what happens based on extrapolation from the imagined situation. The basis for that extrapolation is the umpire's own experience and familiarity with military manoeuvres, terrain, and/or warfare. In free kriegsspiel the umpire does not declare actions.

Historically, there are well-known connections between free kriegsspiel-type wargaming and (proto-)RPGing. Arneson and Wesely are prominent figures in this respect. But rather than looking at the relationship historically, we can look at it in "logical" terms, ie _what sort of system is free kriegsspiel?_

I'm not going to try and answer that question fully in this post. But here are some features of free kriegsspiel as a system:

* The umpire does not have an interest in the outcome of action declarations; their interest is in the "truth" of the situation;​​* Following from the above, the umpire is not advocating for the opposition - the adversity posed by the opposition has already been established, and is simply part of the circumstances that the umpire is adjudicating;​​* The umpire is able to understand and interpret the connection between the player's "gamepiece" and the declared action just as well as the player is;​​* Once the action is declared, the player has no more control over how it unfolds or resolves - it is "out there" in the world of the fiction, for the umpire to adjudicated.​
It's obvious that a RPG that exhibits these features is going to be pretty distinctive, relative to the overall known variety of RPGs. The first point, about the neutrality of the umpire, excludes approaches to GMing that deliberately lean into particular thematic or emotional elements of the fiction. The second point, about the "fixedness" of the opposition, excludes many approaches to RPGing which assume a degree of dynamic improvisation of adversity. The third and fourth points are at odds with a whole lot of approaches to "augments", "fate points", etc - especially those which flow from a player's ability to activate idiosyncratic or "subjective" aspects of their PC build, like relationships or emotional commitments, as a contribution to the success of a declared action.

*Some obvious limits of free kriegsspiel*
Free kriegsspiel is intended as a system of adjudication of tactical decisions made in a domain in which the adjudicator has expertise and the context of resolution is already established.

In the context of a RPG, there are some obvious contexts in which it is not going to be very applicable:

* If the context of resolution is not already established - eg it is very complex or dynamic in ways that would matter to resolution;​​* If the adjudicator is not especially familiar with the context of resolution (and doubly so if the players are more expert than the adjudicator);​​* If the parameters that need to be adjudicated are not really tactical, but involve a high degree of evaluative or aesthetic or emotional interpretation.​
These contexts would include a wide variety of urban and social situations.

Many RPGers advocate _GM decides_ as an approach to such situations. It's worth noting that, whatever one thinks of that sort of approach, it's not _free kriegsspiel_. It's much closer to _GM as storyteller_.


----------



## Malmuria (Sep 11, 2021)

I think of the FKR proposition as being something like, "what is the minimal amount of stuff you need to play an rpg."  Like, if a bunch of Lovecraft fans wanted to play 'call of cthulhu,' but they were in the woods, without any technology, and for some reason only brought 4-sided dice with them.  It might not be CoC that they were running exactly, but I'm sure they could figure out how to collaboratively create and play stories in a Lovecraftian setting.  This is a helpful mindset to me because it takes the ethos of "rulings not rules" to the extreme, in the sense that all you really need to play a game is a group that is knowledgeable about genre and has trust in a gm to make fair rulings.

There is something similar there to the emphasis on the "conversation" and on genre in more story-oriented games, even though those games like to codify with mechanics the roles of the player and gm in order to empower the former (compared to trad games).

I was thinking about this because I'm running blades in the dark, and having a little bit of an issue with my players (who are familiar with dnd mostly) approaching bitd as a dnd game.  That is, instead of treating the dice as an opportunity to resolve a narrative beat, they still think of it in terms of skill and challenge.  This means that a "failed" roll means their character failed to do something, not, here's the next interesting twist in the story.  Thinking about it further, I realized this is an entirely natural way for them to approach the situation, not just because dnd is a challenge-based game, but because it encodes a particular relationship between player and character.  In dnd, the player is responsible for everything to do with the character (the character's psychology, motivations, and aptitudes) while the dm "plays the world."  Whereas I think bitd works better if players take a bit more abstracted or distanced view of things.  It's less like they are 3d Roleplaying their character, and more like they are screenwriters collaborating with everyone on the narrative but maybe more in charge of one particular element of the story (their characters).

Caveat: I am still fairly new to "system matters"-derived story games, so it's very possible the above is inaccurate.  I would certainly appreciate thoughts on how other people handle the differences between trad and story games!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Sep 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This thread has been prompted by some of the recent discussions of the topics mentioned in the thread title.
> 
> ...
> 
> Many RPGers advocate _GM decides_ as an approach to such situations. It's worth noting that, whatever one thinks of that sort of approach, it's not _free kriegsspiel_. It's much closer to _GM as storyteller_.




Given that there are, in fact, numerous other sources that discuss the specific issue of Free Kriegsspiel both in history (and the application to early TTRPGs) and its more recent application in indie games (usually referred to as FKR), it would probably be best to use the actual sources and definitions that the people themselves use. You could google it, or use one of any number of sources such as this one-


 I think people that are making and playing FKR games would prefer that you read their games and play them than just idly speculate as to what the games might be like using terminology many of them don't use.

Your entire section on FK(R) appears to completely miss the current conversation. IMO.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 11, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I think of the FKR proposition as being something like, "what is the minimal amount of stuff you need to play an rpg."  Like, if a bunch of Lovecraft fans wanted to play 'call of cthulhu,' but they were in the woods, without any technology, and for some reason only brought 4-sided dice with them.  It might not be CoC that they were running exactly, but I'm sure they could figure out how to collaboratively create and play stories in a Lovecraftian setting.  This is a helpful mindset to me because it takes the ethos of "rulings not rules" to the extreme, in the sense that all you really need to play a game is a group that is knowledgeable about genre and has trust in a gm to make fair rulings.
> 
> There is something similar there to the emphasis on the "conversation" and on genre in more story-oriented games, even though those games like to codify with mechanics the roles of the player and gm in order to empower the former (compared to trad games).



If that is what FKR is then the FK conceit seems misleading. Likewise adducing 'rulings not rules', I think, as I most often see that term referencing an orientation _to_ rules.

We used to call the approach _diceless_ role-playing, and over the years have iterated several distinct guides to managing it.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 12, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I think of the FKR proposition as being something like, "what is the minimal amount of stuff you need to play an rpg."



The answer to that, surely, is _some people_.

We divide them into one GM and the remainder as players.  The GM does all the framing. The players declare actions for their PCs. The GM tells them what happens. (This is what Tweet and Edwards call _drama_ resolution.)

Lewis Pulsipher described this sort of RPGing in the late 70s, and as actual not just theoretical. He wasn't a big fan, but he recognised it as a form of RPGing.

I think a fair bit of contemporary D&D play looks quite a bit like this, except that there is a vague sense that the PC sheet has descriptors on it that the GM has to honour in some respect when deciding what happens.



Malmuria said:


> Like, if a bunch of Lovecraft fans wanted to play 'call of cthulhu,' but they were in the woods, without any technology, and for some reason only brought 4-sided dice with them.  It might not be CoC that they were running exactly, but I'm sure they could figure out how to collaboratively create and play stories in a Lovecraftian setting.



That's an interesting example.

A lot of CoC play is very close to what I described just above: the PC sheet is just a set of descriptors to help channel the GM's decision-making, and the dice rolls are basically theatre. The written scenario is basically a set of instructions to the GM to tell them what to say next - replacing it with the GM just making stuff up might lead to a reduction in intricacy and perhaps in consistency of detail, but won't necessarily be a profound change in method!

The group you refer to could also use Cthulhu Dark, replacing its D6 with D4 which won't change the gameplay significantly _except_ to accelerate the race to insanity. The difference between Cthulhu Dark and GM decides is that the result of a die roll can constrain the narration of what happens next, shifting authority from the GM to another participant.



Malmuria said:


> I'm sure they could figure out how to collaboratively create and play stories in a Lovecraftian setting.  This is a helpful mindset to me because it takes the ethos of "rulings not rules" to the extreme, in the sense that all you really need to play a game is a group that is knowledgeable about genre and has trust in a gm to make fair rulings.



I'm not sure what work _collaboratively_ is doing there. As in, suppose we delete that word from your description, what changes?

Related to this is the notion of _the GM making fair rulings_. I don't see what the collaborative element is in a GM making rulings. And suppose we delete the word _fair_. What changes? What would an _unfair_ ruling look like, in this sort of set-up?

A system in which the players declare actions for their PCs and the GM tells them what happens next seems like a RPG to me, and describing it as _collaborative _or suggesting that the GM's rulings need to be _fair_ strikes me as distracting verbiage.



Malmuria said:


> There is something similar there to the emphasis on the "conversation" and on genre in more story-oriented games, even though those games like to codify with mechanics the roles of the player and gm in order to empower the former (compared to trad games).
> 
> I was thinking about this because I'm running blades in the dark



I've never played nor read BitD, though of course have heard a fair bit about it.

I'm not sure which other "story-oriented" games you've got in mind (if any). Apocalypse World is a fairly well known one. Prince Valiant is a classic one, that I play a fair bit and like very much. The mechanics for these systems don't codify the role of the player and GM any differently from D&D - Prince Valiant is mechanically simpler than any version of D&D (including original D&D) and I would say that AW is mechanically simpler than any version of D&D since AD&D.

The change those RPGs make to the role of player and GM, when compared to (say) AD&D or its predecessors, are not in mechanics but in the principles that govern how situations are framed, and how _what happens next _is decided. You can adopt those principles using a system as simple as Cthulhu Dark, where a PC consists of a one-word/phase descriptor chosen by the player (I've seen _longshoreman_, _legal secretary_, _investigative reporter_ and _very English butler_) together with an insanity rating (starts at 1, caps at 6 assuming D6s are being used) and the resolution rules can be (and are) stated in a single page of text.



Malmuria said:


> In dnd, the player is responsible for everything to do with the character (the character's psychology, motivations, and aptitudes) while the dm "plays the world."  Whereas I think bitd works better if players take a bit more abstracted or distanced view of things.  It's less like they are 3d Roleplaying their character, and more like they are screenwriters collaborating with everyone on the narrative but maybe more in charge of one particular element of the story (their characters).



Maybe. As I said, I've not played or read BitD.

What you describe is not a feature of the games I play and enjoy, which tend to emphasise the player's identification with the PC and leave "the story" as something to emerge organically out of the framing + action resolution process. Those RPGs do tend to expect that the story that emerges will be, in some sense, worthwhile; but they rely on the combination of principles and techniques around framing and resolution to achieve that outcome, rather than giving anyone the job of making sure the story is a good one.



Malmuria said:


> Caveat: I am still fairly new to "system matters"-derived story games, so it's very possible the above is inaccurate.  I would certainly appreciate thoughts on how other people handle the differences between trad and story games!



Well to me the differences can be found in both principles and techniques.

In AD&D and other forms of "classic" D&D, backstory/setting is primarily map + key; framing is achieved by reading off the map + key depending on where the players have taken their PCs to (which also means movement rates and passage-of-time rules matter - these regulate the relationship between wandering monster checks and the players getting their PCs to where they want to be); the referee should be non-neutral when preparing the map + key (at a minimum it should be _interesting_), but should be as neutral as possible at the point of framing and resolution.

In post-DL "storyteller" style RPGing, the GM controls not only backstory/setting (via map + key + timelines of events that both have already happened and are yet to happen) but also framing: where the players take their PCs on the map might influence framing decisions a bit but the GM is not constrained by prep in the same way as a classic D&D GM is. The notion of neutrality in framing thus has no real work to do. Because in this sort of play the framed situations and stakes are likely to sit outside the formal mechanics, _and _are likely to be too complex for genuine free kriegsspiel-type resolution, _GM decides _becomes a very important mode of resolution (perhaps using dice rolls as some sort of non-constraining input). You can see this style of play everywhere you look on ENworld, from Iron DM entries to the How Was Your Last Session Thread to most 6-8 encounter per day lamentation threads to a good chunk of the posters on any thread that I or @chaochou has started!

In scene-framed play (Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel are the two examples I'm most familiar with), backstory and setting are secondary concerns, and may come from the players as much as the GM. They are not determined via prep, except to the extent that this might be the by-product of prepping a situation for play. (Eg if as a Prince Valiant GM I write up an evil knight to use in an encounter, that implicates some backstory such as that the knight has a castle somewhere, probably some retainers etc.) Framing of situations is fundamental, and is to be done having regard to the known interests/aspirations of the players for their PCs. (In BW these are recorded on the PC sheet via a formal system of Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships etc; in Prince Valiant these are conveyed purely informally, with genre also doing some heavy lifting.) Resolution is via stakes ("say 'yes' or roll the dice"), intent and task. The interaction of the framing principles and the resolution method means that some of the time situations drive the players' self-authored agendas forward, and sometimes they thwart them (depending on how the dice fall). This modulation of the rising action via success and failure is what makes the story "worthwhile".

In "fiction-first" play (Apocalypse World is the example I'm most familiar with, though my play is confined to some DW experience; I also referee Classic Traveller in a way that is fairly close to this) backstory and prep are a bit more important than in scene-framed play, but the GM is expected not only to follow player leads but also to leave "blanks" that can be filled in, during play, by asking players questions and building on those answers. The basic motto for resolution in this sort of play is _if you do it, you do it_ - there is no "saying 'yes'" if a player declares an action that invokes a mechanically-defined move. Thus, designing moves that will speak to the key concerns of your game is pretty important to this sort of RPG design! The outcomes of moves should generate a fairly clear trajectory of what the GM should say next ("faithfully following the fiction" is very important in these games), with the idea of "snowballing" being important. The main difference between this sort of RPGing, and the "storyteller" RPGing I described above, is that the motto to which "storyteller" RPGing aspires is _We didn't roll the dice all night!_ - ie either consensual or GM-decides resolution is highly valued - whereas in AW-ish fiction first play the expectation is that play will naturally lead to moves being invoked, which require rolls to be made, which then constrain in various ways what happens next. Consensus and GM-decides don't have much work to do once the rubber hits the road! (Again, this drives home how important it is in these games to get your moves designed well. Classic Traveller is OK, but Vincent Baker is a genius in this respect.)

Sorry for the long reply: I'll close it with a self-quote where I say a bit about the difference between scene-framed and fiction-first RPGing, and where my preferences land:



pemerton said:


> @Campbell is the poster on these boards who I think most clearly articulates the contrast between (i) BW and (ii) AW or DW that arises from the different roles that _intention_ plays in action declaration and hence in the narration of consequences (especially failures). I tried to explain this in another recent post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 13, 2021)

Alright, so being a giant noob in matters Free Kriegsspiel, I'm finding the lead post interesting (as it relates to a subject I'm only partially equipped to engage with).

However, subsequent posts bring up FKR...which appears to be some kind of modern cultural movement of Free Kriegsspeil which has some kind of ethos and/or system drift?  Its not clear to me what is happening here and/or what it has to do with the lead post (which doesn't seem to reference or be about this revolution)?  In my parsing, am I (an FK noob trying to parse a post related to 1st gen FK) meant to take onboard this FK ethos and system drift of the current (I guess?...I don't know...the lead post doesn't mention it and its not clear that its meant to?) Revolution in FK in a way that fundamentally affects the message of the lead post (the synopsis of which seems to be the final statement of the lead post)?

What is happening here?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> subsequent posts bring up FKR...which appears to be some kind of modern cultural movement of Free Kriegsspeil which has some kind of ethos and/or system drift?  Its not clear to me what is happening here and/or what it has to do with the lead post (which doesn't seem to reference or be about this revolution)?



The OP was a statement of some ideas I had prompted by reading some recent posts (especially from @Malmuria) which contrasted _free kriegsspiel _with _system_.

You can get my ideas from the OP, but the basic one is that free kriegsspiel is not an _alternative _to system but a type of system. I think it can be used in RPGing, but - as I try to explain in the OP - the result will be a particular sort of RPG and RPG experience. In terms of RPGs you're familiar with, think a really stripped-back Moldvay Basic: the situation and opposition are already established via the (inviolable) prep; action declarations are made on the premise of _brave but oh-too-mortal spelunkers exploring this dungeon_; and most if not all of the adjudication is by the GM's direct extrapolation from the fiction.

Features of Moldvay Basic that push it away from free kreigsspiel include the regularisation of stats, magical abilities, and perhaps most evidently (because the hardest to hive off from the basic premise of _brave but oh-too-mortal spelunkers exploring this dungeon_) thieves' skills. (Remember how Luke Crane made a mistake in allowing a non-thief to make a DEX check to move silently, and only retrospectively realised that adjudication clashed with the thief Move Silently rules? That's an example of stipulated mechanics clashing with a free kriegsspiel ethos.)

@Malmuria linked to this blog in another thread: Free Kriegsspiel: Worlds, Not Rules, Etc.

Here's the core of that blog, which I think you'll be able to correlate pretty easily with my comparison to a stripped-back Moldvay Basic:

At its heart, FKR suggests that the world is a real place, the players/characters can act in any way which reasonably interacts with the fictional environment, and that narrative concepts reign over and above numbers and abstraction. John Ross sums this up wonderfully with the term "Tactical Infinity":​​*The freedom of the Player Characters to attempt any tactic to solve a problem, subject to the adjudication of the Game Master. *​


Manbearcat said:


> In my parsing, am I (an FK noob trying to parse a post related to 1st gen FK) meant to take onboard this FK ethos and system drift of the current (I guess?...I don't know...the lead post doesn't mention it and its not clear that its meant to?) Revolution in FK in a way that fundamentally affects the message of the lead post (the synopsis of which seems to be the final statement of the lead post)?
> 
> What is happening here?



I can't answer that final question, because I'm not quite sure myself. The lead post doesn't mention, and isn't particularly about, any FKR. It's about free kriegsspiel as a system.

But in this post you can see what I think some of the connections are between free kriegsspiel and FKR.

The blog above links to this game authored by the blogger: Any Planet Is Earth is LIVE

I haven't purchased or read the game, but from the description of it that I've linked to, it seems pretty clear what style of RPG it is. (And doesn't seem especially free kriegsspiel to be honest.)


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 13, 2021)

@pemerton 

So...effectively...

1)  Take Calvinball.

2)  Retain Calvin but...

3)  Sub out Machiavellian lack of competitive integrity.

4)  Sub in *competitive integrity as apex priority of play* and, to that end, *an earnest attempt to integrate player input into the gamestate with the persistent gamestate prior to that input and resolve the collision via skillful and informed extrapolation*.


Now....

juxtapose with *storyteller imperative as apex priority of play* and *an earnest attempt to ensure the collision of player input and persistent gamestate yield a through line of dramatically fulfilling content*.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 13, 2021)

@Manbearcat

(EDIT for clarity: what follows is written keeping in mind the FKR blog I linked to, rather than nineteenth century Prussian military wargaming.)

I don't think starting with Calvinball is the right explanatory paradigm, even taking account of your (3) which basically means it's no longer Calvinball. (Likewise I wouldn't really start explaining broccoli by beginning with ice cream.) You are correct to identify _skilful and informed extrapolation_ as key. I think this is why the blog I linked to keeps referring to "realism" - that is a signal of non-gonzo, all-too-mortal gameplay (so eg completely different from both 4e D&D and Prince Valiant, although both of those are quite different from one another).

I think the core apex of play sits somewhere between or across competition and exploration (the latter in The Forge sense). The object of exploration is, I think, primarily setting with a sprinkling of situation and maybe just a hint of character. _Plot _will be emergent; and there will be no _story _guaranteed in any sense beyond a sequence of events in which some of the same characters figure. (Which is exactly what you posit in your juxtaposed contrast.)

The competition is primarily going to be solving the puzzle, completing the raid, escaping the pursuers, etc: the promo blog for Any Planet Is Earth has Classic Traveller written all over it!

We could call that _beating the immediate setting/situation content by thinking of realistic ways to defeat it given a shared conception of what the PCs are able to do._ It relies on holding that content rock-steady based on prep (otherwise we _do_ have Calvinball) and on keeping everything within the parameters where skilful and informed extrapolation can take place.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 13, 2021)

@pemerton , to clarify where my (working through my own) thinking on this was, here is may "map to grok".

Take a "design" (very loosely here) model that shares DNA overlap of constituent parts but pivots at a key nexus for play priorities:

* Authority Distribution

Calvin is THE authority of resolution of collision of interests in the gamestate.  Calvin _is _the system so "the system's say" is "Calvin's say." 

* Procedures for Gamestate Evolution

Calvin presents shared imagined space which includes obstacles/situation/backstory + competing interests where players want something the setting/Calvin doesn't want to give up = collision.  Calvin resolves collision which this includes developing new procedures or foregoing old ones as required to maintain agenda primacy (below).

* Agenda

This is the lynchpin and it feeds into and back from procedures.  When Calvin's agenda changes from "don't give up stuff I don't want to" to "preserve competitive integrity at all costs (in D&D this cost might be story)", play pivots in the most fundamental way possible.  Whereas Calvinball is a degenerate form of FK (where "the system's say" has a compromised agenda which feeds from and back into the procedures of extrapolation and ongoing rules iterating, thus destroying the point of play - distilling skilled play in the crucible of an environment governed by competitive integrity), FK played authentically denies Calvin the entire point of his play (so Calvin would perceive it as degenerate).


EDIT - To circle this back to D&D and conversations we've been having a long time:

The issue I see with a FK approach to D&D is when an agenda of "story imperative" tries to "ride shotgun" with "competitive integrity."  You can sub out Calvin's agenda of "get what I want" and sub in "story imperative" and (in a large distribution of D&D play moments/trajectories played under this model) end up exactly where Calvin and his buddies were.  Buddy x or Buddy y wanted _this moment of play to be governed by competitive integrity_ but it got subordinated where it collided with story imperative (which is what Calvin perceived as the apex priority in that moment).


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Given that there are, in fact, numerous other sources that discuss the specific issue of Free Kriegsspiel both in history (and the application to early TTRPGs) and its more recent application in indie games (usually referred to as FKR), it would probably be best to use the actual sources and definitions that the people themselves use. You could google it, or use one of any number of sources such as this one-
> 
> 
> Things have changed since Ron Edwards exited the scene, and no community is static. I think people that are making and playing FKR games would prefer that you read their games and play them than just idly speculate as to what the games might be like using terminology many of them don't use.
> ...




Some general observations after reading through what you kindly and helpfully posted: 


> 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.



This is not to say that this idea is false, but I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism." I may trust my GM to run a game competently, but would I trust "Redpillskullviking" to do it for their table? That's how we get the FKR version of F.A.T.A.L. 

There is also this bit that gave me pause: 


> 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.



Just because I "trust that the DM is fair, knowledgeable, and is going to make clear, consistent rulings" doesn't somehow mean that they are any of these things nor does it magically make them so. It only really seems to establish that I'm a trusing person, who may be more naive than anything else. My other issue herein is how this lends itself well to a "bait and switch" style of argumentation, such that criticisms of this FKR movement can easily pivot from criticisms of FKR to "I guess you don't trust your GM" or "I guess the GM was just a bad GM." By painting this as a "high-trust play style," it seems easy to dismiss critics as "low/no-trust critics" who don't trust their GM. 



> It plays worlds, not rules.



Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules." It's not so much whether or not I trust the GM in this case, but, the idea of "playing the world" feels like a smokescreen that is meant to obscure and romanicize what's actually going on behind it all.

I do find it interesting though that one article in that posting links to S John Ross, the creator of Risus RPG (1993), which is something of spiritual "kin" to games like FUDGE, Fate, or Cortex through its use of fiction first principles and fictional tags, clichés, descriptors, aspects, etc. (Jonathan Tweet's _Over the Edge_ has also been cited as an influence by at least Cam Banks.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Sep 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Some general observations after reading through what you kindly and helpfully posted:
> 
> This is not to say that this idea is false, but I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism." I may trust my GM to run a game competently, but would I trust "Redpillskullviking" to do it for their table? That's how we get the FKR version of F.A.T.A.L.
> 
> ...




On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).

A high-trust play style usually emphasizes the need to trust the GM/arbiter, since that's a focal point of a lot of game design and discussion today. However, I don't think it's correct to view the trust in "high-trust" as unidirectional, flowing only from the players to the GM. Instead, IMO, I have found that high-trust only works when there is trust between all the participants.

It is necessary, but not sufficient, that the players trust the GM. There has to be a level of trust between the players, and the GM has to trust the players as well.

To put these airy concepts in more concrete terms-
Yes, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate fairly.
But the players also have to trust each other to not abuse the style of game.
And the GM has to trust the players to do likewise.

We usually focus on rules as constraining the GM, but the rules also constrain the players. To use a simple example, if the game only has the modifier for a character of strong, and it is a "realistic" game (one bound by normal physics and people), then a player who repeatedly says his character is "lifting buildings" and "punching through the core of the earth" is not playing within the parameters of the game. Yes, the GM can adjudicate that as not being within the fiction of the game, but ... the GM shouldn't have to make that call over and over again. For the game to function correctly, there has to be a level of trust from everyone.

This can be accomplished in a number of way- either the people know each other and have played together before, or you assume provide that level of trust until someone breaks it.

The fundamental difference between so-called rule-less games that focus on narrative and games with rules to move the narrative along is often just the difference between the use of norms and heuristics, as opposed to (slightly) more formal methods of decision-making.

Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.



Aldarc said:


> Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules." It's not so much whether or not I trust the GM in this case, but, the idea of "playing the world" feels like a smokescreen that is meant to obscure and romanicize what's actually going on behind it all.




I don't think that's fair. Everyone names their own system in a way that they think is accurate, right? But then people who don't play that assume it's some kind of evil trick. For example, if you play "story now" does that mean that you are using a smokescreen to try and obscure what's going on, are saying other people aren't creating stories in RPGs? If you like old-school "skilled play" dungeon crawls, are you saying that no one else plays, or has skill? To use a recently germane example- if you have an FKR game, does that mean that you are following the dictates of General Verdy  in teaching Prussian officers?

It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.

From my P.O.V., it can be a source of frustration that some people-
1. Choose to debate the terms (jargon) rather than focus on the underlying substance.
2. Believe that the enjoyment (EDIT- or even discussion) of other modes of play threatens their own style of play.

The combination of (1) and (2) tends to derail most conversations on this forum that try to discuss modes of play, as opposed to narrowly focused issues related to 5e ("Flanking- cool, or not cool?").




Aldarc said:


> I do find it interesting though that one article in that posting links to S John Ross, the creator of Risus RPG (1993), which is something of spiritual "kin" to games like FUDGE, Fate, or Cortex through its use of fiction first principles and fictional tags, clichés, descriptors, aspects, etc. (Jonathan Tweet's _Over the Edge_ has also been cited as an influence by at least Cam Banks.)




Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything is related. Most of the conversations we have are echoes of previous conversations, and will be re-hashed again in the future.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> On this, I would say the following from my P.O.V. (remembering that I am not the spokesman for FKR!).
> 
> A high-trust play style usually emphasizes the need to trust the GM/arbiter, since that's a focal point of a lot of game design and discussion today. However, I don't think it's correct to view the trust in "high-trust" as unidirectional, flowing only from the players to the GM. Instead, IMO, I have found that high-trust only works when there is trust between all the participants.
> 
> ...



My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> We usually focus on rules as constraining the GM, but the rules also constrain the players. To use a simple example, if the game only has the modifier for a character of strong, and it is a "realistic" game (one bound by normal physics and people), then a player who repeatedly says his character is "lifting buildings" and "punching through the core of the earth" is not playing within the parameters of the game. Yes, the GM can adjudicate that as not being within the fiction of the game, but ... the GM shouldn't have to make that call over and over again. For the game to function correctly, there has to be a level of trust from everyone.



Are you trying to describe FKR or games like Fate and Cortex? Because these are similar criticisms that often D&D people lay at the feet of Fate's Aspects or Cortex's Distinctions. Again, these are primarily "fiction first" games. So what exactly about FKR is "high trust" any more than playing Fate?



Snarf Zagyg said:


> This can be accomplished in a number of way- either the people know each other and have played together before, or you assume provide that level of trust until someone breaks it.
> 
> The fundamental difference between so-called rule-less games that focus on narrative and games with rules to move the narrative along is often just the difference between the use of norms and heuristics, as opposed to (slightly) more formal methods of decision-making.
> 
> Finally, high-trust gaming can exist in many modes of play, but I think that it is absolutely required (a condition precedent) in FKR.



I'm not sure if your argument is helping, @Snarf Zagyg, because it feels a bit like it is aggrandizing FKR as "higher trust than other games." 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I don't think that's fair. Everyone names their own system in a way that they think is accurate, right? But then people who don't play that assume it's some kind of evil trick. For example, if you play "story now" does that mean that you are using a smokescreen to try and obscure what's going on, are saying other people aren't creating stories in RPGs? If you like old-school "skilled play" dungeon crawls, are you saying that no one else plays, or has skill? To use a recently germane example- if you have an FKR game, does that mean that you are following the dictates of General Verdy  in teaching Prussian officers?
> 
> It's just people describing their approach- here, to choose genre and proceed from there.
> 
> ...



"It plays worlds, not rules" feels less like a term or name and more like marketing speak. I'm just not a fan of "marketing speak" when it comes to these things. It doesn't feel accurate. It again feels like a highly romanticized smokescreen for playing the GM, who mediates between the world and the players. Am I really playing the world when it all has to be filtered entirely through the GM? 

I certainly have criticisms of "story now" as a term too. But I use it because of the lack of viable alternatives and otherwise it becomes a discussion about definitions and terms, which you have also said in another thread is something of a fool's errand. Plus, what is meant by "skilled play" is its own rabbit hole of discussion that has been hashed and rehashed in a number of threads. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything is related. Most of the conversations we have are echoes of previous conversations, and will be re-hashed again in the future.



You're preaching to a guy writing his dissertation (partially) on Ecclesiastes.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Sep 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR.




There are numerous sources to read; I just linked to one that has links to others. 

But I would go back to what I said before- the reason it is discussed is because it's ... what people today discuss. If you come from (for example) a 3e/Pf/4e background, the issue of the GM's authority is probably something you've been thinking about.

_On the other hand_, when was the last time you read or thought about issues of player trust? I don't want to say never, or rarely, or any other qualifier that might cause someone else to say, "Ak-shually, there is an entire school of RPG Theory from Oslo devoted to it ..." but it's not ... common. It's almost always assumed or implied.

Same here. Whether you want to look at it as "tactical infinity" or some other term, it's about the participants trusting each other. But yes, a _salient _feature is the unfettered discretion of the GM to adjudicate the fiction. 



Aldarc said:


> Are you trying to describe FKR or games like Fate and Cortex? Because these are similar criticisms that often D&D people lay at the feet of Fate's Aspects or Cortex's Distinctions. Again, these are primarily "fiction first" games. So what exactly about FKR is "high trust" any more than playing Fate?




Many games are "high trust." Defining TTRPG boundaries is like defining genres. What makes something "noir."

That there are overlaps is to be expected! 



Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if your argument is helping, @Snarf Zagyg, because it feels a bit like it is aggrandizing FKR as "higher trust than other games."




No. To the extent it reads as such, it wasn't intended that way. I re-read what I wrote, and I honestly am not sure how you understood that from the excerpted section? 



Aldarc said:


> "It plays worlds, not rules" feels less like a term or name and more like marketing speak. I'm just not a fan of "marketing speak" when it comes to these things. It doesn't feel accurate. It again feels like a highly romanticized smokescreen for playing the GM, who mediates between the world and the players. Am I really playing the world when it all has to be filtered entirely through the GM?
> 
> I certainly have criticisms of "story now" as a term too. But I use it because of the lack of viable alternatives and otherwise it becomes a discussion about definitions and terms, which you have also said in another thread is something of a fool's errand. Plus, what is meant by "skilled play" is its own rabbit hole of discussion that has been hashed and rehashed in a number of threads.




Again, you are welcome to have your feelings about terms. But it's not a productive conversation to argue about what it's called, instead of what it is. 

Since I am not the one who named any of these terms, I am also not the best one to discuss that point with. I would suggest taking it up with the people who use the term, but I think we both know that it is unlikely to go well. 



Aldarc said:


> You're preaching to a guy writing his dissertation (partially) on Ecclesiastes.




Sounds awesome! Good luck! 

The best part about a doctoral thesis is that, eventually, it ends.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I feel like this is a critical assumption in what you quoted that is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for this understanding of FKR and other ideas built upon it: i.e., because a human may have a better grasp of a complex situation than an abstract rule system, ergo... [presumably the veneration of the GM as the One Supreme God]. I'm skeptical because people are stupid and many otherwise knowledgeable people have either parroted or propagated some pretty dumb assertions, particularly in the name of "realism."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Furthermore, "It plays worlds, not rules" honestly sounds more like catchy marketing speak rather than accurately describing what's actually going on, which seems to me more like "it plays the GM, not rules."



On _playing worlds, not rules_ I would reiterate what I posted in the other thread: this is about _adjudication by way of direct application of fictional positioning_. There is a lot of this in classic, dungeoneering D&D play. Conversely, it is a principle of Burning Wheel that _if anything is at stake then the dice must be rolled_ - ie there is a deliberate rule that fictional positioning is never determinative when something is at stake. A correlate to this principle in BW is that the narration of failure focuses on _intent_ (which is intimately related to _what is at stake_) rather than task - eg if something is at stake, but the fictional positioning is such that the task is trivial, then the Obstacle will be 1, and if the check nevertheless fails the GM will narrate some complication which probably involves introducing a new fictional element into the situation.

Apocalypse World also differs from free kriegsspiel-esque adjudication, because _if you do it, you do it _and the move has to be resolved. And if the check fails then the MC is not constrained by the current fictional position in narrating failure, because s/he is at liberty to (eg) establish signs of impending badness, or to introduce some new element into the fiction that separates the PCs, or whatever.

These examples (BW, AW, and of course they could be multiplied) show that _play worlds, not rules_ is a thing - but it's a thing that (as per my OP) will deliver a particular sort of RPG experience. These examples also show that the "high trust" idea is a red herring best ignored: no system requires more trust (of the GM/MC as well as fellow players) than BW or AW.

There is some discussion of FKR on this OD&D forum thread: BE A FKR! | Original D&D Discussion

When I read it, I found two things that were noteworthy:

* There is this quote on the second page: _The GM must know the setting inside and out, must know how that setting works the same way, and must be able to rule instantly and consistently so that the players know how the setting works and that the GM is working within the reality of that setting. _This is consistent with what I posted in reply to @Manbearcat not too far upthread, about the importance of prep and holding that rock-steady in play. It also makes clear some of the well-known limitations of adjudication based on prep and fictional positioning: as soon as the fiction reaches a certain (pretty low) threshold of complexity, the possibility of this sort of adjudication breaks down. Eg we're playing a FKR-version of Traveller, and my PC is in a city and needs to get over a wall, fast. Is there any junk around to climb up onto? No referee can detail all the junk in even one city block, and so prep-and-fictional positioning won't help here. We need a way to work out the content of the setting. Classic Traveller doesn't discuss this in relation to junk that might help climb a wall, but already has subsystems for Law Level, Bribery, Streetwise etc that respond to the issue by adopting resolution frameworks that look more like Burning Wheel than they do like free kriegsspiel.

* There is surprisingly little recognition of the role of _expertise_ in free kriegsspiel refereeing, until at the end of the second page there is a bizarre detour into a discussion of a GM who has memorised the charts and so does not have to look them up every time. That sort of memorisation has zero to do with free kriegsspiel, which is all about the referee being an expert in respect of the fictional subject matter (eg the effect that terrain has on troop movements). As you (@Aldarc) note in the post to which I'm replying, any serious discussion of free kriegsspiel refereeing and its application to RPGing has to grapple with this issue. It only becomes compounded when questions of subject matter expertise interact with questions of the complexity of the setting - I've played in games which weren't meant to be silly or frustrating but became so because the referee was making free kriegsspiel-type rulings that were based on ignorance of physics and technology in context that were already implausibly austere given the sci-fi genre of the game.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 13, 2021)

On expertise:

I think as you go through life and attain more skills and a deeper and more robust forensic knowledge base, it becomes plainly obvious at just how ill-equipped "the prior you" would have been to:

(a) frame interesting and consequential decision-points around this thing

(b) illuminate these decision-points in such a way that amateurs (at best) can understand (i) their move space and (ii) the implication of their move-space

(c) ascertain how well this PC vs that PC might be equipped (physical fitness, mental fitness, skillset overlap, and gear deploymennt) to undertake tackling the conflict at large and micro-decision-points within that conflict.



Not more than 4 years ago, I was just north of a climbing novice. I'm now fairly advanced. "The prior me" would have been extremely less well-equipped to frame/articulate/rule upon climbing conflicts than "the current me." And "the prior me" (just north of climbing novice) probably understood climbing and could articulate it better than 99 % of TTRPG GMs. 

Further still, "the current me" 100 % overestimates my capabilities in (a), (b), and (c)!

This knowledge gap (between the prior you and the current you or the prior/current you and other participants at the table), this knowledge creep and the incestious over-confidence in one's capabilities that comes with it (even in someone who is very advanced in a discipline) has a massive role to play here.


I'm ENORMOUSLY confident in my ability to GM all kinds of systems and all kinds of conflicts. The self-interrogating "postmortem of my sessions/decisions" side does not agree that my confidence in the moment is warranted!


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 14, 2021)

Free Kreigspiel has a bunch of assumptions...

The Referee is actually knowledgeable about the setting and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the units
The referee is neutral - FK originally was intended to be PVP.
both sides are allowed to do actions not covered by the 
All participants are willing to adhere to the setting as presented
The referee usually either creates or presents a scenario, which is then played out. 
Nothing in the setup is modifiable by the player unless the GM explicitly allows it to be.

The basic combat system was present for times when it was useful; its utility was the decision of the Referee, not the players.
The Referee was allowed/encouraged to modify the needed rolls.

Basically, in FK, the agency of the players usually begins at start of scenario; in RPGs, agency usually begins in character generation. FK also was intentional PVP, while RPGs are normally PVGM, but with a fair GM... they blur  together and even overlap a good bit.

Many assume FK is the progenitor of _Diplomacy_. I don't know if that's true, but the parallels are there.
I am aware that Dave Arneson was a _Diplomacy_ player. I don't know if he was an FK player, but I'd not be surprised if he had played.

"Playing worlds, not rules" is very much a thing in FK... because everyone's assumed to know and agree to the world concept (at the time, usually as close to reality as possible; in modern FK, fantasy worlds are more common). It's usually more accurate to say, "Playing the world as the Referee believes it to work"... but that's the same for most narrative-first referees in RPG play.

And, like RPGs, FK ranged from pretty close to standard but with permission to go off-list through "no rules other than _The Referee Decides_."


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2021)

@Manbearcat, and following up on expertise and its relationship to fictional positioning and "storytelling".

It's easy to see how an approach that starts with a free kriegsspiel-ish orientation can drift towards something different.

Suppose that, in an actual free kriegsspiel scenario, some process (random roll; designer's stipulation; whatever) dictates that it is raining on the battlefield. Now the umpire is expected to use their knowledge of weather and terrain to determine the extent to which resultant mud bogs down the artillery.

Imagine transposing that sort of scenario into RPG adjudication: somehow or other it is established that it is raining; the PCs want to get from A to B in a hurry; and the GM - like a free kriegsspiel referee - tells the players that as a result of the inclement weather it will take such-and-such a time to do so.

Now let's say that one of the players is an experienced trekker, and responds _Hang on, I've walked such-and-such a trail when it was pissing down for 6 hours and was carrying a 15 kg pack and it only took such-and-such a time for me; and my PC has a CON of 16! _I don't know how that sort of insubordination was dealt with in the Prussian wargaming rooms; but in the context of a RPG the GM has an easy out: _the rain is heavier, and the muddy soil likewise heavier, than anything you experienced on your trek_. And now instead of the referee neutrally adjudicating the fiction, we've got the GM's adjudication _establishing _the fiction!

How many tables went through something like the above process between 1974 and 1984?


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> How many tables went through something like the above process between 1974 and 1984?



Quite a few... Including many who didn't play _Frei Kriegsspiel_. Other games of the era that might lead that way include anyone subjected to one of the presidential sims moderated by a teacher who added allowance for dirty politics the game didn't. Or those in Model UN. Or those who played Diplomacy (especially variants). Or those houseruling the _bleep_ out of Risk. Or people houseruling _Outdoor Survival_ for increased realism.

Everything I've seen implies that the minis crowd were much more willing to mod in the 60's to early 80's than in the 90's onward; The RPG space has always been more mod-heavy... Just look at the class of 1975... Metamorphosis Alpha, Starfaring, Tunnels and Trolls...


----------



## clearstream (Sep 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> My issue reading through the FKR materials is that it feels mostly unidirectional. It feels like it mostly emphasizes the wisdom, fairness, and investment of power and trust in the GM. Discussion of the GM's trust in players seems mostly absent. Discussion of the player's own power seems pretty absent with the exception of removing rules to somehow increase player agency. I don't think that it helps that the article you linked to was written by Ben Milton, who likely has a heavily OSR approach and viewpoint regarding FKR.



That is accurate. Seeing as the DM is the source of truth about the game world, players are forced to trust them. The DM is the accurate authority on _their _world, and that is not a matter of realism. In cases where their world is based on another person's fiction - say if one were to DM a campaign set in EarthSea - then it is _their _EarthSea. Not Le Guin's.



pemerton said:


> * There is this quote on the second page: _The GM must know the setting inside and out, must know how that setting works the same way, and must be able to rule instantly and consistently so that the players know how the setting works and that the GM is working within the reality of that setting. _This is consistent with what I posted in reply to @Manbearcat not too far upthread, about the importance of prep and holding that rock-steady in play.



I believe you overstate the prep requirement (or maybe more accurately, those you cite do). A crucial skill to DM this style of play is your ability to develop your world rapidly on the fly in whatever direction your play takes you. And to do that in way that feels plausible and consistent (within the terms of your world.) It is that freedom - to go rapidly in any direction - that I believe is one of the most exciting draws of this play style for players. I read tactical infinity and actually that falls short. Players embrace limits on solutions available to them comfortably. Each statement they make about their character, amounts to a statement of the infinity of things that they will do _less_ well... all the ways in which they will *not* be able to solve their problems. What I see excites players is the infinity of the world itself, where they can go in it, and of course what they can do in it. Perhaps that is what the writer intended?

Prep can be light, in a way, or it can be everything you've ever read, in another way. It's a kind of quickfire authorship with the participation of players... actually in _response _to the players. You ideally enter a state of flow where you simply know what must be the answer to any question about your world. What lies East? Who is this person beholden to? There are a few tricks of course, such as littering the world with seeds that you will back-fill later. That's part of what is exciting for a DM - the same thing Tolkien identified - 'discovering' your world. Things that feel to you like they were always there, just waiting for you to notice them.

You might recall that I'm an advocate for immersion. By which I mean entering the world as a real place. Rules are always incomplete (generally, technically, and philosophically.) Thus rules can only ever work to fail to capture what is real in your world. Our brains have this amazing ability to gloss over blank spaces. To assume that something is drawn in where there is in truth nothing. I think this style of play leans on that ability to do a great deal with what is unsaid. Through avoiding committing to rules, an _illusion _of realism is sustained.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> And now instead of the referee neutrally adjudicating the fiction, we've got the GM's adjudication _establishing _the fiction!




And that is the crux, isn’t it?

Neutrality of refereeing is rendered out of existence in such a scenario.

When you have codification of action resolution process, you’re building from the middle out (what does OBS4 mean? What Position and Effect be for this situation? Here are the spread of results for all moves). You don’t have to be peerless/unchallengeable when establishing obstacles. Here are the action resolution mechanics < move backward from them to framing obstacles/situation > move forward to action and consequence.

When you’re building and iterating the resolution method in real time for each obstacle/situation, you’re starting at the the beginning. What is phenomenon we’re modeling (obstacle/situation) > build resolution scheme that manages appropriately integrating all the parameters of the model > hopefully you’re a peerless expert and now we move on to action and consequence. 

Of course if you’re not a peerless expert or the “high-trust” dynamic at the table is wobbly or outright compromised due to an abundance of (often high ego) experts in related fields, before action and consequence, you would have to append:

* change situation to be possessed of worse or better framing based on the potency of the dispute of your action resolution model (you lose neutrality of GMing here!).

* defer to received input or vehemence from table experts who are disputing your model (the “high trust” parameter is gone!).


The selection pressures that would lead to table dysfunction are significant. The functional table had to have been the very rare breed.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> When you have codification of action resolution process, you’re building from the middle out (what does OBS4 mean? What Position and Effect be for this situation? Here are the spread of results for all moves). You don’t have to be peerless/unchallengeable when establishing obstacles. Here are the action resolution mechanics < move backward from them to framing obstacles/situation > move forward to action and consequence.
> 
> When you’re building and iterating the resolution method in real time for each obstacle/situation, you’re starting at the the beginning. What is phenomenon we’re modeling (obstacle/situation) > build resolution scheme that manages appropriately integrating all the parameters of the model > hopefully you’re a peerless expert and now we move on to action and consequence.



I think this is at the more brutal end of characterisations of the GM function in an "objective"/"realistic" game!

I think that a free kriegsspiel-style _unmediated adjudication of fictional positioning _puts the greatest degree of pressure on GM expertise. This comes up in Moldvay Basic, with the instructions to the GM to adjudicate fairly (= neutrally, realistically) and to assign appropriate success chances. It's when the situation gets more complicated than the dungeon basics that the idea of the all-knowing GM adjudicating the fictional positioning really starts to break down.

But if we pul back from adjudication of fictional positioning to setting an objective obstacle - as per Burning Wheel, Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, etc - I think the situation is not quite as dire. Especially when - as in all those systems - there are extensive charts of obstacles to work with and extrapolate from.

And departing from absolute GM authority to a degree of consensus around obstacles also helps make things work smoothly - and that sort of consensual approach works much better when it is obstacles, rather than results, that are being discussed as objects of consensus.



Manbearcat said:


> Of course if you’re not a peerless expert or the “high-trust” dynamic at the table is wobbly or outright compromised due to an abundance of (often high ego) experts in related fields, before action and consequence, you would have to append:
> 
> * change situation to be possessed of worse or better framing based on the potency of the dispute of your action resolution model (you lose neutrality of GMing here!).
> 
> ...



Following on from above: the second option, if _consensus_ rather than _deferral/dispute_, makes functionality more feasible. I've pulled it off enough (RM, BW, Classic Traveller) that I don't think it can be that rare in principle. But it does mean dropping the irritating "trust" mantra and rather bringing the table into the process.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 14, 2021)

This thread has me wanting to learn more about FK


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2021)

clearstream said:


> That is accurate. Seeing as the DM is the source of truth about the game world, players are forced to trust them. The DM is the accurate authority on _their _world, and that is not a matter of realism. In cases where their world is based on another person's fiction - say if one were to DM a campaign set in EarthSea - then it is _their _EarthSea. Not Le Guin's.
> 
> 
> I believe you overstate the prep requirement (or maybe more accurately, those you cite do). A crucial skill to DM this style of play is your ability to develop your world rapidly on the fly in whatever direction your play takes you.



I think there's a real tension - or maybe just outright confusion? - in equating the sort of GM narration you are describing here with _free kriegsspiel_.

The sort of experience you're describing seems similar (not necessarily identical) to the sort of GM-as-tale-spinner approach that Lewis Pulsipher described, but wasn't enthusiastic about, back in the late 70s/early 80s. As you explain, the immediacy and integrity of the GM's presentation of their world-concept is crucial to this.

It doesn't seem to have very much in common with free kriegsspiel, though, which is not about _integrity of a world-conception_ but rather about _expertise _and an ability to apply it to generate realistic outcomes. The measure of referee skill here is not _integrity of the concept _but _accuracy relative to the real world_.

So how are the two being conflated?


----------



## clearstream (Sep 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think there's a real tension - or maybe just outright confusion? - in equating the sort of GM narration you are describing here with _free kriegsspiel_.



One could differentiate between historical FK and so-called "FK" RPG. I'd call the latter appellation confusing, but then I didn't assign it. Perhaps the most generous position to take is that proponents of FK RPG have in mind something, that reminds them of or draws inspiration from FK.



pemerton said:


> The sort of experience you're describing seems similar (not necessarily identical) to the sort of GM-as-tale-spinner approach that Lewis Pulsipher described, but wasn't enthusiastic about, back in the late 70s/early 80s. As you explain, the immediacy and integrity of the GM's presentation of their world-concept is crucial to this.
> 
> It doesn't seem to have very much in common with free kriegsspiel, though, which is not about _integrity of a world-conception_ but rather about _expertise _and an ability to apply it to generate realistic outcomes. The measure of referee skill here is not _integrity of the concept _but _accuracy relative to the real world_.



I agree with you. It doesn't have much in common at all. Not even the things its proponents seem to think are in common. Coming at this ontologically, what are the commonalities between games targeted as "FK"?



pemerton said:


> So how are the two being conflated?



Consider the promotion of DM as living embodiment of the rules in FK RPG discourse. In historical FK, the umpire was an expert in real world battles and the goal was to teach junior officers something about real world battle. I don't know if there are any proofs beyond conjecture that said expertise lead to realism, but I can speculate from playing wargames like De Bellis Multitudinus - which is a work of applied scholarship - that their expertise gave them at least a shot at realism.

Setting aside how well a DM knows the air speed of an unladen swallow in this world, to step into an imagined world changes what is real. How fast can a dragon fly? What is the "realistic" answer to that? Given that the DM stands as expert in their world, if dragons fly at lightspeed, then that is what is real (in their world.) A rule in Cthulhu Dark is that if you fight any mythos creatures you will die. In my friend's Mayfly rules-light game, an orc lives each day as their first and last day of existence. Are either of those about realism? Or are they about _establishing_ what is real?

So that is the commonality - FK super-DM (FKR as one proponent puts it) gets to say what is real.

Can we imagine a rules-light game that is at least as "free" and "realistic" as any other putatively FK game, but that distributes the DM's authority? Perhaps one player is a real life expert in physical contact sports and medieval reenactment combat, and they call the shots on combat. Another is a real life zoologist, and they decide how creatures behave. Is that game going to be less realistic? In the past we ran large scale wargaming sessions over a few days with multiple referees. I can conjecture that their combined wisdom and ability to consult with one another produced a more realistic result. Where is the evidence that sole-judgment leads to more realistic as real-world simulation (which I take to be the intent in historical FK) over distributed judgement? Or even that a set of rules such as DBM wouldn't produce a better result?

The point is, realism is not at issue. Only what is real, is.


----------



## Malmuria (Sep 14, 2021)

clearstream said:


> How fast can a dragon fly? What is the "realistic" answer to that? Given that the DM stands as expert in their world, if dragons fly at lightspeed, then that is what is real (in their world.)




What's the best way to answer this question in an rpg system?  That is, is the role of the dm/rules in a roleplay game ever analogous to the role of umpire and rules in a kriegspiel wargame (free or not)?  If not, then it would seem like your criticism of the realism of dragon flight extends to the trad approach.  

In 5e, dragon flight 80' a round.  Is that realistic?  Is it valid in a gameist sort of way?  Why does the fact that it's written in a book make it a better answer than the gm coming up with the answer, even at the table?  I think the answer is that if you are playing 5e, you expect the rules to reference things in a way that somewhat guides or even constrains the ability of the dm to make those sort of rulings.  Even if the dm _is_ making it up as they go, there's an illusion that everything refers back to a pre-written stat block. 

Similar for establishing the fiction.  The fiction must be established one way or another; what means to doing so are appropriate?  Should the dm prepare everything ahead of time, and does that prep make the establishment of the fiction at the table more legitimate (and if so, why?)?  I think for all the emphasis put on dm trust in fkr, the more likely answer to any fiction-establishing elements would be more like, gm proposes, table confers, gm decides.  High trust assumes that that conversation is not adversarial, and further that a non-adversarial social relationship among players and gm cannot be guaranteed by a set of rules or procedures.


----------



## John Dallman (Sep 14, 2021)

This discussion suggests a different play structure to me, with three parties to a game:

The adversary GM, who's responsible for the NPCs, their plans and actions, and their contributions to the fiction. 

The umpire, who rules on the successes of actions. 

A number of players, with one or more characters each. Their part is fairly traditional. 

Obviously, splitting up the traditional tasks of the GM like this will change things, and experiments would be required to find out if it works, and to refine the details. I'd be prepared to give this a try, although I'd prefer to do it face-to-face. My previous experiment with structure was having three players share control of a single character: I used Amber Diceless Roleplaying, so as to have a durable and capable protagonist. The results were interesting, although I have only run it once, for about five sessions.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What's the best way to answer this question in an rpg system?  That is, is the role of the dm/rules in a roleplay game ever analogous to the role of umpire and rules in a kriegspiel wargame (free or not)?  If not, then it would seem like your criticism of the realism of dragon flight extends to the trad approach.
> 
> In 5e, dragon flight 80' a round.  Is that realistic?  Is it valid in a gameist sort of way?  Why does the fact that it's written in a book make it a better answer than the gm coming up with the answer, even at the table?  I think the answer is that if you are playing 5e, you expect the rules to reference things in a way that somewhat guides or even constrains the ability of the dm to make those sort of rulings.  Even if the dm _is_ making it up as they go, there's an illusion that everything refers back to a pre-written stat block.
> 
> Similar for establishing the fiction.  The fiction must be established one way or another; what means to doing so are appropriate?  Should the dm prepare everything ahead of time, and does that prep make the establishment of the fiction at the table more legitimate (and if so, why?)?  I think for all the emphasis put on dm trust in fkr, the more likely answer to any fiction-establishing elements would be more like, gm proposes, table confers, gm decides.  High trust assumes that that conversation is not adversarial, and further that a non-adversarial social relationship among players and gm cannot be guaranteed by a set of rules or procedures.



I see the role of a book like the MM as being a substitute for personal prep. It substitutes for prep of the backstory, by providing a default one. (And in the context of D&D, despite the changes over the year, there is a clear trajectory from Gygax's MM with its devils and demons and mysterious underground drow and militaristic hobgoblins through to the 4e MM with its devils and demons and underdark-dwelling drow and militaristic hobgoblins; I can't comment on the 5e MM.)

It also answers mechanical questions.

I know - from hearsay, not experience - that there are D&D tables which put a high premium on the GM adhering to the mechanical details of the MM. I personally haven't had that experience; as a GM in D&D and RM (the two systems I've used which have extensive published "bestiaries") I've always adapted what the rulebooks hand me to serve my purposes when I want to.

But in the context of D&D (or RM) there are some other considerations that come into play, too. Movement rates often matter in combat resolution, and for that reason have to be kept within certain bounds that aren't necessarily "realistic" - eg in AD&D the default human movement rate is 12" and really fast flyers go up to 48" (eg a giant eagle' even an air elemental is only 36"). Now in real life an eagle can comfortably fly at 50+ mph (as per the ever-handy wikipedia; I remember 20+ years ago tackling this question during a session - when a PC changed shape into a goose and wanted to fly from A to B - by pulling an encyclopaedia from someone's shelf). Which is quite a bit more than 4 times human walking speed.

But do we want shapechangers, familiars etc to be able to move so fast? And how about the time to stop and start, which is a factor in a lot of D&D combat movement? For a range of both balance and common-sense reasons, we compromise! I would expect the authors/designers of a MM to have regard to these sorts of concerns in settling on their movement rates; and as a referee doing my own designing I would pay attention to what they have done in that respect. (A side remark: 4e D&D tried to tackle this issue, in part at least, with the concept of _overland flight speed_, but that didn't really survive beyond the first MM and was never systematically operationalised. Not every design innovation is a success!)

Now here's another example, more recent: in my Classic Traveller game the PCs had called in support from the air force of the world they were on (one of the PCs was an ex-army colonel and had good connections with the world's military). It was already established that the world's atmosphere was toxic and corrosive, and that had led me to the view that the airforce would be prop-based rather than jet-based (because (i) it wasn't clear that the atmosphere would support combustion as a jet needs it, and (ii) I thought the corrosive atmosphere would damage the jets more seriously than propellers). So I explained this to the players, and they agreed that made sense. And then I suggested a flight speed for the air force planes as around 300 kph, and no one dissented from that (including the military history buff). But a subsequent Google revealed that to be woefully slow: even the passenger Fokker Friendship I flew on in the 1980s has a speed of around 500 kph. And given that this is a game of science fiction adventure in the far future (the sub-heading on my Traveller rulebooks), realism matters!

Because I don't use map-and-key resolution, my error with the flight speed didn't matter - it was just some colour to give content and context to a framing/pacing decision. But in a map-and-key game, where the fate of the PCs might depend on how long the air force planes took to arrive, it would be more serious. I wouldn't blame the players for being irritated by it.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I see the role of a book like the MM as being a substitute for personal prep. It substitutes for prep of the backstory, by providing a default one. (And in the context of D&D, despite the changes over the year, there is a clear trajectory from Gygax's MM with its devils and demons and mysterious underground drow and militaristic hobgoblins through to the 4e MM with its devils and demons and underdark-dwelling drow and militaristic hobgoblins; I can't comment on the 5e MM.)
> 
> It also answers mechanical questions.
> 
> ...



I can affirm that, in the early 80's to early 90's, I had players who would get upset if one changed the details of a monster (including descriptive text)... but had no issue with homebrewed monsters. So I reskinned several MM entries... Said players also tended to be rules lawyers, and munchkins type players. My solution in the 90's was to run games other than D&D...


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I can affirm that, in the early 80's to early 90's, I had players who would get upset if one changed the details of a monster (including descriptive text)... but had no issue with homebrewed monsters. So I reskinned several MM entries... Said players also tended to be rules lawyers, and munchkins type players. My solution in the 90's was to run games other than D&D...



My first exposure to "animal encounters" was Classic Traveller, and then I had played The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (and maybe some more FFGs - my memory of my childhood has faded!) before being getting Moldvay Basic in 1982. Not long after, I was exposed to White Dwarf with custom monsters.

So I don't think I ever had a strong sense of the MM as "canon" as opposed to _here's some stuff that we think is good and fits our vision of the D&D setting_.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My first exposure to "animal encounters" was Classic Traveller, and then I had played The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (and maybe some more FFGs - my memory of my childhood has faded!) before being getting Moldvay Basic in 1982. Not long after, I was exposed to White Dwarf with custom monsters.
> 
> So I don't think I ever had a strong sense of the MM as "canon" as opposed to _here's some stuff that we think is good and fits our vision of the D&D setting_.



I went the other direction  -- Moldvay-Cook to Traveller. (With a brief stop at Star Frontiers between)... and from there, a large variety of others. 
And, as we've noted before, to the  1982 TTB and US 1981 LBB editions ... I've always seen the monster lists as non-canon for any worlds other than Mystara and Oerth (D&D Known World and Greyhawk). Until the  90's, I didn't use the settings - and I only started to use them due to running games in the Retail Play program.

I see  Kriegsspiel as a vital step towards RPGs, and FK as the next.

Kriegsspiel
scenarios as separate from the game itself (itself an outgrowth of ideas present in training for chess by playing problems)
hidden information - what pass for wargames in the mid-19th century - chess and it's variants and analogs, hnaftafl, and the various Prussian boardgames - were mostly perfect information; some of the scenarios were not.
Genuine representation of capability - most of the other games of the era were, not unlike Feudal, more like multiple-piece-move chess variant.

Frei Kriegsspiel
Actions outside the list
Referee determined modifiers in addition to or in replacement of rules-listed ones based upon the situation as described
hidden movement
first uses of three-board play (side A's view, Side B's view, and the Referee's view)

Occasionally, settings other than historical or present. (what settings weren't mentioned in the article I read).

All of these are key elements of  several 1960's wargames - not all in the same game... not even to Braunstein, which is FK influenced....
Braunstein III had hidden information, capability representation, actions outside the list (printing flyers and hiring a helicopter), referee modifiers, off-board movement (the helicopter)... but it had most. In D&D, we add the missing ones, and add the potential for all players on one side, with the Referee running a wide range of adversaries.

Without Kriefsspiel, we don't get most of the 1960's wargames.
Without FK, we don't get the referee free to expand the actions and modifiers lists on the fly.
In both cases, the exact game isn't the important item, it's that a game with those qualities is pretty close to essential to get to something that looks D&Dish.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 15, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What's the best way to answer this question in an rpg system?  That is, is the role of the dm/rules in a roleplay game ever analogous to the role of umpire and rules in a kriegspiel wargame (free or not)?  If not, then it would seem like your criticism of the realism of dragon flight extends to the trad approach.



Your question has many interesting aspects. I considered answers along a few lines, and ended up feeling it does more work let stand.



Malmuria said:


> I think for all the emphasis put on dm trust in fkr, the more likely answer to any fiction-establishing elements would be more like, gm proposes, table confers, gm decides.  High trust assumes that that conversation is not adversarial, and further that a non-adversarial social relationship among players and gm cannot be guaranteed by a set of rules or procedures.



I had an idea about why some associate trust with what they dub FK RPG. I believe the mode relies on and benefits from enhanced suspension of disbelief. Under this thesis, the group conspiracy - everyone playing along with decisions - is core to its advantages. I don't personally think of heightened SOD as a matter of more trust, but I can see how they might feel conflated.

Where players are uncertain about going along with it, a mutually accepted reference point could be useful. Right? If we were to agree on that, then kind of opposite to the concern you outline, we could expect a set of rules or procedures to be helpful. That need not lessen the amount or value of trust, but perhaps it does lower the bar for that required?

It could turn out that those associating FK with trust are casting light on one of the useful jobs done by sets of rules or procedures for a group. When a group of strangers are brought together for play that is permitted to be adversarial, trust between them can be supported by prior agreement to an objective set of rules. I recommend reading official tournament rules for games like Chess (FIDE) or Magic the Gathering to get a sense of that. If you also contemplate the few hundred pages of precise MtG rules you can see the effort needed to banish reliance upon ongoing consensus during play, given that fundamental agreement - to follow the rules - can be secured. I think here too, of neo-trad.

With historical FK, the military structure does that same work. "_Yes sir!_" "_A dragon flies as fast as it likes, if you say so, sir!_"


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I see  Kriegsspiel as a vital step towards RPGs, and FK as the next.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Agreed: my default description of a RPG is that _fiction matters to resolution_ (like some wargames including free kriegsspiel) and that the default player role is _a single character located within the fictional situation_ so that the player moves are _given that I'm here, what can I do?_

But just as significant as the derivation of RPGing from wargaming including free kriegsspiel, I think, is the development of RPGing to treat the fiction as having  not just representational significance (as it does in wargaming) but thematic and "story" significance. And the range of approaches and techniques that have been developed to support this.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2021)

@clearstream, @Malmuria 

If the discussion keeps going along those lines, I'll be obliged to post once again one of my favourite Vincent Baker quotes, that the essential function of RPG rules is to resolve questions of negotiations and authority over establishing the content of the shared fiction.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Agreed: my default description of a RPG is that _fiction matters to resolution_ (like some wargames including free kriegsspiel) and that the default player role is _a single character located within the fictional situation_ so that the player moves are _given that I'm here, what can I do?_
> 
> But just as significant as the derivation of RPGing from wargaming including free kriegsspiel, I think, is the development of RPGing to treat the fiction as having  not just representational significance (as it does in wargaming) but thematic and "story" significance. And the range of approaches and techniques that have been developed to support this.



That's a step that, fundamentally, cannot happen until one exits the clade of consim wargaames. For many, that's an undersirable step, as well. 

The alternatives range all the way to "let the story evolve from the gamestate"... no different from character scale minis games save the on-table representation or lack thereof... through totally "no rules apply except for these few" of AW and its closest derivatives. I tend to be near the middle of that range most of the time - Using rules to create flavor and texture to the play, and a story arising from a mixture of player, GM, and mechanical inputs... I find pure roleplay exhausting and decidedly unfun. Much as I find entirely dice play to be


----------



## Numidius (Sep 30, 2021)

The (main?) principle of FKR philosophy is to have rules completely at Gm discretion and not player facing. 
An addendum might be to develop rules as you go. 

I encountered the FKR style proposers a few months ago. I was coming from Gumshoe Trail of Cthulhu scenario last year (where I stripped down the rules and went mostly conversational) and a B/X game this year, that I houseruled before & during play. 

The latter culminated in a wargame style scenario with Npc factions and monsters run by my players while I refereed, occasionally asking for rolls: opposed, D20 vs TN, 2D6, advantage, whatever... 

I had accumulated a lot of situations in my B/X game that needed to be resolved (derived from Pcs actions and decisions during the game), and reading some examples of play from FKR rpg/wargame, made me figure out how to run it, and not worry at all about rules. I already knew all the iterations of dnd rules, after all. 

I was nearly there already, but needed one last bit of advice to realize that. 
Big moment for me. 

Where I differ from the FKR people is in distribution of authority, action declaration a la pemertonian burning wheel stuff and the like.


----------



## darjr (Sep 30, 2021)

How did I miss this thread? I so want to try this. I'll come back and read the thread. In the mean time Questing Beast has video on the topic.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 30, 2021)

My feelings on this are mixed. I tend to like rules-light games, generally speaking. But I can also like complex rules. I think there's a balance...and it's probably different for everyone....where additional complexity is worth it because it adds to the enjoyment. And then there's a point where it's just there. That's all subjective.

What I don't agree with from Ben's video, and with this movement overall, is the idea that the players don't need to know the rules. That's not something I can get behind.


----------



## Numidius (Sep 30, 2021)

darjr said:


> How did I miss this thread? I so want to try this. I'll come back and read the thread. In the mean time Questing Beast has video on the topic.



I missed it too. I've been scrolling down quite a bit before finding it


----------



## Numidius (Sep 30, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> My feelings on this are mixed. I tend to like rules-light games, generally speaking. But I can also like complex rules. I think there's a balance...and it's probably different for everyone....where additional complexity is worth it because it adds to the enjoyment. And then there's a point where it's just there. That's all subjective.
> 
> What I don't agree with from Ben's video, and with this movement overall, is the idea that the players don't need to know the rules. That's not something I can get behind.



The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics. 

I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards. 
Zweihander, Mythras, WFRP4, D&D5e

I personally wouldn't run 5e because of that. I might give it a try with an FKR mindset. Where I live is the most requested to be played; by far, of course. 
So, having to say "Players, do not engage with rules at my table" would be totally liberating, like off-loading a burden. 

Like generating characters as usual, but only noting important stuff or extreme stat number via descriptions. Ditching any type of encumbrance rules by just asking the player: "Ok, where do keep it?" 
Action economy, combat procedures, all gone and instead descriptions, declaration, tactics not looking at the sheets. 
Gm decides when to roll, what, and to give dis/advantage. 
Clearly, a Gm one likes and trust. 
In my case, it's only me, unfortunately.


----------



## Numidius (Sep 30, 2021)

An example I've just seen is @Retreater 's thread on using a different system to run The new Enemy Within campaign instead of WFRP4e ruleset. 
It is for VTT, but still...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 30, 2021)

Numidius said:


> The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics.
> 
> I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards.
> Zweihander, Mythras, WFRP4, D&D5e
> ...




Sure, there may be a reason for some folks to take this approach. 

I just look at it as a case of the mechanics are a kind of substitute for the characters knowledge of the world that informs the player of things like odds and the like, and so I think that's generally something I wouldn't want to take away from players. 

Overall, I'm all for making a system simpler in some way. But I'd say that there comes a point that you remove so much that you have to question if you're using the right rules set. 

There are plenty of rules light systems that can sub for a more complex game that reduce the burden on GM and players, but which still give some framework to understand things like odds and the like.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2021)

@Numidius

This is not a very profound post. But I have two immediate thoughts.

As I understand it, free kriegsspiel depends upon the referee applying their own knowledge of how relevant things work (eg how long does it take to pull an artillery piece half-a-mile through the mud after a day and a night of rain?). But the FKR advocates tend not to say anything about the epistemic expertise of the GM. Which makes me feel the label is sometimes a minsomer.

If the GM is making up _rolls required_ based not on expertise but on . . . something else? intuition? . . . that seems to me to dilute player influence over the shared fiction. If the GM drifts back to AW-ish principles (like you were talking about in the other thread) then maybe we're moving into different terrain? And in my Classic Traveller game, when the action steps outside the core subsystems (eg an Electronics or Mechanical throw is required) I might discuss with the players before setting a throw required.

A third point: I see those above two points as separate from rules light.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 1, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> My feelings on this are mixed. I tend to like rules-light games, generally speaking. But I can also like complex rules. I think there's a balance...and it's probably different for everyone....where additional complexity is worth it because it adds to the enjoyment. And then there's a point where it's just there. That's all subjective.
> 
> What I don't agree with from Ben's video, and with this movement overall, is the idea that the players don't need to know the rules. That's not something I can get behind.



There is a well known (within the field of Education professionals and paraprofessionals) paradigm about creative works: _creativity is always easier within a framework than without one_. The corollary, taught for lesson planning purposes, is _Always include a prompt during free write times_. RPG play is highly correlated to structured writing assignments; the framework makes creativity easier. There are always some who hate the prompt, like there are some who find the use of rules an impediment to the RP, but others who only thrive when they have rules to hang on to.

Personally, as a _Rules are there to create texture for play_ type GM, I can't think of anything more useless than super ultralights such as Risus... it literally does nothing to help me create anything. 
Meanwhile, games like T2K 4E and Talisman Adventures give me a toolset which means I don't have near as much to prep.
Tunnels and Trolls gives me a decision making framework. 

On the players need to know the rules front, I'm definitely in Players should have reliable reference to standard procedures used in the rules when I'm running. I find little within the tolerable range more aggravating than having to tell player X what to roll when after 4-5 sessions... It's one of the reasons I dislike TOR 2e (but one of the smaller issues). It's one of my issues with The Fantasy Trip. 
I agree, however, that a player need not know the minutia, but I also prefer games with either one or two mechanical rolling modes...


----------



## Numidius (Oct 1, 2021)

@Manbearcat Yes. I guess the tilting point is were one evaluates the mechanical odds instead of, or before the actual fiction. 
Btw players may be asked to roll, knowing the odds in advance. 
Also one might run rules-heavy games FKR style, as long as everything is kept behind the screen. But yeah, I've seen light to ultra-light is the default. 
@pemerton the discussion with players I guess is always fundamental, not much around rules, but about genre (instead of expertise, maybe?), about fictional positioning, or different impact on the shared fiction by different Pcs, given their strengths, weaknesses, powers. 

I've said were I'm coming from, so the above is just my recent understanding if it as a "system", a playstyle, but my experience and personal needs as a Gm were already taking me direction. 
IME both with Gumshoe and B/X, once we dropped rules and procedures (except when me, the gm, asked for points expenditure, or dice rolls), suddenly descriptions, diegesis, the fiction in general became more vivid, interesting, with abundance of details. 
Before that I found myself too many times explaining how to make maneuvers while in combat with tiny bits of machinery like Dfudge, Deed dice, proficiency dice... Then I just said, Ok you both deal damage and simply tell me what manouver you make - Going defensive? Cool, tell us exactly what you do, while I explain what happens around you.


Disclaimer: I love to roll dice and let them dictate outcomes. 
In B/X Gms have a lot at their disposal: D20 roll over/under, D6 roll high/low, 2d6, 3d6, percentage. 
One I used for resolution when a powerful individual is confronting a sturdy opposition is D20 vs 3D6.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 1, 2021)

Numidius said:


> The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics.
> 
> I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards.
> Zweihander, Mythras, WFRP4, D&D5e
> ...




Sure, this all makes sense. To my understanding, this is the kind of reasoning that led to the Free Kriegsspiel movement; the rules for the Kriegsspiel games had become complex to the point of being a burden. So the idea was to remove a lot of the rules and replace them with someone whose expertise would serve as a fast substitute for the rules. 

But as others have already pointed out, that eventually leads us back to rules. The referee is meant to be consistent. So once he starts making his rulings and establishing his reasoning, what he's doing is recreating the rules. 

It's a chicken-egg type of situation. 

My preference is to find a rules system that is simple enough at its core, but which can be applied in a variety of ways. To me, such a system can largely serve the purpose of the referee in Free Kriegsspiel.



aramis erak said:


> There is a well known (within the field of Education professionals and paraprofessionals) paradigm about creative works: _creativity is always easier within a framework than without one_. The corollary, taught for lesson planning purposes, is _Always include a prompt during free write times_. RPG play is highly correlated to structured writing assignments; the framework makes creativity easier. There are always some who hate the prompt, like there are some who find the use of rules an impediment to the RP, but others who only thrive when they have rules to hang on to.
> 
> Personally, as a _Rules are there to create texture for play_ type GM, I can't think of anything more useless than super ultralights such as Risus... it literally does nothing to help me create anything.
> Meanwhile, games like T2K 4E and Talisman Adventures give me a toolset which means I don't have near as much to prep.
> Tunnels and Trolls gives me a decision making framework.




Yeah, I would agree with this. I think no matter what, there needs to be some framework involved. How structured or robust that framework may be will vary by taste, but I think it's necessary.



aramis erak said:


> On the players need to know the rules front, I'm definitely in Players should have reliable reference to standard procedures used in the rules when I'm running. I find little within the tolerable range more aggravating than having to tell player X what to roll when after 4-5 sessions... It's one of the reasons I dislike TOR 2e (but one of the smaller issues). It's one of my issues with The Fantasy Trip.
> I agree, however, that a player need not know the minutia, but I also prefer games with either one or two mechanical rolling modes...




I get the idea of hiding mechanics for the purpose of having players engage only with the fiction, I just don't think it's necessary. I think a player can both be aware of the rules, and engage with the fiction. I think there are some systems that make this easier to do. I would agree with you that the more rolling modes or other elements that get added to a game, the harder this likely becomes. 

I think one area where D&D struggles with this is it gates certain action types behind feats and spells and the like, making something that seemingly anyone should be able to try (like, disarming a foe, for example) possible for only a select few. This complicates things because then you either are blocking engagement with the fiction by saying "oh sorry you can't try and disarm this guy because you don't have the proper feat" or you create two sets of rules, one for characters with the feat, and then another for characters without. 

This is the kind of complexity I think makes engaging with the fiction harder. There are other ways to add complexity to a game that don't have this kind of effect.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 1, 2021)

@Manbearcat I guess most FKR people would agree with your reasoning. 

Sometimes the robust framework would be only genre/setting consistency, to start with, and rules being formalized, or ditched as they go, during play. 
I can see myself doing that if I ever have a chance to run Vampire t M again. 

About your last point on different crunch for feats or lack thereof: Comes to mind John Harper with his little game, or thought experiment, 50/50.

50/50
A game of fictional positioning
By John Harper


When your character takes a risk and you're not sure which outcome should occur, do the following:

Consider the situation at hand and how its details interface with the capabilities of the character.

Take a coin. Think of a best outcome and assign it to 'heads'. Think of a worst outcome and assign it to 'tails'. Flip the coin.

Describe the outcome, based on the result of the coin flip.

Example One
Rodrigo, master duelist of the Dardi school, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his purse.
Rodrigo's player says that he will draw his sword and kill them.
Rodrigo is armed with his side-sword, is sober, and well out of the reach of the three bravos. He is a master of deadly swordplay. The bravos are young, fierce, slightly drunk, and ready for violence, but not especially skillful.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Rodrigo kills the first bravo with a cut from the draw, punta riversa, then the second with a thrust to the heart. He is on his guard, ready to finish the third if the bravo makes the slightest move.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Rodrigo kills the first bravo with a cut from the draw, punta riversa, but misses the second strike as the second bravo tumbles backward in mortal fear, entangled in his own cloak. Rodrigo is on his guard, ready to finish the third if the bravo makes the slightest move.
-----
Example Two
Pietro, stable boy at the Two Owls inn, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his loaf of bread.
Pietro's player says that he will grab a stone from the ground and kill them.
Pietro is small and not especially strong. He isn't quick. He's never been in a deadly fight in his life. The bravos are young, fierce, and ready for violence.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Pietro fumbles with the rock, drops the loaf of bread, and takes only a savage kick to the ribs before the bravos saunter off, laughing and munching on his lunch.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Pietro hits the first bravo in the nose with the rock, enraging him. The bravos beat Pietro to a bloody pulp, leaving him unconscious and dying in the gutter.
-----
Example Three
Pietro, stable boy at the Two Owls inn, is accosted by three young bravos in the street. They threaten to beat him if he fails to hand over his loaf of bread.
Pietro's player says that he'll be as compliant as possible, stare at the ground, and meekly hand over his bread.
Pietro is small and not especially strong. He is unassuming and non-threatening.
To 'heads' we assign this outcome: Pietro hands over his bread and the bravos take it, jeering. One of them feels bad about it, though, and sneaks back later to give Pietro his portion.
To 'tails' we assign this outcome: Pietro hands over the bread, and he's such a push-over that the bravos are emboldened. 'Sneak into the larder' they say 'and bring us a jug of wine to wash this down.'
-----
So, anyway, that's that. Fictional positioning matters, even in a game where every 'roll' is always 50/50. The fiction shapes the boundaries of the resolution. It may affect the mechanical odds of some outcomes but that isn't required. (That's a game design choice) Right? Right.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2021)

Numidius said:


> So, anyway, that's that. Fictional positioning matters, even in a game where every 'roll' is always 50/50. The fiction shapes the boundaries of the resolution. It may affect the mechanical odds of some outcomes but that isn't required. (That's a game design choice) Right? Right.



The John Harper example reminds me of these blogposts, in the same general neighbourhood, by Vincent Baker.

One comment Baker makes, which is a bit orthogonal to the present thread trajectory, as that in an approach of framing => stakes setting => roll => narration of outcome, _we never actually see the characters in action_. So eg one minute Pietro is reaching for the rock, the next minute Pietro is lying in the gutter.

The one time I had to invent a whole little subsystem in our Classic Traveller game was when one PC tried to wrestle a sub-machine gun from a guard. (Traveller has no grappling rules.) As much by good fortune as anything else, the way I chose to resolve it turned out to produce a very intense back-and-forth, as the gun changed hands and bullets were discharged and some injuries were taken and in the end the PC had the gun and the NPC guard was dead:



pemerton said:


> This left Xander the only PC still under Rada's guard. Xander's player discussed with the other players, _should I go kinetic?_ He decided that he should - especially as Xander has Vacc Suit skill, and so would be able to use the battle dress should he be able to find it. So he jumped Rada and tried to wrestle his SMG away from him.
> 
> Classic Traveller has no grappling or disarming rules, so I improvised this, giving advantages to Xander for greater Strength and Brawling skill, but also allowing that whoever already has the gun has an advantage to retain it - so it was opposed checks on two dice, with Xander having a +1 to grab from Rada and a +2 to retain against Rada. In the ensuing fight Xander got shot (but not seriously) before grabbing the gun, shooting Rada - who also was able to take it - before Rada grabbed it back and got in another shot at Xander, before Xander grabbed it again and killed Rada with a final burst. There were two interesting things about this. One concerned the system for wounds in Classic Traveller, where the first set of hits is taken off a random physical stat (the "first strike" rule), but subsequent wounds are allocated on a die-by-die basis as the victim chooses - this meant that (as GM) I was able to keep Rada up rather than unconscious, by spreading the damage dice across his stats, but when the final burst came in I had no way of avoiding all three stats dropping to zero (= death). The other was how cinematic it was, which isn't something I expect from Traveller combat. The time taken at the table to resolve it was probably ten minutes or so, and there was this real sense of the tables turning, and turning again, as the gun changed hands, attempts to grab it back failed but then succeeded, shots were discharged, and Xander finally was able to grab the gun and shoot Rada dead.



In the resolution framework I imposed, the fictional positioning did affect the odds - I imposed die modifiers for STR, Brawling and possession-of-the-gun advantages - and I think that building that into the process rather than just the stakes/outcomes helped support the "cinematic" and also rather visceral feel at the table. (I could imagine a similar vibe in AW based not on opposed rolls but repeated Seize by Force with GM-side moves including _dealing harm_ and _taking things from them_.

To try and move my comments from the slight tangent back to the main point: My feeling - a bit untested, but I'm thinking of Cthulhu Dark play which is the closest I think  I've come to this in actual play - is that fictional positioning as affecting outcome works best when the relationship between the established character, and the position they find themselves in, feeds _very naturally_ into the possible outcomes: like when a journalist PC jumped from an upstairs window to escape a fire and (the player rolling poorly) broke his leg.

In the Harper examples, it's hard for me to get a sense of what the play experience would be like without knowing much more about how the stakes/outcomes are established, at what point the player is allowed to take back their action declaration, etc.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 1, 2021)

@pemerton Yes, that is also my experience in running like you did, giving out dis/advantage as the narration of combat went exchanging blows and tactics, very cinematic. 

Also the argument that we don't actually see Pietro doing his stuff is very pertinent and I think an FKR approach would allow us to see it, as in narrating what he does in real time at the table. 

On Baker, I am still fascinated to this day by the resolution of DitV in which narration and putting dice forward just (must) go together.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2021)

Numidius said:


> On Baker, I am still fascinated to this day by the resolution of DitV in which narration and putting dice forward just (must) go together.



It's on my "to play one day" list. But behind AW.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 2, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I get the idea of hiding mechanics for the purpose of having players engage only with the fiction, I just don't think it's necessary. I think a player can both be aware of the rules, and engage with the fiction. I think there are some systems that make this easier to do. I would agree with you that the more rolling modes or other elements that get added to a game, the harder this likely becomes.
> 
> I think one area where D&D struggles with this is it gates certain action types behind feats and spells and the like, making something that seemingly anyone should be able to try (like, disarming a foe, for example) possible for only a select few. This complicates things because then you either are blocking engagement with the fiction by saying "oh sorry you can't try and disarm this guy because you don't have the proper feat" or you create two sets of rules, one for characters with the feat, and then another for characters without.
> 
> This is the kind of complexity I think makes engaging with the fiction harder. There are other ways to add complexity to a game that don't have this kind of effect.



I remember running several one-shots of Fate for my prior gaming group when the GM wanted a break from running D&D. There was a great epiphany moment and bewildered joy when the players realized that a lot of the things that the various minutiae rules for actions that D&D gates and lavishes pages of ink towards were essentially all bundled into the standard "Create an Advantage" action in Fate. 

Trying to temporarily blind someone by flinging up sand from the ground with your sword? Create an Advantage. Trying to hide behind cover for extra defense in the gun fight? Create an Advantage. Using an elaborate disguise to get past the guards? Create an Advantage. 

The result of this epiphany? The players engaged the fiction even harder than before because they understood how their fiction they created and this rule intersected. 

It's a simple concept that covers such a diverse range of action types behind a single robust enough rule.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 2, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> The result of this epiphany? The players engaged the fiction even harder than before because they understood how their fiction they created and this rule intersected.
> 
> It's a simple concept that covers such a diverse range of action types behind a single robust enough rule.



I had that epiphany upon reading the rules; my fellow players had it shortly after finding that I was doing "Let's you and him fight, here's a boost"...
Fate responds well to rules-adroit play.


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My understanding of _free kriegsspiel_ is that it is a process of adjudicating much if not all of the action declarations in a wargame: instead of using formal charts and tables, the umpire decides what happens based on extrapolation from the imagined situation. The basis for that extrapolation is the umpire's own experience and familiarity with military manoeuvres, terrain, and/or warfare. In free kriegsspiel the umpire does not declare actions.



Well, not quite. There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique). 

And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 3, 2021)

Bluenose said:


> Well, not quite. There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique).
> 
> And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.



Kriegsspiel was released to the Public in a magazine article in 1873... Free Kriegspiel is about the same time . 1876 - von Verdy du Vernois "rules" - literally doing away with the mechanics other than the sequence of play, all decisions by fiat. Only later did the FK movement really become "GM using random when he felt it appropriate"


----------



## Campbell (Oct 3, 2021)

I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 3, 2021)

@Campbell 
I know Cthulhu Dark is appreciated. Regarding the other two, I'd say metacurrencies, maybe too crunchy the 2d20, engaging with mechanical stuff instead of purely diegesis/fiction, too much enphasis on dealing with character sheets during play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.



Honestly, I'd say it's because of the player's say that exists in these other games.  There's no player's say in FKR, it's only the GM's say.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I guess my confusion with the Free Kriegspiel Revival is what differentiates an FKR game from an RPG with a transparent, light weight, fiction first game that explicitly calls on the GM to make judgements about the fiction as part of the resolution process. Stuff like Cthulhu Dark, Dune 2d20, Blades in the Dark, etc. How are they different? Is there a good reason to have invisible rules instead of just applying judgement and owning that judgement? Not trying to be cute here. Honestly confused.





Ovinomancer said:


> Honestly, I'd say it's because of the player's say that exists in these other games.  There's no player's say in FKR, it's only the GM's say.



I read these two posts, and then this:


Bluenose said:


> There were several forms of Free Kriegspiel, and in most descriptions there's a clear emphasis on "friction", a recognition that random factors play a part, and the referee was encouraged to judge the likely results of a situation as it developed, listen to player input on what they think should happen, and then to use various random tools - dice rolls or card pulls - to resolve the actual result. The only games where it theoretically involved purely the judgement of the referee were those involving military cadets, who were assumed to lack enough experience to provide convincing judgement(the referee, likely an experienced officer, provided both the judgement and the subsequent critique).
> 
> And another point, there were usually observers, frequently officers senior to even the referee, who could be expected to provide their own opinions of the game afterwards. People were expected to explain and justify their decisions, and that would usually include the referee. Who is not acting entirely on their own judgement either, this was a military game and one thing armies do is record data and disseminate it. so everyone involved in a kruegspiel should have a very good idea of how long a movement would take in normal circumstances. It'd be a brave referee who would override that, but just as sometimes a normal movement would be delayed there'd be a chance for something to happen, even if it was rare.



And therefore find myself confused by the FKR label, at least. _Trust the GM, who has the sole say_ seems quite different from _Have the referee make decisions, following input and discussion, that rely on knowledge and experienced intuition, and are subject to critique and/or correction by other experts_.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I read these two posts, and then this:
> And therefore find myself confused by the FKR label, at least. _Trust the GM, who has the sole say_ seems quite different from _Have the referee make decisions, following input and discussion, that rely on knowledge and experienced intuition, and are subject to critique and/or correction by other experts_.



Largely because FKR isn't actually Free Kriegsspiel, but rather takes having a referee make calls and runs with that to the GM being the sole arbiter of all things.  Expecting things said about how Free Kriegsspiel actually worked to apply to the idea of OSR FKR.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 3, 2021)

Unless a table goes FKR gm-less...


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 3, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I read these two posts, and then this:
> And therefore find myself confused by the FKR label, at least. _Trust the GM, who has the sole say_ seems quite different from _Have the referee make decisions, following input and discussion, that rely on knowledge and experienced intuition, and are subject to critique and/or correction by other experts_.



What if asking/talking to the players is part of the GM's decision-making process?   If you can assume that the relationship between GM and players is not adversarial, then you don't need to include any mechanics for regulating or gameifying that conversation


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Unless a table goes FKR gm-less...



I don't even understand how this would work and not just be some kind of conch-passing (not to put down conch-passing).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What if asking/talking to the players is part of the GM's decision-making process?   If you can assume that the relationship between GM and players is not adversarial, then you don't need to include any mechanics for regulating or gameifying that conversation



This is postulating that there's never, ever a case where a player thinks one thing and the GM the other and then saying that you don't need a resolution process because everyone's on the same page.  The point of any conflict resolution process is to resolve conflicts.  Doing that with an ad-hoc fiat system where one player has all the say doesn't change this.  Nor does asking for input make the ad-hoc fiat system less of a fiat system.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, just pointing out that your argument here seems to be just postulating a statement of "but what if everyone's okay with the GM says?"  Okay, works great then, we've gone around the circle.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 3, 2021)

I mean, rules, rolls are still available when needed, and disposable when not.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is postulating that there's never, ever a case where a player thinks one thing and the GM the other and then saying that you don't need a resolution process because everyone's on the same page.  The point of any conflict resolution process is to resolve conflicts.  Doing that with an ad-hoc fiat system where one player has all the say doesn't change this.  Nor does asking for input make the ad-hoc fiat system less of a fiat system.
> 
> To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, just pointing out that your argument here seems to be just postulating a statement of "but what if everyone's okay with the GM says?"  Okay, works great then, we've gone around the circle.



What I'm saying is that "gm fiat," doesn't preclude in practice there being a fair amount of conversation at the table.  That is, personally, it doesn't really seem inconsistent for an FKR game _in practice_ to include a lot  conversation and consensus-seeking while still ultimately letting the GM decide the how to resolve uncertainty.  It's just that an FKR game would not include any _formal_ mechanism to include player direction of the narrative (for example, like Resistance rolls in Blades in the Dark where a player can negate a consequence by taking on stress).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I mean, rules, rolls are still available when needed, and disposable when not.



I'm not sure who you're replying to, here.  What you're describing is still an ad-hoc fiat system that can, in a given moment, use fiat to determine to use some other more formal procedure or not.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure who you're replying to, here. What you're describing is still an ad-hoc fiat system that can, in a given moment, use fiat to determine to use some other more formal procedure or not.



I guess you are correct, yes.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What I'm saying is that "gm fiat," doesn't preclude in practice there being a fair amount of conversation at the table.  That is, personally, it doesn't really seem inconsistent for an FKR game _in practice_ to include a lot  conversation and consensus-seeking while still ultimately letting the GM decide the how to resolve uncertainty.  It's just that an FKR game would not include any _formal_ mechanism to include player direction of the narrative (for example, like Resistance rolls in Blades in the Dark where a player can negate a consequence by taking on stress).



Right, but this doesn't alter the system from GM fiat.  The inclusion of the players being able to ask for certain outcomes doesn't move the authority needle at all, even if a GM is generous in granting those asks.  When you strip this an look at where authorities lie and how the system works to resolve conflicts, that a player feels they can try and negotiate an outcome or the GM is generous and free with such negotiations doesn't change that it's still an entirely ad-hoc GM fiat system being talked about.  And that this has very little to do with the Free Kriegsspiel historical basis of umpires applying actual experience and doctrine to moves in a game, especially considering that there is a higher evaluation of the umpire's choices during the game and a rating for umpires.  It's this borrowing of just the fiat that strikes me as misplaced when claiming the FK part of FKR.  I think this is what @pemerton is driving at.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, but this doesn't alter the system from GM fiat.  The inclusion of the players being able to ask for certain outcomes doesn't move the authority needle at all, even if a GM is generous in granting those asks.  When you strip this an look at where authorities lie and how the system works to resolve conflicts, that a player feels they can try and negotiate an outcome or the GM is generous and free with such negotiations doesn't change that it's still an entirely ad-hoc GM fiat system being talked about.  And that this has very little to do with the Free Kriegsspiel historical basis of umpires applying actual experience and doctrine to moves in a game, especially considering that there is a higher evaluation of the umpire's choices during the game and a rating for umpires.  It's this borrowing of just the fiat that strikes me as misplaced when claiming the FK part of FKR.  I think this is what @pemerton is driving at.



I agree with that...the relationship between FK and FKR is mostly analogical and best understood in as bearing a similar relationship to other games of their time (kriegsspiel and trad rpgs respectively).   As I mentioned in  another thread, this means that FKR is mostly an extrapolation of OSR principles to a certain extreme.  I think the most relevant historical connection would be if you can call what Arneson and others were playing as FK wargames, and if something of that mentality informed how they developed early dnd.









						Ancient Roleplaying, or Free Kriegsspiel Revolution (FKR): What The Heck Is That? | Free Kriegsspiel Revolution
					

url=https://youtu.be/vA4ywGK4ePM?t=6]A bit of mood music for you[/url]}   [size=18][b]KRIEGSSPIEL![/b][/size]   For those of us who do not speak German, kriegsspiel simply means "wargame." It was primarily conveived of by Prussian military officers in the 1800s as a tool for




					boardgamegeek.com


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

My experience, before even reading about the FKR movement, was that after some time, in an ongoing campaign, game-play tended to "devolve" mostly on conversation and less and less on the actual rules, or procedures. 

In one shots, the freeform ad-hoc Gm fiat approach helped to wrap it up before end of session. 

Until my tendencies converged with the FKR, and it picked my interest. 

So as a Gm I've seen it working fine; as a player I wouldn't be so sure, honestly. Never met a Gm which convinced me completely.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I agree with that...the relationship between FK and FKR is mostly analogical and best understood in as bearing a similar relationship to other games of their time (kriegsspiel and trad rpgs respectively). As I mentioned in another thread, this means that FKR is mostly an extrapolation of OSR principles to a certain extreme. I think the most relevant historical connection would be if you can call what Arneson and others were playing as FK wargames, and if something of that mentality informed how they developed early dnd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Like the OSR, but this time we mean it"

 I've read as a catchphrase


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I agree with that...the relationship between FK and FKR is mostly analogical and best understood in as bearing a similar relationship to other games of their time (kriegsspiel and trad rpgs respectively).   As I mentioned in  another thread, this means that FKR is mostly an extrapolation of OSR principles to a certain extreme.  I think the most relevant historical connection would be if you can call what Arneson and others were playing as FK wargames, and if something of that mentality informed how they developed early dnd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with the first part, but I find that article you posted to be full of, well, fuzzy thinking.  Chainmail is nowhere near a FK game, it's a pretty standard wargame.  Also, the article makes the usual faux-pas of equating the umpires making calls based on actual experience and training with pure fiat GMing and neglects that FK has a specific purpose -- to train new recruits, not tell stories.

It's this mashup I find to be a problem, because it's attempting to gather the protective cloak of one thing around something only superficially similar, which suggests the proponents are skittish about being accepted -- something I don't see any problem with. Just go with "the GM will say" and explain why this is great without trying to borrow the mantle of a different thing for legitimacy.  I don't understand this drive.  It's fine as what it is.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Also, the article makes the usual faux-pas of equating the umpires making calls based on actual experience and training with pure fiat GMing and neglects that FK has a specific purpose -- to train new recruits, not tell stories.



Well, actually the aspect that I find really interesting in FKR is the notion that genres or "worlds" contain an interior logic and their own rules.  So a GM in an FKR game would not have to know about the "world" of 19thc. military engagement, but rather the world of their setting and the "rules" of the genre.




Ovinomancer said:


> It's this mashup I find to be a problem, because it's attempting to gather the protective cloak of one thing around something only superficially similar, which suggests the proponents are skittish about being accepted -- something I don't see any problem with. Just go with "the GM will say" and explain why this is great without trying to borrow the mantle of a different thing for legitimacy.  I don't understand this drive.  It's fine as what it is.



Hmm I would not characterize OSR designers as skittish about being accepted.  There's certainly an element of _reaction_ here, as with any supposed appeal to "roots," and maybe an implicit disdain of relatively more rules heavy trad games like any wotc edition of dnd or CoC.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Well, actually the aspect that I find really interesting in FKR is the notion that genres or "worlds" contain an interior logic and their own rules.  So a GM in an FKR game would not have to know about the "world" of 19thc. military engagement, but rather the world of their setting and the "rules" of the genre.



Yeah, of course FKR people aren't actually doing historical FK, so they don't need that grounding.  I'm a little stuck on the idea that FKR somehow taps into the interior logic of a made up setting in a way that other approaches cannot.  Also, since the setting is fictional, and presumably not exhaustive to any real degree, the internal logic seems really more of do you like how this GM tends to rule on things rather than tapping into the setting.  I know there's an example of "we all know how Star Wars works so we should just be able to work this out" but then I read a thread on the latest sequels and it appears this isn't anywhere near as universal a statement as it tries to be.

Again, this feels like trying to describe the approach with more flowery language than what's actually going on.


Malmuria said:


> Hmm I would not characterize OSR designers as skittish about being accepted.  There's certainly an element of _reaction_ here, as with any supposed appeal to "roots," and maybe an implicit disdain of relatively more rules heavy trad games like any wotc edition of dnd or CoC.



Okay, sure, but then this is happening, so I'm not sure what to think.

Also, I'm not sure you're using trad how I usually do, but FKR seems to be quite useful in a trad approach.  Or rather, it lends itself to the kind of illusionism that enables trad approaches.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Given that there are, in fact, numerous other sources that discuss the specific issue of Free Kriegsspiel both in history (and the application to early TTRPGs) and its more recent application in indie games (usually referred to as FKR), it would probably be best to use the actual sources and definitions that the people themselves use. You could google it, or use one of any number of sources such as this one-
> 
> 
> Things have changed since Ron Edwards exited the scene, and no community is static. I think people that are making and playing FKR games would prefer that you read their games and play them than just idly speculate as to what the games might be like using terminology many of them don't use.
> ...



This is always the best way to go. Pick up the games and books published by the people themselves rather than ignoring the people and their games and trying to examine them without actually engaging with them.

#

Some FKR resources if anyone's interested...

The term comes from this post: BE A FKR! | Original D&D Discussion

Note that the term used is Free Kriegspiel _Renaissance_.









						Free Kriegsspiel: Worlds, Not Rules, Etc.
					

What's Free Kriegsspiel? That's a silly name.  Okay, free kriegsspiel (FK) is shorthand for "ancient school" RPG theory. That is, how were r...




					d66kobolds.blogspot.com
				












						How I Run and Play an Ultralight Game
					

I take it for granted that I know how I run and have been running my games for a few years now according to the "free kriegsspiel/FKR" (henc...




					d66kobolds.blogspot.com
				












						Play worlds, not rules: Juggling ideas for stone age rpg sessions
					

… and I don’t mean The Flintstones here. What really is driving my interest these days (in terms of roleplaying games) is to go as far back as possible with the rules. And since it&#821…




					darkwormcolt.wordpress.com
				









						Free Kriegsspiel Roleplaying
					

free kriegsspiel revolution, fkr, free kriegsspiel, free kriegsspiel roleplay




					www.revenant-quill.com
				












						Minimalist Gaming Doesn't Exist!
					

Every so often, the topic of minimalist gaming arises, and we've concluded that it doesn't exist!  Now this might seem strange coming from t...




					pitsperilous.blogspot.com
				









						Free Kriegsspiel Pot-Pourri
					

Blog about OSR OD&D and Into the Odd




					undergroundadv.blogspot.com
				









						Explaining Free Kriegsspiel to Various Types of Players
					

Blog about OSR OD&D and Into the Odd




					undergroundadv.blogspot.com
				




August 15, 2021 – Darkworm Colt









						Focus on the World: Rules and Laws
					

“They call him the Face Stealer. When you speak with him, you must be very careful to show no emotion at all. Not the slightest expression, or he will steal your face.” Many times, game…




					dreamingdragonslayer.com
				









						Table-Centric Design
					

Recently, I've been questioning the primacy of "Design" within RPG products. There's a kind of determinism that is generally accepted among...




					yak-hack.blogspot.com
				












						Less Rules To Do More
					

Hanging out on forums, game design communities, discord servers and the like I come across a lot of people trying to hack games, old school D&D in particular to do more than what it currently d…




					aboleth-overlords.com
				












						The Invisible Rulebooks
					

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...




					rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com
				




There's a lot more. But that's a fair amount of reading already.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> My feelings on this are mixed. I tend to like rules-light games, generally speaking. But I can also like complex rules. I think there's a balance...and it's probably different for everyone....where additional complexity is worth it because it adds to the enjoyment. And then there's a point where it's just there. That's all subjective.
> 
> What I don't agree with from Ben's video, and with this movement overall, is the idea that the players don't need to know the rules. That's not something I can get behind.



Sure. And that's understandable. The reason behind keeping the rules from the player is that system matters. The players knowing the rules will inevitably lead them to making decisions based on the rules rather other considerations. Your character is scared and would run away, but you the player decide not to because you don't want to eat an opportunity attack, for example. So instead of playing the world (making decisions based on what makes sense in the world), or playing the character (making decisions based on what makes sense for the character), you're playing the rules (making decisions based on what makes sense according to the game's rules). The point of keeping the rules--if there are any--away from the players is to prevent that very thing from happening. That's one meaning behind "play worlds, not rules".


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2021)

Numidius said:


> My experience, before even reading about the FKR movement, was that after some time, in an ongoing campaign, game-play tended to "devolve" mostly on conversation and less and less on the actual rules, or procedures.
> 
> In one shots, the freeform ad-hoc Gm fiat approach helped to wrap it up before end of session.



I've not had this experience. Maybe it depends on system?

Unless you count this: I ended my second RM campaign with free narration of the denouement, inspired very directly by the "end game" aspect of Paul Czege's Nicotine Girls. But that was expressly an exception to the normal process of play. The PCs had achieved their goals, of trapping the elder evil and bringing the dead god back to life. The narration of the denouement was a back-and-forth conversation about what happened to each PC, based on their interests, capabilities and fictional positioning as established up to that point in the campaign. It wasn't free kriegsspiel - more like conch-passing!



overgeeked said:


> The reason behind keeping the rules from the player is that system matters. The players knowing the rules will inevitably lead them to making decisions based on the rules rather other considerations. Your character is scared and would run away, but you the player decide not to because you don't want to eat an opportunity attack, for example. So instead of playing the world (making decisions based on what makes sense in the world), or playing the character (making decisions based on what makes sense for the character), you're playing the rules (making decisions based on what makes sense according to the game's rules). The point of keeping the rules--if there are any--away from the players is to prevent that very thing from happening. That's one meaning behind "play worlds, not rules".



To me, this speaks of poorly-authored rules.

If players are expected to have their PCs be scared, then the game should produce that result. There are many ways to do that, from morale rules (classic Traveller) to emotional stress rules (MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic) to a system (like a GM-side escalation die) that makes it increasingly dangerous for the PC to not flee a combat they are losing.

If the rules produce fiction that isn't the fiction we want at the table, use different rules!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What if asking/talking to the players is part of the GM's decision-making process?   If you can assume that the relationship between GM and players is not adversarial, then you don't need to include any mechanics for regulating or gameifying that conversation





Malmuria said:


> What I'm saying is that "gm fiat," doesn't preclude in practice there being a fair amount of conversation at the table.  That is, personally, it doesn't really seem inconsistent for an FKR game _in practice_ to include a lot  conversation and consensus-seeking while still ultimately letting the GM decide the how to resolve uncertainty.  It's just that an FKR game would not include any _formal_ mechanism to include player direction of the narrative (for example, like Resistance rolls in Blades in the Dark where a player can negate a consequence by taking on stress).



I'm not sure what you mean buy a _formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative_. In Classic Traveller, a player whose PC is in the appropriate fictional position (eg gun drawn while standing across the room from someone else) can declare _I shoot them_. And then the rules tell us what throw to make (modified by weapon skill, body armour, etc) and if a hit occurs how to determine the damage dealt, and based on the damage dealt how to tell whether the person who is shot falls unconscious or dies. Is that a formal mechanism to include player direction of the narrative?

I know of two alternatives to rules like this.

One is the conch-passing that @Ovinomancer has referred to upthread.

The other is that everything the players say is mere _suggestion_, and the GM narrates everything that actually occurs in the fiction based on what they think appropriate/logical.

From what I have read of FKRing, it is a bit unclear whether or not there are supposed to be any rules like the Classic Traveller ones for shooting. I certainly don't see any suggestion about conch-passing. I do see a lot of emphasis on _the GM being the one who decides what happens - _and no discussion of the idea of table consensus or even hearing the opinions of the players.

If we include _hearing the opinions of the players _plus _rules like the Classic Traveller rules for shooting someone_, then Apocalypse World seems to count as a FKR game! Which I don't think is what is intended.



Malmuria said:


> Well, actually the aspect that I find really interesting in FKR is the notion that genres or "worlds" contain an interior logic and their own rules.  So a GM in an FKR game would not have to know about the "world" of 19thc. military engagement, but rather the world of their setting and the "rules" of the genre.



As you've probably already worked out, I find this comparison very implausible.

The reason a Prussian officer can master, and apply, the "logic" of military engagements is because those are real events that occur in the real world according to real and (sometimes) knowable causal principles. The world is both a constraint (on the reasonableness and the truth of belief) and a source (of evidence, of belief, of habit and learning). The world of a made up setting, and a genre, don't serve as either constraint or source in anything like the same way.

The Prussian army (as I understand it) learned a lot about the minutiae of artillery deployments between Jena and the Franco-Prussian War. The free kriegsspiel referee has the benefit of all that knowledge: in experience; in training; in whatever charts and tables are available; in the commentary and advice of fellow officers.

Conversely, who would trust one of those 1806 Prussian officers as a referee? Clearly their conception of what might be achieved via manoeuvre and artillery was flawed!, as their defeat shows.

The GM of a RPG is typically neither applying knowledge nor displaying ignorance. They are making things up. It just strikes me as being in a completely different ballpark.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

@pemerton 

As I said, recent Gumshoe and B/X dnd went the freeform route at my table. 
After Apocalypse/Dungeon World, a fixed initiative is something I just can’t run anymore, for instance. 
In Cthulhian investigations, ditching the rules (or having them under gm-fiat) helped in creating a realistic atmosphere. 

In past years, good old WFRP. After decades of play, setting and rules were so familiar, anyone could adjudicate a situation and resorting to checks, or combat procedures, was condidered to bog down the game.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

@pemerton (again, sorry, mate  )

Don't take the prussian connection too seriously, seems like the term came out as a joke against OSR, also sounds like "fucker" . 

Traveller looks like a major background for "old" FKR people, 2d6 vs TN, lots of tables, rulings, etc. and various attempts at making it ultralight ruleswise. 

Table consensus and discussion is said to play a major role in those tables. 

I'm not gonna advocate for something I'm not really a part of, but I have seen its practicality at my table, even if my personal style does not coincide exactly with "theirs" (this is obviously a generalisation). 

Their main point being Not engaging with rules, fiddly bits on char sheets, metacurrencies, but instead with diegetic fiction, setting consistency, genre, and the like, while the Gm may use any ruleset she thinks is adequate, as long as doesn't bog down the game.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

What @Aldarc just said in the AW thread about BitD:

"The game does not exist for supporting the setting; the setting exists for supporting the game."

...I think it may be reversed to explain FKR: The game exists to support the setting, not viceversa.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2021)

Numidius said:


> As I said, recent Gumshoe and B/X dnd went the freeform route at my table.
> After Apocalypse/Dungeon World, a fixed initiative is something I just can’t run anymore, for instance.
> In Cthulhian investigations, ditching the rules (or having them under gm-fiat) helped in creating a realistic atmosphere.
> 
> In past years, good old WFRP. After decades of play, setting and rules were so familiar, anyone could adjudicate a situation and resorting to checks, or combat procedures, was condidered to bog down the game.





Numidius said:


> Traveller looks like a major background for "old" FKR people, 2d6 vs TN, lots of tables, rulings, etc. and various attempts at making it ultralight ruleswise.
> 
> Table consensus and discussion is said to play a major role in those tables.
> 
> ...



What sort of game are you playing? Exploration/puzzle-oriented? Is there much conflict resolution?

In his blog, Christopher Kubasik points to some "free kriegssspiel" aspects of Classic Traveller combat resolution:

Following up on Omer Joel’s excellent post about Complexity Creep, Modifier Creep, and Scale Creep, I had some thoughts about Classic Traveller’s very (very) abstract personal combat system and its place in roleplaying game design at the time of its release in 1977. . . .​​As with the 1981 edition, it has range bands. What you might not know  is in the 1977 edition doesn’t translate the range bands into meters. That is, it’s really abstract.​​For RPG play, the very abstract nature of the combat system allowed the game to keep going quickly and allowed the Referee and Players to make up details and bits of tactical business on the fly if desired. The text of the 1977 edition makes it clear that the Range Bands themselves preclude any kind of tactical concerns… which is true as far as goes. But in retrospect I see how tactical details can be introduced without building a full miniatures game.​​The Referee put very much in the position of a Referee from a Free Kriegspiel. The original Kriegspiel rules put off many officers who trained with it because of all the page flipping through the rules and the mock combats took so much longer than an actual combat. (I’m using the term “Free Kriegspiel” loosely here, to illustrate the spectrum of play and rules from “The rules have everything” to “The Referee handles a lot.” Admittedly, the Traveller Referee handles a _lot_. . . .​​Rather than sorting out every detail of a particular terrain, every detail of building, and having a rule for every kind of situation, _Traveller_ was originally written for a much more fluid play style. Modifiers and more, based on circumstance, actions, and results are adjudicated on the fly by the Referee. Admittedly, the Referee has to have the real spirit of an impartial Referee to make this work — just as in Kriegspiel. The Players are trusting him to provide challenges, risk, and practical rewards for good thinking — even while adjudicating the environment, tactics, and enemy combatants.​​During combat the Players come up with clever ideas, and the Referee adjudicates the actions of the PCs, creates DMs for Throws, checks to see if NPCs fall for the PCs’ plans with Throws he makes up on the spot. All of this, I postulate, should be done in the style of Free Kriegsspiel play, with the Referee _not_ bound to a specific list of DMs and actions, but creating a conversation with the Players, back and forth, creating clever, fun details, tension over the results of attacks, and so on.​​My own view is that this style of play can work gangbusters if everyone is onboard. It can create a really loose, fun, _imaginative_ “theater of the mind” combat, with the Referee and Players building on details as they get introduced.​​This isn’t to say maps can’t be used. If someone has deck plans and there’s a fight aboard the ship, use them to get a better sense of relative position. For a larger scale environment,  a sheet of paper, a white board, or an erasable mat can be used to quickly sketch out terrain details. Not to scale, mind you–there’d be no _need_ to get that precise. But a rough sketch, with players marking where their characters are, erasing them or crossing them off as they move through the terrain would be enough to add an desired clarity. In all these cases, there’s be no need for miniatures. In the spirit of the original rules, one could use markers of some kind (small squares cut from paper), or, as mentioned, marking and erasing as combat rounds ensued.​​Of course, not everyone is onboard with this style of play. Nor should everyone be onboard with it. It’s fast, loose and interpretive, built to move on to other aspects of play (exploration, puzzle solving, and more).​​Original _Traveller_ is so far toward Free Kriegspiel-like style of play that the pendulum had to swing back the other way. So in a reverse move from Kriegspiel moving to Free Kriegspiel, the abstracted Classic _Traveller_ system  moves toward _Snapshot_, AHL, and _Striker _over time to make the combats more specifically rules driven.​
One thing that Kubasik doesn't mention here is that Classic Traveller has an action economy: move + attack, double move, or evade. And there are rules for how much movement it takes to change range bands, which are defined in terms of distance (but the number of moves required to changes bands doesn't correlate to any particular movement rate).

And independently of that, as an example of FKR this is pretty different from _the GM decides what happens_. It's about _no miniatures _(in my case, the only game I've ever used tokens in is 4e D&D - not in B/X, not in AD&D, not in RM, not in any indie game I've played), and GM-adjudicated modifiers. This is pretty different from the vibe I get from FKRers.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. And that's understandable. The reason behind keeping the rules from the player is that system matters. The players knowing the rules will inevitably lead them to making decisions based on the rules rather other considerations. Your character is scared and would run away, but you the player decide not to because you don't want to eat an opportunity attack, for example. So instead of playing the world (making decisions based on what makes sense in the world), or playing the character (making decisions based on what makes sense for the character), you're playing the rules (making decisions based on what makes sense according to the game's rules). The point of keeping the rules--if there are any--away from the players is to prevent that very thing from happening. That's one meaning behind "play worlds, not rules".




I think that’s a poor example.

The idea of an attack of opportunity should absolutely be known to the player because it represents the knowledge that his character would have of the actual situation. The rules in this example correspond directly to in game events and so I can’t see how they interfere in amy way with engaging the fiction.

The situation is that the character is in a dangerous situation and is considering fleeing. But, the immediate presence of a foe means that he may open himself to attack to do so. That’s the fictional situation and the rules reflect it just fine.

Player engaging with rules= character interacting with world.

To me, the player not knowing of the possibility of an opportunity attack is an example of not engaging in the fiction because he doesn’t have a full picture of the fiction. If I declare that my PC retreats and then as a result of that, I get attacked…the exact situation I was trying to avoid….that feels very much like a “gotcha” by the GM, and is emblematic of the kind of problems this approach faces. For example, 5E has the Disengage action, which allows a PC to avoid opportunity attacks, but it counts as their action for the round. How can this distinction be made if the players are unaware that it exists?

I’ve yet to meet a GM or read a scenario that is so perfectly described that there are no blanks left in the player’s understanding. The truth is, we as players are always operating with less than 100% knowledge of a situation compared to what the characters would know. Rules can help bridge that gap and make things clearer for the player to accurately and meaningfully engage with the fiction.

There may be other examples that we could come up with where the players are engaging with the game first rather than the fiction. When this happens, and if it’s a problem for any group, I think that it speaks to a problem with that specific rule rather than with the idea of rules overall.

In my games of D&D, I find the impact of Hit Points on the fiction to be rather annoying at times. I think that they very easily can become a game element that dominates the fiction. Others may not think so, and indeed an argument can be made, similar to my reasoning on the opportunity attack, that Hit Points reflect something in the fiction that the PCs can observe and know. I think that’s true up to a point, but that once a certain level/HP total is reached, then the fictional corollary gets pretty wobbly.

But does this indicate that there is a problem with players knowing the rules? I don’t think so, because in games where HP are used but kept to a minimum, or in games that use an alternative to HP, it’s not a problem at all.

“Play worlds, not rules” is not a bad principle to keep in mind when playing. I find it very similar to “fiction first” that comes up in a lot of newer more narrative games. But I think it can be misleading in that it implies a dichotomy that need not exist.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> 5E has the Disengage action, which allows a PC to avoid opportunity attacks, but it counts as their action for the round. How can this distinction be made if the players are unaware that it exists?



Linking this to my discussion with @Numidius . . .

In a system where the PC build elements are much more straightforward (eg Classic Traveller, or also Prince Valiant, are the first two examples I thought of) then the attempt to disengage can be adjudicated ad hoc - eg as opposed Brawn+Agility in Prince Valiant - without needing to have a defined rule. I'm pretty sure I've done this in Prince Valiant (also using Brawn+Riding for mounted characters), where if the one trying to disengage loses then they suffer injury as normal, but if they succeed then instead of dealing injury, they break out of the fight.

5e D&D - in my view, at least - has far too complex PC build for this sort of approach to be viable.

I know that some of the FKRers talk about PC building. While more of their focus seems to be on the approach to action resolution, I think the PC building might be just as significant.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

Right. Advice from FKRers is usually to note in plain language only significant stuff of the pc build, which could be done via PHB standard, e proceed to play. 

Regarding the whole action economy in CT, I guess that would be eliminated completely in favor of plain descriptions, discussion, adjudication, with or without rolls involved.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Linking this to my discussion with @Numidius . . .
> 
> In a system where the PC build elements are much more straightforward (eg Classic Traveller, or also Prince Valiant, are the first two examples I thought of) then the attempt to disengage can be adjudicated ad hoc - eg as opposed Brawn+Agility in Prince Valiant - without needing to have a defined rule. I'm pretty sure I've done this in Prince Valiant (also using Brawn+Riding for mounted characters), where if the one trying to disengage loses then they suffer injury as normal, but if they succeed then instead of dealing injury, they break out of the fight.
> 
> ...



This is a partial solution, at best, though, because it doesn't at all really inform the player what the odds of success are.  This doesn't need to be specific, but there the character could probably determine how likely success would be in this action because they have the understanding of their abilities, experience in actual combat situations, and at least a reasonable idea of how skilled their opponent is.  So, yes, you can as a GM just leverage these kinds of tests, but this doesn't really root the decision in the fiction when you do so -- the arbitration is not well situated with the understanding the character might have.

This is, of course, an argument for clear stakes and odds, which is something I prefer in games due to what @hawkeyefan points out as the imperfection of understanding in the fiction between GM and player, but also the imperfection of understanding between what a character might know (reification for simplicity) and what the player might know about this situation.  And these kinds of clear stakes seem to be exactly what the FKR movement is trying to avoid rather than produce.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What sort of game are you playing? Exploration/puzzle-oriented? Is there much conflict resolution?




If you are asking me, I'd say low prep, high improv, loosely based on a prewritten scenario, very prone to players input & content introduction by fiat or rolls (even without them knowing).

Zooming in and out from task to conflict res as the table feels like, me included.

It usually begins as exploration/puzzle oriented, but soon takes a life of its own. 

I tend to refer to 2d6 rolls when in doubt about a situation or npc disposition.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a partial solution, at best, though, because it doesn't at all really inform the player what the odds of success are. This doesn't need to be specific, but there the character could probably determine how likely success would be in this action because they have the understanding of their abilities, experience in actual combat situations, and at least a reasonable idea of how skilled their opponent is. So, yes, you can as a GM just leverage these kinds of tests, but this doesn't really root the decision in the fiction when you do so -- the arbitration is not well situated with the understanding the character might have.
> 
> This is, of course, an argument for clear stakes and odds, which is something I prefer in games due to what @hawkeyefan points out as the imperfection of understanding in the fiction between GM and player, but also the imperfection of understanding between what a character might know (reification for simplicity) and what the player might know about this situation. And these kinds of clear stakes seem to be exactly what the FKR movement is trying to avoid rather than produce.




The FKR ref should absolutely leverage player knowledge as input in their adjudicating on a matter (I've been told). 
Is it enough to produce clear stakes for the players and/or characters, in your opinion?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> “Play worlds, not rules” is not a bad principle to keep in mind when playing. I find it very similar to “fiction first” that comes up in a lot of newer more narrative games. But I think it can be misleading in that it implies a dichotomy that need not exist.




Given that this sprang from this thread-








						D&D General - D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
					

Late last night, I ran across an interesting and excellent post by @Malmuria which helped crystalize some thoughts I had been having recently about D&D's evolution. Just to make this clear- you can blame Malmuria for this short essay. Repeat- you can blame Malmuria. Unless you really like what...




					www.enworld.org
				




I thought I'd comment briefly. But I would note the very small footnote at the bottom of the other post; there is a reason I mostly don't choose to engage.

An issue that people have is that there can be too much argument about terms; we see this all the time. For example, it's hard to have a discussion about the playstyle most people refer to as "skilled play" if you end up with a bunch of people that immediately say, "But wait, other types of play are skilled too!" When using a defined term, you're trying to be helpful by defining, not be creating implied dichotomies. A similar issue arose here when trying to discuss FKR- immediately, you had people (many of whom apparently googled Free Kriegsspiel for the first time) simply argue, "Hey, did you know that there is a difference between the conventions of the 19th century Prussian Army and a roleplaying game? Let me expound upon the ways in which they are different, because that's super helpful!" 

At the most basic, FKR is just another in a long iteration in an eternal battle- more rules, or less rules. Trying to assert that one way is "better" or "worse" does little good- it's enough to point out that there tends to be a near-constant oscillation between the two. Rules- and by rules, I mean a published system of play, known to the participants, that provides a consistent method of adjudication ... has many advantages. But rules (and the increasing complexity of rules systems) also have disadvantages. 

This is somewhat orthogonal to another, slightly-related issue. And that's the issue of the creation of fiction and the decision-maker. FKR will fall on the "referee" (GM) mode, while other systems will tend to fall on the more "consensual" or "player-driven" mode. This doesn't tend to be a dichotomy, so much as a spectrum. Most FKR systems tend to be "high-trust" not just in terms of the player --> GM, but also GM --> player, and player --> player. Which means that while the GM has final authority, it is almost always within the scope of player-empowering heuristics. By the same token, rules-lite systems that are more collaborative still have the GM in a position that is different or separate from the players in terms of the fiction (with possible exceptions such as Fiasco, which is neither here nor there).

To use an example that has been bandied about for a while, the rule-lite version of Cthulhu Dark makes this continuum explicit (here, "Keeper" = GM)-

_Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? 
Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.
These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know._

Empower the Keeper, and this runs like FKR. Disempower the Keeper and make it more collaborative (or have additional rules regarding the fiction), and it might seem like a Fiction First system. Are they actually that different? 


Finally, and as an aside to Pemerton- I would bring up exactly what I wrote about Cthulhu Dark again:
_.... but for it {Cthulhu Dark} to work, it presupposes a number of things- that the table (the whole table) have a working knowledge of the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, that everyone at the table is familiar with RPGs and how they work, and that everyone at the table have a level of comfort with a specific type of narrative-oriented RPG._

This is the same point that others are making about FKR; simply put, that the referee (GM) has to have a working knowledge of the "world" or "genre" or "trope" that is being played, and that the table is comfortable and familiar with the game. It is inescapable that this is the exact same thing others say about the knowledge required to run any kind of game; of course, we are not Prussian military officers running other Prussian military officers in campaigns (or in the military at all, as was Major David Wesley), just as we have never been to Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps. 

I think that therein lies the tension between more and less rules that we continually oscillate between; you have a minimalist rule set, and then graft on rules to settle disputes or because you want standardization or because players want to be able to rely on something or because you need an exception to the prior rule or because someone wants the game to be more realistic or for all sorts of other reasons, until you get to the point of having an overly-complicated ruleset, and then someone says, "Hey, we could make this simpler if we just get rid of all these rules!" and the whole process repeats. 

Again, all this IMO, YMMV, etc. I will bow out now, as I tend to find these conversations not overly productive.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

@Snarf Zagyg 
I missed that thread!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Numidius said:


> The FKR ref should absolutely leverage player knowledge as input in their adjudicating on a matter (I've been told).
> Is it enough to produce clear stakes for the players and/or characters, in your opinion?



I'm not following what you're saying here.  As a player, I quite often lack knowledge relevant to the situation my character finds themselves in, especially in relation to determining stakes and odds.  I, for instance, have no experience with picking locks, but my character might, so my knowledge is not terribly useful here for determining stakes.  So this can be done a few ways -- the game can provide me with this information based on how it resolves conflicts (ie, stats, skills, resolution methods, etc) so that I can make an informed decision this way despite my lack of actual experience with picking locks (the system's say).  Or, the game might use consensus building, where we discuss it at the table and find a way forward for this conflict by establishing stakes and building out a shared knowledge of the situation (the table's say).  Or, it might just say that Bob says what happens and I don't have any way to gain knowledge because it's not shared (the GM's say).  Or, it might be that the player just gets to declare what happens here (the player's say).  Or, it could use some combination of the three.  So, without additional clarity on what you mean by player knowledge here, I don't have an answer for you.

I can say that when I GM and am faced with determining the outcome of a situation where I lack personal knowledge and experience, like with picking a lock, I much prefer to have the system have a say here.  Maybe not to the exclusion of all else, but I feel it's an important piece of the puzzle for me.  This is why I very much enjoy Blades -- the system has a strong say, but there's also parts of the player's say, the GM's say, and even the table's say that feed in.  FKR seems adamant about removing the system's say and leaning heavily on the GM's say, with individual GM's being able to flex that say to include however much of the table and player's say they want.  I suppose, in the neo-trad approach, there's also the setting's say, which I didn't really account for here.  I feel this is really a subset of player/table/GM say, though, as the setting has to be filtered through these to get that say.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Player engaging with rules= character interacting with world.



Only if the rules make sense in the world. Take another example. Characters not being able to move through each other’s space. In most D&D games, characters take up a 5ft square, completely blocking anyone else from moving through. So if you have two people abreast in a 10ft hallway, no one’s getting through. That’s nonsense in the real world, makes zero sense in any fantasy world, but it’s the rules of the game.

Most gamers will dutifully adhere to the rules of the game despite them being nonsense, like the example above. But the FKR mantra “play worlds, not rules” suggest the opposite. The rules of the game must first make sense in the fiction of the played world, if not toss the rules and use ones the don’t break the fantasy, immersion, common sense, etc.

The post at the top of the page about FKR being the opposite of BITD in this regard is apt.



Numidius said:


> What @Aldarc just said in the AW thread about BitD:
> 
> "The game does not exist for supporting the setting; the setting exists for supporting the game."
> 
> ...I think it may be reversed to explain FKR: The game exists to support the setting, not viceversa.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 4, 2021)

I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games. I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games. I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.



I'm with you.  Most of the talk about FKR really feels like trying to lean all the way into Trad or Neo-Trad without actually saying this, and that confuses me.  All the talk of setting fidelity seems to me to go straight to Neo-Trad. But then there's this weird "try anything" claim that appears to be suggesting a more protagonist approach, but gets curtailed by further reinforcement of setting fidelity in resolution.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I guess what I am saying here is there is a body of knowledge in the OSR space who can clearly articulate it's place within the larger hobby, not just in relation to modern D&D, but also in relation to other indie spaces. I'm not seeing anything from the FKR space that clearly differentiates itself from fiction first games.



Well, yeah. It’s still relatively new and tiny. There’s maybe a few dozen people doing things in this space and a few hundred who’re excited by it.


Campbell said:


> I am not seeing even a general awareness that rules can integrate GM judgement as part of the process of play. It makes it hard for me to see the plot here. I want to. I'm just not seeing a clear set of play priorities.



Don’t judge FKR by the people explaining it in this thread. Maybe three of us encountered FKR before this thread or the one that spawned it. Read some of the links I provided. 

It’s a misunderstanding of FKR to think it rejects all rules at all times. The rules must conform to and support the fiction. If not, dump the rules that don’t. In FKR the DM is the rules. But the DM‘s rules, rulings, decisions should conform to the fictional world being presented.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I can say that when I GM and am faced with determining the outcome of a situation where I lack personal knowledge and experience, like with picking a lock, I much prefer to have the system have a say here.  Maybe not to the exclusion of all else, but I feel it's an important piece of the puzzle for me.  This is why I very much enjoy Blades -- the system has a strong say, but there's also parts of the player's say, the GM's say, and even the table's say that feed in.



Picking a lock

in 5e (a trad game), there's a procedure and mechanic as defined by the rulebook, available to all, that the DM follows with some discretion.  So a lock may be a DC 16 dexterity/theives tools check.  The player might not know the DC but knows that there is a target number that at least the DM knows.  The DM might not have prepared the DC ahead of time, but makes a decision on the spot or makes a decision after the dice have been rolled but pretends there was a target number all along (illusionism).  Similarly, in CoC there is a locksmith skill and locks of various difficulties, but as a player you can push your roll to try again if you fail.
in BitD (a story game), a player could choose to roll tinker or finesse.  Based on the player's description, and what else is going on in the fiction, the GM decides position and effect.  The player assembles the dice pool, rolls, and the GM interprets the results and decides what complications there might be.  The player can choose to resist this complication.

I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results.  We could even go through an exercise of looking at different games and evaluating their lock picking rules from a G-N-S perspective (which rules lead to fun and streamlined gameplay?  Which are most realistic? Which is most suitable for the kind of story we are collaboratively telling).  I'm not necessarily advocating for an FKR style--the reason to use a system is because it does the work of setting expectations of play.  That is, one player might want to describe exactly how they use a small mirror and a pair of pliers to disarm a trap, and another player might just want to roll using their skill, and a third might be approaching the scene in a cinematic way.  But I do think an exercise of streamlining and stripping away rules can get you to a core understanding of what it is you are actually interested in doing in a game, and that's worthwhile even if you add rules back in later.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results.



In my estimation that’s not enough context to go on to make a call. Are you playing a family sitcom where the outcome doesn’t matter unless it’s funny or ups the stakes (so a simple 1d6 if any roll at all would be sufficient) or are you playing a heist (so mechanics up to or exceeding D&D levels of combat rules are called for)? It’s further complicated by tone and style. If you’re going for crunchy, methodical, and slow or light, cinematic, and fast.


Malmuria said:


> I'm not necessarily advocating for an FKR style--the reason to use a system is because it does the work of setting expectations of play.



And that’s precisely what FKR aims for. But instead of defaulting to the game rules, it defaults to the fiction. The fiction does the work of setting expectations of play...and therefore the game mechanics.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Picking a lock
> 
> in 5e (a trad game), there's a procedure and mechanic as defined by the rulebook, available to all, that the DM follows with some discretion.  So a lock may be a DC 16 dexterity/theives tools check.  The player might not know the DC but knows that there is a target number that at least the DM knows.  The DM might not have prepared the DC ahead of time, but makes a decision on the spot or makes a decision after the dice have been rolled but pretends there was a target number all along (illusionism).  Similarly, in CoC there is a locksmith skill and locks of various difficulties, but as a player you can push your roll to try again if you fail.
> in BitD (a story game), a player could choose to roll tinker or finesse.  Based on the player's description, and what else is going on in the fiction, the GM decides position and effect.  The player assembles the dice pool, rolls, and the GM interprets the results and decides what complications there might be.  The player can choose to resist this complication.
> ...



I don't doubt you could come to that conclusion -- that the resolution processes are similar in that a die is rolled and interpeted -- but that is completely missing some massive differences in why the resolution occurs and what the point of the resolution actually is.  These are very different in these two games -- both of which I'm currently playing/running right now.  The analysis that you suggest for FKR is following closely to the 5e example in intent and effect, but substituting the system's say for the GM's say.  As such, it's leaning even heavier towards Trad (or Neo-Trad).  Saying that this is similar to the Blades example is flawed on many levels.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

Few questions for FKR enthusiasts:

1) There is a climbing obstacle in the setting. This setting is roughly indistinguishable from
Earth in terms of atmosphere, gravity, and topography, 21st century gear. One player at the table (not the GM) is a climber while the others are not.

Given that it’s a “high trust system” (mutually across all participants?), does the GM/table defer to the climber to adjudicate the climbing rules for the conflict resolution of this obstacle?

That would seem to be (a) the most conversation/negotiation-efficient thing to do in terms of this “transitive property of trust” governing rules-vacuums + (b) the most wieldy thing to do in terms of both table time and playability (coherent decision-point navigation).

If not…why not?

2) Once this happens…does this instantiation of climbing rules now get encoded into play for any subsequent climbing obstacle within this setting?

If not, why not?

If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?




You're overthinking it. Because you're preoccupied with the rules.

There are a number of ways to do this. Here's one.

Roll 2d6. Below average (7), and you don't advance. You don't climb, but nothing bad.
Catastrophic roll? (3, 4). Something bad.
Roll above average? You climb up. 

If there's someone trying to keep you from climbing, make it an opposed roll.
If the person wrote that the character had experience as a climber, or he's a cat burglar, give him a bonus.

That's one way, but hardly the only way. And it doesn't require any kind of advanced rules for climbing, because I am assuming that the game (fiction) isn't about climbing. It's just an event, like any other.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Few questions for FKR enthusiasts:
> 
> 1) There is a climbing obstacle in the setting. This setting is roughly indistinguishable from Earth in terms of atmosphere, gravity, and topography, 21st century gear. One player at the table (not the GM) is a climber while the others are not.
> 
> Given that it’s a “high trust system” (mutually across all participants?), does the GM/table defer to the climber to adjudicate the climbing rules for the conflict resolution of this obstacle?



It’s on the DM to make the call. If they opt to defer to the climber, they certainly can. But there’s no obligation to. How important is this instance of climbing in the fiction? If it’s irrelevant it doesn’t need rules. If it’s important you can roll.


Manbearcat said:


> That would seem to be (a) the most conversation/negotiation-efficient thing to do in terms of this “transitive property of trust” governing rules-vacuums + (b) the most wieldy thing to do in terms of both table time and playability (coherent decision-point navigation).
> 
> If not…why not?



There could easily be factors the DM is aware of that the climber-player is not.


Manbearcat said:


> 2) Once this happens…does this instantiation of climbing rules now get encoded into play for any subsequent climbing obstacle within this setting?



When playing D&D 5E do you keep a list of every instance of advantage and disadvantage and the precise circumstances that granted it? If not, why not?

Probably not because it would be pointlessly cumbersome. You have a broadly applicable rule that’s widely used to determine the mechanics. Same with FKR.


Manbearcat said:


> If not, why not?
> 
> If yes…is the primary difference here that FKR feels that offloading the R&D/negotiation of a ruleset outside of table time + assimilating it outside of table time won’t yield some of the features of play that the ethos is looking for (which presumably is * table time and cognitive workspace devoted to R&D/negotiation of “to be encoded” rules in the perpetual state of rules-vacuum and maybe a hypothesis of * the uptake of rules is better for all participants if they are developed/negotiated during play vs downloading a rules tome, regardless of weight, before play)?



The rules tome gets in the way, slows down play, and causes players to make decisions based on the rules rather than the fiction.

Even something as simple as Over the Edge 3rd Edition will drive particular choices based on the rules rather than the fiction. In that system, active characters succeed on a 7+/2d6, while passive characters succeed on an 8+/2d6. So gamers being gamers, everyone in Over the Edge games push to be active as often as possible.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

@Snarf Zagyg 

I think you missed what I’m looking for with my post.

I’m curious about the ethos that undergirds the FKR approach and the downstream implications, not “what is a possible instantiation of climbing rules?”

Your post does create an interesting question though: 

“What is the difference between ‘an event that is relevant enough to develop/negotiate rules’ and ‘what the game is about’ in an FKR game?”

What is the implication of the answer to that question on the form that the conversation of play takes?


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't doubt you could come to that conclusion -- that the resolution processes are similar in that a die is rolled and interpeted -- but that is completely missing some massive differences in why the resolution occurs and what the point of the resolution actually is.  These are very different in these two games -- both of which I'm currently playing/running right now.  The analysis that you suggest for FKR is following closely to the 5e example in intent and effect, but substituting the system's say for the GM's say.  As such, it's leaning even heavier towards Trad (or Neo-Trad).  Saying that this is similar to the Blades example is flawed on many levels.



BitD and 5e are indeed very different games (currently running the former and playing in the latter).  5e is very success/failure oriented, while Blades tries to give structure to a back and forth conversation, in part by using mechanics that can partially or wholly negate GM decisions (e.g. resistance rolls and stress).  But, as I found out while transitioning my 5e group to Blades, the mechanics themselves can only do so much work to create the desired gameplay.  There needs to be a shift in mentality by both players and GM (following the great advice and best practices described in the book).  So, sure, 'system matters,' but really some of the most helpful bits in setting our group's understanding of the game have been the touchstone, where I can be like, 'remember that scene in peaky blinders where...'

As stated earlier in this thread (or in the other one), the provocation of FKR is to say, wait, you are trying to play a peaky blinders game...why not just start and end there, at least on the player side.  The players can create peaky-blinders type characters, and they describe what their characters do in the fiction, and the gm calls for a roll whenever there is uncertainty.  I think what direction the game goes from there would depend on the dynamics of the group.  One group might have a GM that is very forceful about giving structure to the overall narrative, but another group might arrive at a space that is more genre-driven and collaborative, akin to a story game.

One minor note: I don't think "rulings not rules," equates to a trad approach, as this is a phrase that originates in the OSR.  Trad is more defined by its reliance on "story-before," and associated linear plots (and in some cases railroading)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> @Snarf Zagyg
> 
> I think you missed what I’m looking for with my post.
> 
> I’m curious about the ethos that undergirds the FKR approach and the downstream implications, not “what is a possible instantiation of climbing rules?”




If you truly curious, there have been numerous posts pointing you to resources. 

The best way to satiate your curiosity would be to engage those resources in good faith, and then try playing a few games. 

As a general rule, practice > theory. 

As for the ethos, I think that proponents encapsulate it in the "Play worlds, not rules." Which is just a shorthand of saying that they are looking to engage the fiction, not the rules. More pertinently, it is sometimes described as "The freedom of the Player Characters to attempt any tactic to solve a problem, subject to the adjudication of the Game Master."  - But that's been stated in the resources that have been provided.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> When playing D&D 5E do you keep a list of every instance of advantage and disadvantage and the precise circumstances that granted it? If not, why not?
> 
> Probably not because it would be pointlessly cumbersome. You have a broadly applicable rule that’s widely used to determine the mechanics. Same with FKR.




Don't you think that is a haaaaaaaaair bit of a false equivalence?  Inspiration is a bolt-on piece of exception-based design tech that can be trivially (and overwhelmingly is) ignored.  Climbing rules are a fundamental piece of the rules chassis used to negotiate what happens when a very typical conflict emerges within the game.

Its like comparing a car's drivetrain to its infotainment system HUD.



> It’s on the DM to make the call. If they opt to defer to the climber, they certainly can. But there’s no obligation to. How important is this instance of climbing in the fiction? If it’s irrelevant it doesn’t need rules. If it’s important you can roll.
> 
> There could easily be factors the DM is aware of that the climber-player is not.
> 
> ...




I'm putting these two together because I didn't get an answer that is helpful to me in my understanding.  You added some caveats here as Snarf did (maybe in this particular conflict the GM knows something that the player doesn't...maybe this "event isn't what the game is about").  

The bottom paragraphs are helpful, however, so thanks for that.

Let me go back to what I was trying to suss out:

1)  No caveats.  The obstacle is the obstacle and no fundamentally unknowable thing is happening.  Beating the obstacle is sufficiently "what the game is about" such that you need rules to resolve it.  Its THE CLIMB OF WALL SUCKINGTON TO REACH THE PLACE OF IMPORTANTITUDE.

2)  In order for the climbing player to orient themselves to the challenge such that they can navigate a "climbing-coherent decision-point", they need some kind of rules structure to buttress that cognitive loop of orientation > navigation decision-point > act that they are undertaking.  

If the FKR GM composes a rules structure that fails to buttress (or perhaps actually does the opposite), what happens?  Does the climber player say "how about x, y, z?"  Is that an episode of "the edifice of trust being established through conversation" or is that an episode of "the situation is fraught and the trust is broken?"  

Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules?  It seems your answer is either:

* "negative, next time we encounter a climbing obstacle of consequence we instantiate something else and potentially have another trust establishing/eroding conversation with the climber because there is no encoding of rules in FKR."

or

* "play has now encoded these rules for future use through the negotiation with climber person and trust has been established/preserved/grown."


Is it the former or the latter (I feel like maybe the latter?)?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Don't you think that is a haaaaaaaaair bit of a false equivalence?  Inspiration is a bolt-on piece of exception-based design tech that can be trivially (and overwhelmingly is) ignored.  Climbing rules are a fundamental piece of the rules chassis used to negotiate what happens when a very typical conflict emerges within the game.




It wasn't inspiration; it was advantage/disadvantage.

Advantage and disadvantage are not "bolt-on pieces of exception based design tech" in 5e, but absolutely fundamental to 5e.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> BitD and 5e are indeed very different games (currently running the former and playing in the latter).  5e is very success/failure oriented, while Blades tries to give structure to a back and forth conversation, in part by using mechanics that can partially or wholly negate GM decisions (e.g. resistance rolls and stress).  But, as I found out while transitioning my 5e group to Blades, the mechanics themselves can only do so much work to create the desired gameplay.  There needs to be a shift in mentality by both players and GM (following the great advice and best practices described in the book).  So, sure, 'system matters,' but really some of the most helpful bits in setting our group's understanding of the game have been the touchstone, where I can be like, 'remember that scene in peaky blinders where...'
> 
> As stated earlier in this thread (or in the other one), the provocation of FKR is to say, wait, you are trying to play a peaky blinders game...why not just start and end there, at least on the player side.  The players can create peaky-blinders type characters, and they describe what their characters do in the fiction, and the gm calls for a roll whenever there is uncertainty.  I think what direction the game goes from there would depend on the dynamics of the group.  One group might have a GM that is very forceful about giving structure to the overall narrative, but another group might arrive at a space that is more genre-driven and collaborative, akin to a story game.
> 
> One minor note: I don't think "rulings not rules," equates to a trad approach, as this is a phrase that originates in the OSR.  Trad is more defined by its reliance on "story-before," and associated linear plots (and in some cases railroading)



I don't think it equates, but it's a powerful tool for engaging in Trad and Neo-trad play.  There's only the claim of impartial referee standing in the way, here, and I already find that claim to be somewhat preposterous given how the GM is creating the adversity and adjudicating it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

That is correct.  My bad.  Quick reading.  

Still, Advantage/Disadvantage is a modifier system trivially deployed from first principles (add +1d or -1d to dice pool, take +1, take -1).  Its not a system of conflict resolution.  The two are not remotely equivalent.

I'm hoping for engagement on my other questions.  From the looks of your last post, you don't think I'm engaging in good faith here and you've directed me to a bunch of resources to read through so I assume we're done having a conversation?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules?




Fundamentally, the problem with your example is that it is isolated. You haven't actually provided the fiction. You've given us the use-case in order to provide a disparity in expertise (and some shadow of simulationism), but not what this FKR game is _about._

And that's really the key, because it's about the world, not the rules (to borrow the phrase). There might be very different approaches if the game is supposed to be Peaky Blinders (when climbing walls isn't a major part of the fiction) as opposed to Lupin (when climbing walls, as part of jewel heists, would be). 

Or, for that matter, imagine if it's an FKR version of an Arnesonian D&D game; in that case, perhaps there would be a determination of a hidden rule for climbing, and further use of it. 

The point is, you won't have one way to determine the rule based upon an event; instead, it would be determined by the needs of the fiction. Trying to isolate "What about a climbing rule" won't help you answer your questions.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> That is correct.  My bad.  Quick reading.
> 
> Still, Advantage/Disadvantage is a modifier system trivially deployed from first principles (add +1d or -1d to dice pool, take +1, take -1).  Its not a system of conflict resolution.  The two are not remotely equivalent.




It's not trivial in 5e for the simple reason that it's the major abstraction system used in the game for all situations, and that the game also uses a simplified method for resolving competing ad/disads (they cancel each other out, regardless of number). 

It's far from trivial; it has a major impact on the game, and it is most certainly part of the system of conflict resolution in 5e! In addition, it also does a lot when people are discussing ways in which 5e can allow players to play to the rules, and not the fiction. 



Manbearcat said:


> I'm hoping for engagement on my other questions.  From the looks of your last post, you don't think I'm engaging in good faith here and you've directed me to a bunch of resources to read through so I assume we're done having a conversation?




Not necessarily; just pointing out that if you want to learn about FKR in good-faith, there are a lot of good resources for it, and you will learn a lot more by trying to play it in that manner than you will by trying to ask "gotcha" questions.

And in saying this, I am not advocating for any kind of system superiority- different games work for different tables at different points in time. TTRPGs are like the eternal Mounds/Almond Joy War; sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't think it equates, but it's a powerful tool for engaging in Trad and Neo-trad play.  There's only the claim of impartial referee standing in the way, here, and I already find that claim to be somewhat preposterous given how the GM is creating the adversity and adjudicating it.



OSR games also rely on GM adjudication and are explicitly a reaction against trad play.  In an OSR game, the dm can design a scenario (like a dungeon), but has no pre-conceived idea of how the players will navigate it.  The players, meanwhile, are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet, but by "tactical infinity" in John Ross' term.  The rulings that the dm has to make are in reaction to players trying something out of the box.  In trad games, there is a story that needs to be told, and a dm can use rulings or illusionism to keep the story going and get to the next beat (I would argue in trad games, combat is the one place players can have agency by referring to the often extensive rules...thus the combat as sport /as war distinction).  So, in terms of dnd specifically, trad and osr share a common lineage with regards to the role of the gm, but to almost opposite effect.  The fkr perspective appears to be mostly something advocated by the osr; trad players if anything want _more_ explicit rules and mechanics to cover every aspect of play.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> And in saying this, I am not advocating for any kind of system superiority- different games work for different tables at different points in time. TTRPGs are like the eternal Mounds/Almond Joy War; sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.



Yeah similarly, I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular.  I've played and enjoyed rules lite games (and if I were to run another game of dnd I would go for something rules lite), but I've never actually played something that explicitly conceived of itself as an FKR game.  So I'm more FKR-curious than anything else, and what I'm expressing here is not a defense of that style of gaming, but an explanation for why I'm curious to try.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It's not trivial in 5e for the simple reason that it's the major abstraction system used in the game for all situations, and that the game also uses a simplified method for resolving competing ad/disads (they cancel each other out, regardless of number).
> 
> It's far from trivial; it has a major impact on the game, and it is most certainly part of the system of conflict resolution in 5e! In addition, it also does a lot when people are discussing ways in which 5e can allow players to play to the rules, and not the fiction.
> 
> ...




Its not the existence of Adv/Disadv that is trivial.  Its the deployment of it from first principles is what is trivial (in that its trivially done by gamesmasters and understood by players).  Its been used in many game systems.  TTRPG designers discovered a cognitive hack and have-reused it (5e isn't close to the first game to use it).  The 5e designers didn't have to design Adv/Disadv.  Its been done for a good long while and its stuck because it works.

Its trivial because it works trivially.

It is not the same as developing (say) a snowballing action resolution/move structure engine or a combat engine or a conflict resolution engine for things like climbing/journeying/parleying/infil-exfiling/rituals etc.  Those things are very different in terms of taxonomically sorting them out and the rigor and effort with which one has to design and iterate.


As to the second part.

Come on man.  We don't need to do this.  If you feel is someone is sincere you don't lead with "if you truly are curious...do x in good faith" and finish with "you're asking gotcha questions."  That is not the language of "I think you're sincere...have this benefit of the doubt!"

You clearly don't think I'm being sincere.  That's fine.

If anyone else would like to answer my sincere curiosities (rather than questioning my sincerity and then pointing me at a gigantic pool of essays to suss out my answers), what I'm SINCERELY looking for is answers to the following:

* How are asymmetrical expertise relationships navigated (I do not agree that this only comes up in stray use-cases...my contention is that it is the persistent state of any TTRPG table at all times)?

* How is trust established/nurtured when the dynamics of asymmetrical expertise relationships manifest at the table?  There are a lot of ways this can work out in real life (technocracies are governed by experts...but this is not necessarily the best approach) so I'm curious if there is either a default methodology or guiding principles here?

* Humans encode language for conveying/navigating concepts and exchanges in their social systems.  You can't get around it.  That is our means for communally dealing with each other/the world.  Given that, how does the "encoding process" work for FKR?  Negotiate and iterate during table time (because this builds trust and protects against the cognitive overload/demands of assimilating a system outside of play - this is my best Steelman and I totally understand this), collectively remember it, and then re-deploy this same usage downstream when this conflict archetype comes up again?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Only if the rules make sense in the world. Take another example. Characters not being able to move through each other’s space. In most D&D games, characters take up a 5ft square, completely blocking anyone else from moving through. So if you have two people abreast in a 10ft hallway, no one’s getting through. That’s nonsense in the real world, makes zero sense in any fantasy world, but it’s the rules of the game.




That's likely a better example. I still don't think it's perfect and is actually addressed in the rules; they actually explain that a person obviously does not take up a 5' square, but that this is the area they control in a conflict. I mean, I'm picturing two guards standing at the entrance to a 10 foot hallway and trying to imagine exactly how I'd be able to get by them if they didn't want me to do so. I'd have to engage them in some way. Knowing this as a player reflects what my character would know. So in that sense, I don't think this is quite as nonsensical as you've painted it.

Why I said this is likely a better example is in how we may adjudicate it. There are rules about shoving a creature, but nothing about diving or rolling through a threatened area as there was in 3.x D&D. So this is an example where there are potentially more modules of rules to deal with in order to represent something that is happening or being attempted in the fiction. 

But the GM can just as easily say something like "Roll a Dex-Acrobatics check versus this enemy's Passive Perception score to see if he is ready for the move and can therefore attack you as you try to pass him." 

Just because there are rules systems doesn't mean that a GM can't come up with something not specifically codified for a specific situation. 

However, I would agree there are likely easier ways for a system to be both visible and flexible enough to be applied in a variety of ways.



overgeeked said:


> Most gamers will dutifully adhere to the rules of the game despite them being nonsense, like the example above. But the FKR mantra “play worlds, not rules” suggest the opposite. The rules of the game must first make sense in the fiction of the played world, if not toss the rules and use ones the don’t break the fantasy, immersion, common sense, etc.




Sure, this is the big benefit that would seem to be offered by FKR. But I think it's also one offered by some OSR games and some narrative games and even, as I just displayed up above, D&D 5e. 

This isn't absent in other games. I agree with you that it could be a problem, but I think it can be addressed in other ways than simply removing awareness of the rules.



overgeeked said:


> The post at the top of the page about FKR being the opposite of BITD in this regard is apt.




I don't know if I entirely agree with that verbatim, but I don't know the context of the original quote. I think Blades is very much a fiction first game. However, when it was designed, I do think that there were elements of the world that were crafted to push play in certain ways, and to let groups decide exactly how things work for themselves. Kind of a simultaneous design of rules and setting more than one coming before the other.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm putting these two together because I didn't get an answer that is helpful to me in my understanding.  You added some caveats here as Snarf did (maybe in this particular conflict the GM knows something that the player doesn't...maybe this "event isn't what the game is about").
> 
> The bottom paragraphs are helpful, however, so thanks for that.
> 
> ...



Whatever the DM decides with absolute deference to the fiction.

You're asking for white room theory about mechanics when the entire point of FKR is to skip over the rules when they get in the way of the fiction. So the only time rules come up is when the situation calls for it. Which is far less than your traditional game. So unless the game is about climbing there's not really a need for rules to adjudicate climbing. Context matters. The caveats you don't want to deal with matter. Is the fiction about climbing? Then there will probably be rules for climbing.

Take two movies as examples. Ghostbusters and Cliffhanger. One is a movie about ghosts...and busting them. The other is an action movie about climbing. If you're playing a Ghostbusters game, climbing rules might be an afterthought at best. If you're playing a Cliffhanger game, climbing rules might be front and center. One FKR mantra is "play worlds, not rules".

Sorry, but your question is missing the forest for the trees.


Manbearcat said:


> 2)  In order for the climbing player to orient themselves to the challenge such that they can navigate a "climbing-coherent decision-point", they _*need*_ some kind of rules structure to buttress that cognitive loop of orientation > navigation decision-point > act that they are undertaking.



No, they don't. The player does not _*need*_ to know what the mechanics are in order to make a decision. The player _*wants*_ to know what the mechanics are *when their character would have no idea* so that the player can *play the game rather than play the world*. The climber might have a rough idea of their chances of climbing the wall. The player doesn't want a rough estimate, they want written in stone rules so they can calculate the odds. "My character has a +6 athletics, the highest reasonable DC would be 20, so I have to roll a 14+/1d20 to make it." While the character is thinking "either I can jump far enough to catch that next handhold or I drop 600ft and die." The climber may have done the same or similar 1000 times, but there's still a chance they'd fall. And the weird thing is, real people do that all the time. Free climbing is a thing people do for fun. The have no idea what the odds of any given climb are, yet they do it. Gamers want more concrete info for a game than real climbers risking their lives to climb.

This is exactly the problem with rules. Players put the rules first. So the rules get in the way of play. Lots of players won't make a decision until they know the rules covering it. Regardless of whether their character would have any idea. Yet people in the real world with no real knowledge of their odds do things that risk their lives every day. Real people risking real life and limb are less risk adverse to gamers playing an elfgame.


Manbearcat said:


> If the FKR GM composes a rules structure that fails to buttress (or perhaps actually does the opposite), what happens?  Does the climber player say "how about x, y, z?"  Is that an episode of "the edifice of trust being established through conversation" or is that an episode of "the situation is fraught and the trust is broken?"



Yes, in FKR games the players are free to make suggestions about modifiers to rolls, when/if rolls are used and if the DM thinks the argument is reasonable.


Manbearcat said:


> Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules?  It seems your answer is either:
> 
> * "negative, next time we encounter a climbing obstacle of consequence we instantiate something else and potentially have another trust establishing/eroding conversation with the climber because there is no encoding of rules in FKR."
> 
> ...



Whatever the DM wants to do. The point isn't to make concrete rules that are collated and eventually cover everything. The point is that context matters more than rules. The fiction matters more than rules. So the circumstances in this session's climb might be wildly different than the circumstances in next session's climb. So rather than be tied to the "rules" established last time, the DM is free to establish "rules" that apply this time. Setting rules in concrete removes the freedom of the DM to take context and circumstance into account and will inevitably elicit the argument "but last time it was X, now it's Y". Yeah. Because this time is different than last time.

You have two options: rules light / DM adjudication that covers everything or an accumulation of rules that eventually lead to massive tomes of rules that try to cover everything. The FKR opts for the former because they recognize that the latter is detrimental. As mentioned, this is a constant tug of war. The FKR simply lets go of the rope, plants its flag in the rules light camp, and refuses to pick up the rope again.

A fairly common "rule set" FKR people use is "if the outcome is uncertain and interesting either way, roll 2d6". That's the whole thing right there. Opposed rolls when necessary, higher roll wins. Climbing, combat, lifting a rock, whatever.

You ask about climbing rules. Roll 2d6. Higher is better; lower is worse. Is your character an expert climber? Maybe roll 3d6 instead of 2d6.

FKR is kind of the extreme end of rules light, fiction first, and DM control. But the DM and players explicitly defer to the fiction. If it doesn't make sense in the fiction, it doesn't matter what the rules say. Throw out those rules that contradict with the fiction. But someone (the DM) has to be the final authority to keep the game moving and not devolve into "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!"

If it makes sense that the smartest young witch of her age could easily slap a curse on the dumbest young wizard of her age, then she does. You don't need rules for that. You don't need to roll for that. A lot of the FKR is about expanding those automatic success rules some games have. You don't need a rule or a roll about walking across a street or opening an unlocked and well-oiled door. Likewise, you don't need rules about climbing unless that's really, really important to the fiction.

Do you remember when Fate and Apocalypse World / Dungeon World were new? Do you remember all the D&D players trying to figure out what these games were about and the endless threads asking questions and demanding answers. And them just not getting it because they couldn't wrap their brains around the shift in perspective? It mostly came down to traditional gamers not grokking the new style. Over time some people did. But not all. FKR is kinda like that. It requires a paradigm shift to really get it. Not everyone is willing or able to make that shift. And that's fine. But demanding trad answers of a non-trad game style isn't going to be very productive.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> If anyone else would like to answer my sincere curiosities (rather than questioning my sincerity and then pointing me at a gigantic pool of essays to suss out my answers), what I'm SINCERELY looking for is answers to the following:




Since you're sincerely asking other people, I'll let them answer you! I always find it helpful to look at what people who are proponents of the game are saying and doing and engage on those terms (and then, if I use a different framework, try to translate it into my framework _instead _of demanding that other people use my preferred framework); YMMV.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> OSR games also rely on GM adjudication and are explicitly a reaction against trad play.  In an OSR game, the dm can design a scenario (like a dungeon), but has no pre-conceived idea of how the players will navigate it.  The players, meanwhile, are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet, but by "tactical infinity" in John Ross' term.  The rulings that the dm has to make are in reaction to players trying something out of the box.  In trad games, there is a story that needs to be told, and a dm can use rulings or illusionism to keep the story going and get to the next beat (I would argue in trad games, combat is the one place players can have agency by referring to the often extensive rules...thus the combat as sport /as war distinction).  So, in terms of dnd specifically, trad and osr share a common lineage with regards to the role of the gm, but to almost opposite effect.  The fkr perspective appears to be mostly something advocated by the osr; trad players if anything want _more_ explicit rules and mechanics to cover every aspect of play.



I'm not seeing where FKR is being limited to constrained set pieces like dungeons that are generated before play agnostic to the characters, but rather as an approach to places where story intrudes.  Like the idea of the sandbox actually being neutral, which I still find somewhat confusing in concept.  If you're stepping outside the confines of a constrained set, then you've diluting the effectiveness of a neutral umpire concept because now the umpire is being forced to generate and adapt setting elements on the fly in response to the action.  Given that one person is now responsible not just for the creation of adversity, but also it's resolution, we've arrived at a Czerge Principle violation from the GM side.  The only thing standing in the way is this claim of neutrality, which breaks down the further you move away from a fully keyed dungeon-style prep.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Its not the existence of Adv/Disadv that is trivial.  Its the deployment of it from first principles is what is trivial (in that its trivially done by gamesmasters and understood by players).  Its been used in many game systems.  TTRPG designers discovered a cognitive hack and have-reused it (5e isn't close to the first game to use it).  The 5e designers didn't have to design Adv/Disadv.  Its been done for a good long while and its stuck because it works.
> 
> Its trivial because it works trivially.
> 
> ...




I don't know the answer to this, in terms of FKR, because I don't know enough about those games other than some things I've read and listened to on the internet.  But I think these questions pertain to OSR games also, in that OSR games rely on gm adjudication and rulings over rules.  So if you are trying to climb a wall...roll your thief % dice?  Roll a 4-6 on a d6?  Roll under dexterity?  Maybe gm decides to do it one way during a session in March, and another way in a session in August.  I would hazard that the FKR-inspired question would be less about what resolution mechanic you use or whether that resolution mechanic is consistent over multiple sessions, and more, does it matter?  OSR blogs are filled with random subsystems, mechanics, and minigames, and I don't think the point is to use all of them, but kind of take and leave them as needed.  On the other hand, these games are not concerned with the gm being able to "disclaim authority" or necessarily with consistency, so if those elements are important, I don't think an OSR (and perhaps by extension, FKR) system would work.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> That's likely a better example. I still don't think it's perfect and is actually addressed in the rules; they actually explain that a person obviously does not take up a 5' square, but that this is the area they control in a conflict. I mean, I'm picturing two guards standing at the entrance to a 10 foot hallway and trying to imagine exactly how I'd be able to get by them if they didn't want me to do so. I'd have to engage them in some way. Knowing this as a player reflects what my character would know. So in that sense, I don't think this is quite as nonsensical as you've painted it.



Nothing is ever perfect. Waiting for a perfect example is deciding to dismiss the conversation. 

Add in the sequence of actions to the mix and make it mostly friendly characters taking up space. According to the rules, you can't have characters shuffle positions. Until there's an unoccupied square to move into, a character cannot move into that square. But two people could easily switch spots in the real world. You and I on line at the movies (wearing masks of course). We can switch spots. We don't have to move 5ft out of line, wait while the other steps into the now unoccupied square, and then move into the new unoccupied square. Put two D&D characters into a 5ft wide, 10ft long space, and they're permanently stuck there. One cannot move into the other's square. But we both know 5ft x 10ft is more than enough room for two people to move around each other. Some apartment kitchens are smaller than that. Yet two people can be in the same kitchen moving around each other freely. It might be cramped, sure. But it's physically possible. But not according to D&D.


hawkeyefan said:


> Why I said this is likely a better example is in how we may adjudicate it. There are rules about shoving a creature, but nothing about diving or rolling through a threatened area as there was in 3.x D&D. So this is an example where there are potentially more modules of rules to deal with in order to represent something that is happening or being attempted in the fiction.



Halflings can move through threatened squares, but not end there. But the DMG has rules for climbing onto other creatures. So apparently our 5ft squares only present when we're on the ground.


hawkeyefan said:


> But the GM can just as easily say something like "Roll a Dex-Acrobatics check versus this enemy's Passive Perception score to see if he is ready for the move and can therefore attack you as you try to pass him."



Sure. But why? Why would it need to be that complex? Why have a rule about it at all? Unless you're talking about a square body, bodies don't take up 5ft of space and prevent others from entering that space. The rules contradict reality so we have to make a choice. Which is more important: adherence to nonsensical rules or not contradicting reality? The FKR player / DM would say not contradicting reality or the fiction of the game. Rules be damned.


hawkeyefan said:


> Just because there are rules systems doesn't mean that a GM can't come up with something not specifically codified for a specific situation.



Right. So since you trust the DM enough to come up with some rules, why not trust the DM to come up with the other rules? I mean, you already trust them enough to not say "rocks fall, everyone dies" so why not trust them to be fair with making the rules. Again, you already trust them to do this?


hawkeyefan said:


> However, I would agree there are likely easier ways for a system to be both visible and flexible enough to be applied in a variety of ways.



System doesn't need to be visible. Players want it to be visible. Those are not the same. Besides, "roll 2d6, higher is better; use opposed rolls when appropriate" is perfectly visible and flexible. So why do we need anything more complex than that?


hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, this is the big benefit that would seem to be offered by FKR. But I think it's also one offered by some OSR games and some narrative games and even, as I just displayed up above, D&D 5e.



Not really.


hawkeyefan said:


> This isn't absent in other games. I agree with you that it could be a problem, but I think it can be addressed in other ways than simply removing awareness of the rules.



Ockham's razor. The simplest solution is the best one. It's simpler to obscure the rules from the players. It's also really freeing as a DM. You should try it. You can run whatever rules you want, you don't have to worry about whether the system is popular or not, or whether the players have bought in or could even understand the system...it doesn't even need to exist in a language the players can read. It's infinitely easier to tell the players to roll the appropriate dice when they need to rather than explain the hodgepodge mess of house rules and variants you're using to get the style of game you want to play.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if I entirely agree with that verbatim, but I don't know the context of the original quote. I think Blades is very much a fiction first game. However, when it was designed, I do think that there were elements of the world that were crafted to push play in certain ways, and to let groups decide exactly how things work for themselves. Kind of a simultaneous design of rules and setting more than one coming before the other.



I haven't played or read much of BITD, so I wouldn't know. I do know enough about FKR to say that the opposite is certainly true of the FKR. Play worlds, not rules.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> OSR games also rely on GM adjudication and are explicitly a reaction against trad play.  In an OSR game, the dm can design a scenario (like a dungeon), but has no pre-conceived idea of how the players will navigate it.  The players, meanwhile, are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet, but by "tactical infinity" in John Ross' term.  The rulings that the dm has to make are in reaction to players trying something out of the box.




The term 'adjudication' is used here, but I think you mean 'invention' The GM invents stuff.

In the original Free Kriegspiel, the referee used their own battle experience to determine how far troops might move, how quickly guns might unlimber, which troops might deploy into line and how far from the enemy. Which might need to form square on their own initiative. These were adjudications based on actual experience.

What actual experience is in play when we need to know how far through a mapped dungeon the sound travels when my flying character hammers a piton into the ceiling? What actual experience is in play to determine what comes to investigate the noise, in what numbers, how quickly, how aggressively?

The answer is none. There's no reference to real experience, there's no basis in fact, or deliberation. Providing answers is just making stuff up, invention, authorship.

Privileging only the GM to do this is what pretty much every D&D game and D&D clone has done since 1974. I don't see the need to give it a new - and fundamentally inaccurate - name.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not seeing where FKR is being limited to constrained set pieces like dungeons that are generated before play agnostic to the characters, but rather as an approach to places where story intrudes.  Like the idea of the sandbox actually being neutral, which I still find somewhat confusing in concept.  If you're stepping outside the confines of a constrained set, then you've diluting the effectiveness of a neutral umpire concept because now the umpire is being forced to generate and adapt setting elements on the fly in response to the action.  Given that one person is now responsible not just for the creation of adversity, but also it's resolution, we've arrived at a Czerge Principle violation from the GM side.  The only thing standing in the way is this claim of neutrality, which breaks down the further you move away from a fully keyed dungeon-style prep.



Going back to that interaction between Mark Diaz Truman and Ben Milton, there was one point where Mark asked how the gm was supposed to disclaim responsibility, because they might both be a fan of the players and want to be true to the fiction.  And Ben's response was that, in osr games at least, it doesn't come up, or no one cares.  I can see both perspectives in that discussion.  I can see the perspective that you need a system that allocates roles and power among all the players, gm included, and allows everyone specific mechanisms for adjudicating uncertainty (and those games don't have to be and are often not really rules heavy).  From that perspective the principles of FKR or even osr games might seem "incoherent" because they lack consistency in practice.  But I can also see that coherence isn't a necessary goal of everyone playing an rpg, and only want to adhere to a principle inasmuch as "figure it out as you go" is a principle.  That is, I'm not sure it would be very worthwhile to play an FKR-style game, and the whole time worrying about whether your game truly follows FKR principles.  It's like the law vs chaos of rpg design (I am neutral).


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I don't know the answer to this, in terms of FKR, because I don't know enough about those games other than some things I've read and listened to on the internet.  But I think these questions pertain to OSR games also, in that OSR games rely on gm adjudication and rulings over rules.  So if you are trying to climb a wall...roll your thief % dice?  Roll a 4-6 on a d6?  Roll under dexterity?  Maybe gm decides to do it one way during a session in March, and another way in a session in August.  I would hazard that the FKR-inspired question would be less about what resolution mechanic you use or whether that resolution mechanic is consistent over multiple sessions, and more, does it matter?  OSR blogs are filled with random subsystems, mechanics, and minigames, and I don't think the point is to use all of them, but kind of take and leave them as needed.  On the other hand, these games are not concerned with the gm being able to "disclaim authority" or necessarily with consistency, so if those elements are important, I don't think an OSR (and perhaps by extension, FKR) system would work.




That is a very helpful post and its the crux of what I'm getting at.

I'm trying to distinguish OSR from FKR in my brain.  

Whereas OSR might generate a lot of subsystems through the course of play (encoding it in the way I depicted above; table defers to GM > GM makes ruling > ruling is either encoded or iterated upon and then encoded), what is FKR doing?  And how does that _doing _work with "its a trust-heavy system."

Is it rulings just get made and there is an intentional absence of encoding happening (meaning, you will, by intent, see variations of resolution across a distribution of the same sort of action/conflict resolution)?

If there is that intentional absence of encoding and deviation of action resolution across a distribution of declared actions/conflicts to resolve, what does "its a trust-heavy system" look like in that scenario?  Is it trust that the GM has sufficient expertise to be able to work out odds of success/fail in a way that is sensible to my own mental model (despite deviation in action/conflict resolution paradigm)?  Is it trust that the GM has the humility to defer to other participants to negotiate these matters when they lack said expertise?  Is it trust that we're all working toward some common goal (eg the GM will enable a play experience of Cosplay My Power Fantasy or Experience the Chilling Environment of a Pogrom or The Thrill of Free Soloing El Capitan) and all efforts poured into this thing will (somehow...even if I can't see it right now?) get there?  What is the trust?


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

chaochou said:


> The term 'adjudication' is used here, but I think you mean 'invention' The GM invents stuff.
> 
> In the original Free Kriegspiel, the referee used their own battle experience to determine how far troops might move, how quickly guns might unlimber, which troops might deploy into line and how far from the enemy. Which might need to form square on their own initiative. These were adjudications based on actual experience.
> 
> ...



Sure--it goes back to the question of how fast a dragon flies.  What rpg system is best for answering this question or providing the means to answer this question?



chaochou said:


> Privileging only the GM to do this is what pretty much every D&D game and D&D clone has done since 1974. I don't see the need to give it a new - and fundamentally inaccurate - name.



I get the sense that a lot of the push-back on here is in response to the way that FKR is being taken up as a label or a kind of reified style of RP.  Fair enough, and maybe the pretentions of some of those bloggers don't match the actual content of their writing.  I'm not sure if anyone here is actually an advocate, per se, of FKR games, so we are not positioned well to answer to this claim.  It doesn't really bother me because ultimately the stakes are so low...it's a handful of bloggers in a niche corner of a niche hobby.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Do you remember when Fate and Apocalypse World / Dungeon World were new? Do you remember all the D&D players trying to figure out what these games were about and the endless threads asking questions and demanding answers. And them just not getting it because they couldn't wrap their brains around the shift in perspective? It mostly came down to traditional gamers not grokking the new style. Over time some people did. But not all. FKR is kinda like that. It requires a paradigm shift to really get it. Not everyone is willing or able to make that shift. And that's fine. But demanding trad answers of a non-trad game style isn't going to be very productive.




Exactly! I think that just reading games like Dark Empires*-









						Dark Empires by D3B4G
					

Intrigue, death, magic in the time of Napoleon. An FKR setting and game.




					d3b4g.itch.io
				




Is more instructive than demanding answers. Either it makes sense, or it doesn't. If it does, that's cool. If it doesn't, I don't think any amount of questions or heated debate will get you closer to epiphany. 


*Playing is even better, but you have to start somewhere. Right?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

To me is quite simple: 
Would I play/run Blades by RAW? Definitely yes. FKR? Probably not. 
B/X, 5e, WFRP4e, PF2, any heavy D100 by RAW? Not really. FKR? Yes. 
AW, pbta FKR? Might give it a try if setting and playbooks are interesting.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Nothing is ever perfect. Waiting for a perfect example is deciding to dismiss the conversation.




Not at all. I'm engaging in the conversation. But I'm going to challenge some of the assertions.



overgeeked said:


> Add in the sequence of actions to the mix and make it mostly friendly characters taking up space. According to the rules, you can't have characters shuffle positions. Until there's an unoccupied square to move into, a character cannot move into that square. But two people could easily switch spots in the real world. You and I on line at the movies (wearing masks of course). We can switch spots. We don't have to move 5ft out of line, wait while the other steps into the now unoccupied square, and then move into the new unoccupied square. Put two D&D characters into a 5ft wide, 10ft long space, and they're permanently stuck there. One cannot move into the other's square. But we both know 5ft x 10ft is more than enough room for two people to move around each other. Some apartment kitchens are smaller than that. Yet two people can be in the same kitchen moving around each other freely. It might be cramped, sure. But it's physically possible. But not according to D&D.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Halflings can move through threatened squares, but not end there. But the DMG has rules for climbing onto other creatures. So apparently our 5ft squares only present when we're on the ground.




You could have one of the two ready an action to swap places with the other on that PCs turn. And while yes, two people can maneuver around each other in a kitchen while cooking, we might look at that differently if the two of them were trying to kill one another.

But that is beside the point. I agree with you that some of the rules in D&D are needlessly complex. Or suffer from a purely game based turn structure being applied to them.

I don't think it's the problem that we're disagreeing about so much as what to do about the problem.



overgeeked said:


> Sure. But why? Why would it need to be that complex? Why have a rule about it at all? Unless you're talking about a square body, bodies don't take up 5ft of space and prevent others from entering that space. The rules contradict reality so we have to make a choice. Which is more important: adherence to nonsensical rules or not contradicting reality? The FKR player / DM would say not contradicting reality or the fiction of the game. Rules be damned.




I think this is likely where we may see the true failing of this FKR approach. I don't think that it's unrealistic at all to assume two people standing in a 10 foot doorway can stop someone from moving through. I'm not saying it would be impossible....but I don't think the idea "contradicts reality".

But, if you said to me anyone can freely move through that space without consequence, I'd say that's a better example of contradicting reality. Still not total contradiction, though....because there's potentially lots of factors at play that would make it more or less likely.

This is why there are rules.

We have something that informs the skill of the two guards, we have something that informs the skill of the person trying to get past them, we may have something about the terrain or surface or other environmental factor. These things affect the chances.

Not sharing them with the players seems more about freeing the GM up to just make stuff up on the spot. Which may be fine....we all do this occasionally. But as an overall default approach it doesn't seem to lend itself to consistency.

I've seen "high-trust" be mentioned a lot and while I understand why it has been, I don't quite see it that way. It's more about "high-acceptance" of the GM's determinations rather than ever understanding things fully as a player.



overgeeked said:


> Right. So since you trust the DM enough to come up with some rules, why not trust the DM to come up with the other rules? I mean, you already trust them enough to not say "rocks fall, everyone dies" so why not trust them to be fair with making the rules. Again, you already trust them to do this?




Because there's no need to put that all on them? The more you put on them, the more that trust is tested, and the more likely they'll fail at some point. Which hey, we all do from time to time no matter what game, but I don't see the need to open it up so much. Especially not for a payoff that I'm not really convinced is of much use.



overgeeked said:


> System doesn't need to be visible. Players want it to be visible. Those are not the same. Besides, "roll 2d6, higher is better; use opposed rolls when appropriate" is perfectly visible and flexible. So why do we need anything more complex than that?




Well, I want rules to be visible as a GM as well. And I didn't say they needed to be....I said a system could be both visible and flexible. So you offered an example of one that is both. So I guess we agree here?

I'm not arguing in favor of complexity.



overgeeked said:


> Not really.




Sure it is. The drawback with having codified rules in the context of FKR is that the players may get into the habit of engaging the rules rather than the fiction that the rules are meant to represent. But that's not always a problem, and when it is, there are other ways to solve it. And allowing for GM judgment to be used when the rules are either silent on something or else actively create a strange situation is not something unique to FKR. It's present to some degree in just about every RPG I can think of.




overgeeked said:


> Ockham's razor. The simplest solution is the best one. It's simpler to obscure the rules from the players.




That's a pretty bold assertion. Most players I know actively want to understand the rules.



overgeeked said:


> It's also really freeing as a DM. You should try it. You can run whatever rules you want, you don't have to worry about whether the system is popular or not, or whether the players have bought in or could even understand the system...it doesn't even need to exist in a language the players can read. It's infinitely easier to tell the players to roll the appropriate dice when they need to rather than explain the hodgepodge mess of house rules and variants you're using to get the style of game you want to play.




Or find a system that basically achieves this without the need to obscure it from the players? That'd be my preference. And I have played in this way at a few points in my RPG career....we never would have called it FKR, but my group definitely played a few games with as little knowledge on the players' part as possible. It added a little something here and there....uncertainty and similar.....but not enough to justify.



overgeeked said:


> I haven't played or read much of BITD, so I wouldn't know. I do know enough about FKR to say that the opposite is certainly true of the FKR. Play worlds, not rules.




Well, a few of the games on the FKR list that was shared incorporated elements of Blades, so that's interesting. Blades is very much about fiction first, and works in a way that pretty much allows a player to declare any conceivable action for their PC in the same way that FKR seems to want. Then the GM has to use their judgment to determine the level of risk and potential consequences for failure, and then the dice are used to determine success.

So in my opinion, the core mechanic of Blades largely does exactly what FKR sets out to do. But it does so in a way that actively involves the player and is fully transparent to all the participants at the table.

I don't think they're nearly the opposites that you seem to think.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Exactly! I think that just reading games like Dark Empires*-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See...it's weird. Because, for me, all I'd want is the pitch. I wouldn't want the actual game. Unless I needed to use it to get the players on board and our ideas of what we're about to do lined up. "Intrigue, death, magic in the time of Napoleon" is enough to get off the ground and go. 

Interesting subtopic. The link to the game has a link to d66kobolds' FKR design challenge, which includes the line:

"You've met a person, right? How do you talk to them? Now talk to a person inside of a game in the same way."

It's like that. "But what are the rules for interacting with shopkeepers?" "Have you met a shopkeeper? How did you talk to them? Now talk to the shopkeeper inside the game the same way." 

It's all like that. Tell the DM what you're doing. Let them worry about the rest.

Total aside. Holy gods do I hate the illegible death metal font the FKR movement picked. Gods I hate that. It's the ugliest damned thing.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> See...it's weird. Because, for me, all I'd want is the pitch. I wouldn't want the actual game. Unless I needed to use it to get the players on board and our ideas of what we're about to do lined up. "Intrigue, death, magic in the time of Napoleon" is enough to get off the ground and go.




Agreed- but I think it's helpful to see what the "game" looks like. But yeah, the point is that you really don't need the "game" to play the game. 



overgeeked said:


> Interesting subtopic. The link to the game has a link to d66kobolds' FKR design challenge, which includes the line:
> 
> "You've met a person, right? How do you talk to them? Now talk to a person inside of a game in the same way."
> 
> ...




Exactly. But then you get into the morass of issues that arise when you have heuristic and informal rules of decision making. This either makes sense, or doesn't make sense. And for some people, it requires ... formal rules. Plus ca change! 



overgeeked said:


> Total aside. Holy gods do I hate the illegible death metal font the FKR movement picked. Gods I hate that. It's the ugliest damned thing.




Heh! Yeah, that's, um, hmmm. 

Anyway, I think it's interesting as an approach; it's basically just another iteration of "free play" but with some more philosophy and a truly ugly font behind it. I mean, you can start using all sorts of fancy verbiage (But wait, does this mean that we have unexpected emergence?) but it's just another fun approach to gaming, after all is said and done.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Exactly! I think that just reading games like Dark Empires*-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the tip. I had skimmed before over the entries at J. Parkin's blog, but now this one is a candidate for our Christmas session between old friends, if it will end up with me gming.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> It's like that. "But what are the rules for interacting with shopkeepers?" "Have you met a shopkeeper? How did you talk to them? Now talk to the shopkeeper inside the game the same way."
> 
> It's all like that. Tell the DM what you're doing. Let them worry about the rest.
> 
> Total aside. Holy gods do I hate the illegible death metal font the FKR movement picked. Gods I hate that. It's the ugliest damned thing.



that reminds me that this thread refers to another thread that in turn refers to another thread about whether mechanics for social encounters are needed.  And here too I can understand the perspective that 'system matters,' and that there are certain games that integrate various kinds of social mechanics into their core rules, OR that you can get by, in a game like dnd, in having social-centric sessions where no, or very few, dice are rolled.  I wonder: is the social "pillar" of dnd 5e effectively a fkr-style game?  Really the only structure it has are charisma checks with soft DCs; it's basically, roll a d20, roll high, and the gm interprets and adjusts in response (I think in dmg there is a structure sort of similar to position/effect that I'm sure very few people use).   The gm, meanwhile, is entrusted to play the (social) world accurately and without bias, and this basically seems to work for people?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> You could have one of the two ready an action to swap places with the other on that PCs turn. And while yes, two people can maneuver around each other in a kitchen while cooking, we might look at that differently if the two of them were trying to kill one another.



Not RAW. Unless there's an empty 5ft space to move into they cannot move.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think this is likely where we may see the true failing of this FKR approach. I don't think that it's unrealistic at all to assume two people standing in a 10 foot doorway can stop someone from moving through. I'm not saying it would be impossible....but I don't think the idea "contradicts reality".



It's the added context you're putting in that makes the difference. In D&D any two people standing in that 10ft hallway with any intentions at all (friendly, neutral, or hostile) completely block the path. That contradicts reality. Likewise, that a 6ft human with a 16' shoulder span completely fills a 5ft square is kinda contradictory to reality as well. Just saying.


hawkeyefan said:


> But, if you said to me anyone can freely move through that space without consequence, I'd say that's a better example of contradicting reality. Still not total contradiction, though....because there's potentially lots of factors at play that would make it more or less likely.
> 
> This is why there are rules.



Right. So those factors would need to be taken into account. But they're not in games like D&D. The default of system games is to check the game. Then either try to match that to reality or house rule away the contradictions. The FKR approach is start with reality and make any rules as necessary to cover the situation. Smoother, cleaner, and easier. Fewer steps, too. It's only years of playing games and internalizing their systems that hang us up. The rules get in the way of the world.


hawkeyefan said:


> We have something that informs the skill of the two guards, we have something that informs the skill of the person trying to get past them, we may have something about the terrain or surface or other environmental factor. These things affect the chances.



Again, it's not about their skill. According to D&D, medium-sized creatures full occupy a 5ft space and unless the creature is favorably disposed to you, it's literally impossible for you to move into or through their space. The reads to me like someone who's literally never thrown a punch or ever been punched wrote those rules. It's laughably unrealistic.


hawkeyefan said:


> Not sharing them with the players seems more about freeing the GM up to just make stuff up on the spot. Which may be fine....we all do this occasionally. But as an overall default approach it doesn't seem to lend itself to consistency.



So what? Life isn't consistent. The real world isn't consistent. Things that work on Tuesday don't always work on Wednesday.


hawkeyefan said:


> I've seen "high-trust" be mentioned a lot and while I understand why it has been, I don't quite see it that way. It's more about "high-acceptance" of the GM's determinations rather than ever understanding things fully as a player.



That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference. FKR play isn't about the player "understanding things fully". That's not part of the style. It's almost the opposite of the style. The point of FKR isn't to be arbitrary and random, rather to model the fiction as well as possible. The character doesn't understand things fully. The player doesn't understand things fully. Things change. Circumstances change. The DM learns more about the fiction. Sticking with a rule made a few sessions ago due to some silly adherence to consistency is anathema to FKR. For example, after the last session the DM read up on climbing and realized they made a mistake. You can either: continue to be wrong but consistent or change the rules and be closer to being right. Just know that you'll never be perfectly right as the DM. And don't expect the DM to be perfectly right as a player and you're golden.


hawkeyefan said:


> Because there's no need to put that all on them? The more you put on them, the more that trust is tested, and the more likely they'll fail at some point.



So what? We're all human. Even the people who wrote the game systems you want to defer to. They're just people, too. They fail. Sometimes their systems fail. So why open yourself up to someone else's potential failures? What's the payoff? Consistency? Emerson had a quote about that.


hawkeyefan said:


> Which hey, we all do from time to time no matter what game, but I don't see the need to open it up so much. Especially not for a payoff that I'm not really convinced is of much use.



So instead of talking about it here why not try running or playing an FKR game? Talking to me isn't going to convince you.


hawkeyefan said:


> That's a pretty bold assertion. Most players I know actively want to understand the rules.



I'm completely aware. But they want to understand the rules so they can _game_ them. 









						Annoyingly, Players Like To Optimize The Fun Out Of A Game
					

Designers should take precautions that encourage players to have a more enjoyable gaming experience and that save gamers from themselves.




					www.thegamer.com
				







hawkeyefan said:


> Or find a system that basically achieves this without the need to obscure it from the players? That'd be my preference. And I have played in this way at a few points in my RPG career....we never would have called it FKR, but my group definitely played a few games with as little knowledge on the players' part as possible. It added a little something here and there....uncertainty and similar.....but not enough to justify.



For you. For me it was liberating and amazing. The players just did what their characters would do rather than trying to find all the nooks and crannies and cracks in the game system to exploit them.


hawkeyefan said:


> Well, a few of the games on the FKR list that was shared incorporated elements of Blades, so that's interesting. Blades is very much about fiction first, and works in a way that pretty much allows a player to declare any conceivable action for their PC in the same way that FKR seems to want. Then the GM has to use their judgment to determine the level of risk and potential consequences for failure, and then the dice are used to determine success.
> 
> So in my opinion, the core mechanic of Blades largely does exactly what FKR sets out to do. But it does so in a way that actively involves the player and is fully transparent to all the participants at the table.
> 
> I don't think they're nearly the opposites that you seem to think.



Again, I never played BITD and I've only read a very little of it. I quoted someone else and commented that FKR is the opposite of what I quoted. That wasn't a claim on my part about BITD.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> that reminds me that this thread refers to another thread that in turn refers to another thread about whether mechanics for social encounters are needed.  And here too I can understand the perspective that 'system matters,' and that there are certain games that integrate various kinds of social mechanics into their core rules, OR that you can get by, in a game like dnd, in having social-centric sessions where no, or very few, dice are rolled.  I wonder: is the social "pillar" of dnd 5e effectively a fkr-style game?  Really the only structure it has are charisma checks with soft DCs; it's basically, roll a d20, roll high, and the gm interprets and adjusts in response (I think in dmg there is a structure sort of similar to position/effect that I'm sure very few people use).   The gm, meanwhile, is entrusted to play the (social) world accurately and without bias, and this basically seems to work for people?



I wouldn't say so. There's a lot of player-facing mechanics between the fiction and the DM.

An FKR D&D wouldn't have those mechanics at all or they'd be behind the DM's Screen.

The player's side of things would be:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. *The players describe what they want their characters to do. *
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Everything else would be in the DM's hands. Players would know things like their character is considered charming by some but not others. Their character spends a lot of time carousing. And the like. But they wouldn't know or need to know if they have a 16 or 18 CHA and they'd know they have some training in charm, but not +8 instead of +6, for example.

Honestly, the above three-point text *is* a complete FKR game on its own. You could run it rules light with just a 2d6 for everything or you could run it full RAW 5E but keep everything behind the screen. And note how there's nothing about a setting in those three points. You could run it straight D&D fantasy, slapstick sitcom, or space horror a la Alien.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I wouldn't say so. There's a lot of player-facing mechanics between the fiction and the DM.
> 
> An FKR D&D wouldn't have those mechanics at all or they'd be behind the DM's Screen.
> 
> ...



That makes sense, although I don't thing there's a need for a screen except to keep the players in the fiction


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> That makes sense, although I don't thing there's a need for a screen except to keep the players in the fiction



Sure. I used it in the sense of keeping it for the DM to deal with rather than the players, not necessarily a literal, physical screen at the table.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 4, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Not RAW. Unless there's an empty 5ft space to move into they cannot move.




I think that requires a specific interpretation of the rules....but I don't think debating this any more is really relevant, so I'll move on.



overgeeked said:


> It's the added context you're putting in that makes the difference. In D&D any two people standing in that 10ft hallway with any intentions at all (friendly, neutral, or hostile) completely block the path. That contradicts reality. Likewise, that a 6ft human with a 16' shoulder span completely fills a 5ft square is kinda contradictory to reality as well. Just saying.




Why would you even be using the rules and grid if it was not combat? I disagree that in the world of the fiction, two friendly people standing in a 10 foot doorway block me from passing by. The rules are only for use when there is doubt. If there's no doubt, then no need to invoke the rules at all. 

And the person occupying a 5 foot space is again about the space they control during combat. It's totally irrelevant outside of combat. 



overgeeked said:


> Right. So those factors would need to be taken into account. But they're not in games like D&D. The default of system games is to check the game. Then either try to match that to reality or house rule away the contradictions. The FKR approach is start with reality and make any rules as necessary to cover the situation. Smoother, cleaner, and easier. Fewer steps, too. It's only years of playing games and internalizing their systems that hang us up. The rules get in the way of the world.




It very much depends on the game. I like D&D just fine, but I have plenty of criticisms of it....but even this is something I think is easily handled. The PC has a relevant stat and maybe a skill, the NPC has a relevant stat and maybe a skill. Oh, the floor is rough and rocky, so not really conducive to sliding past the guards....opposed rolls and the PC has disadvantage on his roll. 

This is literally the same kind of thing that FKR would come up with, except (I think, I'm not quite sure) he wouldn't tell the player what anyone was rolling or what was being added, or why the player had to roll twice. 

Again, I'm not against a GM using their judgment, or against simplifying a rules system to be smoother and cleaner. I'm against the part where it's somehow deemed better to not share these things with the player.



overgeeked said:


> Again, it's not about their skill. According to D&D, medium-sized creatures full occupy a 5ft space and unless the creature is favorably disposed to you, it's literally impossible for you to move into or through their space. The reads to me like someone who's literally never thrown a punch or ever been punched wrote those rules. It's laughably unrealistic.




Your argument seems to be that rules cannot be bent or reconsidered in any way, and can only be abandoned. 

If a player in a D&D game said to me "I want to get past these guards" I'd ask him how he planned to do that, and then I'd come up with something and explain to him what it was. 




overgeeked said:


> So what? Life isn't consistent. The real world isn't consistent. Things that work on Tuesday don't always work on Wednesday.




Well, FKR is about trust and that comes from consistently applied judgment. If it's raining on Wednesday then sure, something may be harder than it was on Tuesday. But if there aren't really any different factors, then I would expect things to be consistent. The doubt, if there is any, should be represented by the dice, not the GM's whim or indifference.



overgeeked said:


> That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference. FKR play isn't about the player "understanding things fully". That's not part of the style. It's almost the opposite of the style. The point of FKR isn't to be arbitrary and random, rather to model the fiction as well as possible. The character doesn't understand things fully. The player doesn't understand things fully. Things change. Circumstances change. The DM learns more about the fiction. Sticking with a rule made a few sessions ago due to some silly adherence to consistency is anathema to FKR. For example, after the last session the DM read up on climbing and realized they made a mistake. You can either: continue to be wrong but consistent or change the rules and be closer to being right. Just know that you'll never be perfectly right as the DM. And don't expect the DM to be perfectly right as a player and you're golden.




I would argue that a player's understanding of the fiction can be very different than that of the GM. 

And the downplay of consistency here is surprising considering the actual point of Free Kriegsspiel in wargames.



overgeeked said:


> So what? We're all human. Even the people who wrote the game systems you want to defer to. They're just people, too. They fail. Sometimes their systems fail. So why open yourself up to someone else's potential failures? What's the payoff? Consistency? Emerson had a quote about that.




I don't know what this means. I'm not calling on consistency for the sake of consistency. 




overgeeked said:


> So instead of talking about it here why not try running or playing an FKR game? Talking to me isn't going to convince you.




I've played a couple of them. I'm not asking anyone to convince me of anything. I'm asking about what makes this movement different from others. 

So far, all I've managed to figure out is that no one is committed strongly enough to actually explain, and consistency is right out.



overgeeked said:


> I'm completely aware. But they want to understand the rules so they can _game_ them.




That may be a motivation for some players, or may be a motivation at times. Do you actually think it's the only reason? 




overgeeked said:


> Annoyingly, Players Like To Optimize The Fun Out Of A Game
> 
> 
> Designers should take precautions that encourage players to have a more enjoyable gaming experience and that save gamers from themselves.
> ...




Yeah, I saw this when it was last posted. I get the idea. There's nothing I hate more than players turtling with their characters. It makes for boring play. So I agree with that part of the video, and with that general goal (if it is one?) of the FKR.



overgeeked said:


> For you. For me it was liberating and amazing. The players just did what their characters would do rather than trying to find all the nooks and crannies and cracks in the game system to exploit them.




That's great. I don't know if I would find it to be that. I think when this problem rears its head at my group's table...which when it does is almost always when playing D&D as opposed to other games....we handle it in other ways. 

I think I view this idea of removing player knowledge of rules as a scorched earth kind of approach.



overgeeked said:


> Again, I never played BITD and I've only read a very little of it. I quoted someone else and commented that FKR is the opposite of what I quoted. That wasn't a claim on my part about BITD.




Well you said the opposite is true of FKR games.....and I don't think that's the case.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 4, 2021)

So far, what I'm taking that the guiding principles of the FKR movement are simply to give the GM complete authority.  Everything else is negotiable, it seems, as there's hide stuff from the players alongside seek consensus and be consistent and trustworthy in adjudication alongside try not to use the same adjudication method too often and consistency is not a goal.  At the end of all of this, I still don't know what distinguishes FKR except that it's all about maximizing GM authority.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 5, 2021)

I read Dark Empires.  Interesting.  These are my takeaways:

* Its mostly unstructured freeform with encoded GMing and player best practices and principles.

* Where there is structure, it is comparatively lithe.  I typically call non-agenda/principles rules (the integration of action/conflict resolution mechanics + PC build mechanics + incentive structures) "the system's say."  "The system's say" in this game is extremely lean.  For instances, let us say something like Apocalypse World had the following zero sum "say" spread for system, MC, and players; 3 / 3 / 4.  My takeaway from reading Dark Empires (and if I were to run it based on this document) would be the following zero sum "say spread for system, GM, and players; 1 / 6 / 3.  

In other words, a lot of "say" has been removed from system, some say has been removed from players, and the GM's say has been increased significantly.

* There will be a "skilled play" factor for players that increases with exposure to the GM's interpretation and attendant manifestation of many things fiction + action resolution/gamestate consequence; the ficklness/subtlety/dangerousness of magic, what double-crosses/duplicity looks like and how well and through what means it can be sussed out, how stealth and deception work in moving the trajectory of play, how effective gear is in any move made and how burdensome it is, how hardy and capable a PC is in dealing with physical threats and how that threat scaling works.  

If you want to look at it like Blades in the Dark Position and Effect or Aliens Degrees of Success/Failure/Panic, the GM has to derive this through play and map these concepts onto degrees of success.  The players then have to model this for subsequent orientation to obstacles and their attendant action declarations downstream of their exposure to the GM's adjudication of these things.  In theory, this should allow players to improve over time in their inferences of their PC's orientation to elements within the fiction and what any given action declaration > resolution > consequence loop might look like.  

This is how living creatures with neurological systems work.  They poke and prod at their environment in order to build up a sufficient model to make predictions and improve their confidence in their OODA Loop.  In their endocrine system has its say.  Going into the first session of play with a GM, the predictive capacity of any given player's model won't be terribly high.  As exposure to GM and game conceits increases, that predictive capacity should (in theory) increase in some proportion.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I read Dark Empires.  Interesting.  These are my takeaways:
> 
> * Its mostly unstructured freeform with encoded GMing and player best practices and principles.
> 
> ...



Shorter form?  The system is mostly all Bob says, and skilled play is learning how to play Bob?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

So, I read the game.  I find that it's interesting that there's more space dedicated to charts that don't really matter to how the games plays than discussion about the core conceits, principles, or agenda of play.  And that the resolution method is Bob says unless it's especially risky or unlikely to succeed, then it's a ~40% chance to succeed?  Honestly, the largest problem I have is that the game leaves so much up in the air for the GM to determine how things happen while encouraging players to lean into some source material -- the issue here is that I can lean hard on this source material but if the GM hasn't or doesn't like that particular bit of material, I'm just straight out hosed for doing what the game told me should work.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a partial solution, at best, though, because it doesn't at all really inform the player what the odds of success are.  This doesn't need to be specific, but there the character could probably determine how likely success would be in this action because they have the understanding of their abilities, experience in actual combat situations, and at least a reasonable idea of how skilled their opponent is.  So, yes, you can as a GM just leverage these kinds of tests, but this doesn't really root the decision in the fiction when you do so -- the arbitration is not well situated with the understanding the character might have.
> 
> This is, of course, an argument for clear stakes and odds



That will depend more on further details.

Eg in Prince Valiant the player will know what their Brawn+Agility pool is, and if the NPC whom they're opposing has already acted then the player probably knows theirs too. And the general rule for stakes in Prince Valiant is that they're low - by default it's rather light-hearted, and there is an express statement that PC death isn't normally an important part of the game.

Moving beyond the FKR notion however that's meant to be orthodoxly understood, I think part of the logic of a lighter system like Prince Valiant or even Classic Traveller is that these resolution methods are relatively intuitive - even in some cases self-evident - to everyone involved. Whereas (say) 4e D&D has to scaffold that intuition with more system infrastructure like the p 42 damage charts, and the correlation of ad hoc conditions with action economy that Wrecan published on the WotC website - because the system (by design) has a large number of intricate and interacting moving parts and mucking them up will spoil the experience.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 5, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, I read the game.  I find that it's interesting that there's more space dedicated to charts that don't really matter to how the games plays than discussion about the core conceits, principles, or agenda of play.  And that the resolution method is Bob says unless it's especially risky or unlikely to succeed, then it's a ~40% chance to succeed?  Honestly, the largest problem I have is that the game leaves so much up in the air for the GM to determine how things happen while encouraging players to lean into some source material -- the issue here is that I can lean hard on this source material but if the GM hasn't or doesn't like that particular bit of material, I'm just straight out hosed for doing what the game told me should work.




Agreed.  

What's more, a spread for a game like that (1 System Say / 6 GM Say / 3 Player Say) isn't actually Zero Sum.  I was just using it for illustration. 

The "boots on the ground" reality is that a GM Facing game with very low System Say serves to reduce Player Say while the inverse is also true; a Table Facing game with higher System Say serves to amplify Player Say.

So in reality, a 1 / 6 / 3 game is actually more like 1 / 6 / 2 (or even 1.5) at the outset.  As any particular GM : Player matrix gains more exposure/traction in a game, however, this reducing effect will throttle back until it becomes a positive feedback loop (therefore becoming amplifying)  This is because the GM Facing aspect of play will turn into Table Facing as (in theory) the GM's Say will effectively morph into the System's Say as the predictive capacity of a player's model improves with exposure; the "System's Say" here being (Bob) the GM.  Learn and internalize (Bob) the GM's model and predilections and your (Player's) Say may increase from 1.5 to 2 to 2.5 to 3 and onward; "Skilled Play."


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2021)

Allow me a thought experiment, and see if it makes sense. 

Let's pretend you (I mean you and your group) are so in love with the Duskvol setting, after playing Blades a lot, that you want to explore it from every angle possible, maybe even expand on the lore. 

You decide to liberally make any type of character that comes to mind, regardless of status and importance, and play them as well in any situation you want. 

While hacking the character's sheet in order to accomodate this, you realize what's really needed is a name, a role in the setting, maybe a brief description, anything else comes up in play; flashbacks are a thing, after all. 

Since characters & situations are so disparate, you prefer to let go of the game structure, as you can blend those phases of play instinctively, and opt for a simpler resolution mechanic, rolling an appropriate bunch of D6s when you feel it's about time, consequences being adjudicated, case by case, by the Gm, after discussion, of course, detailed as the moment demands. Stress no longer a thing. 

Maybe new people are introduced to the game, it becomes an open table, or the players have so many PCs each, that you find more convenient the Gm just rolls an x-in-6 single D6 resolution, when needed and quickly go back to the fiction. 

Eventually a battle royale between major Pc and Npc factions occurs, PvPvGm, and you decide big dice pools are now deployed to represent the various assets at their disposal, and go further assigning dice to anything else will play a factor in a given situation. Rolls are now opposed in a manner straight from Risk. 

All hell breaks loose. Situations not directly involved in the ongoing clashes are resolved how the Gm sees fit. 
In the aftermath you spend the next sessions, basically roleplaying freeform, discussing, bargaining, re-organizing the new status quo, if any, in the setting. 

Time to make new characters, new blood in town, all members of a small enterprise with great ambition. This time you want to fine detail their abilities, possessions and connections before play begins...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.  

I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.

I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> As a player, I quite often lack knowledge relevant to the situation my character finds themselves in, especially in relation to determining stakes and odds.  I, for instance, have no experience with picking locks, but my character might, so my knowledge is not terribly useful here for determining stakes.  So this can be done a few ways -- the game can provide me with this information based on how it resolves conflicts (ie, stats, skills, resolution methods, etc) so that I can make an informed decision this way despite my lack of actual experience with picking locks (the system's say).  Or, the game might use consensus building, where we discuss it at the table and find a way forward for this conflict by establishing stakes and building out a shared knowledge of the situation (the table's say).  Or, it might just say that Bob says what happens and I don't have any way to gain knowledge because it's not shared (the GM's say).  Or, it might be that the player just gets to declare what happens here (the player's say).  Or, it could use some combination of the three.  So, without additional clarity on what you mean by player knowledge here, I don't have an answer for you.



I'm not @Numidius, but I do have my own thoughts on this.

I think you can guess how I'd handle this in 4e (DC-by-level chart; Thievery skill; etc) - if part of a skill challenge, then success or failure also trigger obligations on the GM to reframe/advance the situation as appropriate to both (i) reflect the outcome and (ii) keep the challenge alive (assuming it wasn't the final check). Burning Wheel is rather similar except that it uses an "objective" DC chart. Neither of these tell us much about FKR, though.

In Cthulhu Dark, the rule is to build a pool: 1 die of it's humanly possible (which picking a lock is), 1 die if it's within your sphere of occupational expertise (in my experience this is sometimes obvious and sometimes needs a bit of table discussion to settle it) and 1 die if you risk your sanity. The higher the roll, the better the outcome. If there is a chance of failure (which at our table is normally the GM's decision unless another PC is opposing) you fail if you don't beat the single die rolled to establish the opposition. What the precise outcomes are is established by the GM's narration following from the fiction and having regard to how high roll was and whether it was success or failure. I gather this is supposed to be somewhat closer to FKR. A bit like AW, the player's sense of odds and stakes is informed by their knowledge of the fiction and the resolution framework rather than any real-world understanding of how to pick locks.

In Classic Traveller, the action resolution framework is a bit more ad hoc and requires the table to bring in a few assumptions and make a few inferences. There are places where the rules call for Electronics and Mechanical checks, and PCs have expertise in these skills, and the equipment list includes toolkits and lockpicks, so we can infer that technical endeavours sometimes require checks. This is reinforced by some general discussion of how the referee might set checks and apply mods for availability (or not) of tools, for the PC's stats, etc. I tend to default to 10+ if it sounds tricky, and somewhere between 6+ and 8+ if it sounds easy to a bit hard, with mods for expertise (+1 per level) and the odd stat mod (say, +1 if a relevant stat is 9+). The players can't easily work out the odds until the throw has been called for; but then in Classic Traveller there is no investment in PC building and no player currency to spend on checks, so the moderate ignorance doesn't really disempower anyone. I think this is supposed to be close to FKR.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I think an FKR perspective is to look at the above and notice, that for all the mechanics and rules involved in the above, you are basically rolling a die and interpreting the results.  We could even go through an exercise of looking at different games and evaluating their lock picking rules from a G-N-S perspective (which rules lead to fun and streamlined gameplay?  Which are most realistic? Which is most suitable for the kind of story we are collaboratively telling).



On this, I agree very much with @Ovinomancer that noting that all roll dice and interpret results doesn't take us very far. Rolling to disarm a trap on a chest in a classic D&D module is pretty different - in terms of how it flows from the fiction and feeds back into it - from when, in my Classic Traveller game, a player had to make an Electronics throw to determine whether his PC could modify a communicator to use it to jam a signal between a spotter and a ship in orbit that was blasting away at the PCs' ATV.

In classic D&D, the attempt uses a turn in an action economy (based around light sources, wandering monsters, etc); and determines whether or not the PCs (i) lose hp, which are hard to recover within that action economy framewor, and (ii) gain treasure, which is the main source of XP.

In our Traveller game, there is no action economy, and no reward at stake. There is no puzzle to be solved. If the check fails, then we have a situation in which the spotter continues to call down fire - and we just move on from there. The contrast would be with the evasion rolls to avoid fire, which are located within a tight resolution structure (I used the system found under the Ship's Boat rules in Book 1, generalising it to all attempts to evade fire in a vehicle).



overgeeked said:


> It’s a misunderstanding of FKR to think it rejects all rules at all times. The rules must conform to and support the fiction. If not, dump the rules that don’t. In FKR the DM is the rules. But the DM‘s rules, rulings, decisions should conform to the fictional world being presented.



I don't really see how _the rules must conform to and support the fiction_ gets us to _the DM is the rules_. I mean, that first thing is true of any good RPG. But it gets us to systems as varied as Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller - and none of them are _the DM is the rules_.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.
> 
> I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.
> 
> I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.




I referenced this earlier-



> To use an example that has been bandied about for a while, the rule-lite version of Cthulhu Dark makes this continuum explicit (here, "Keeper" = GM)-
> 
> _Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail?
> Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.
> ...




I don't have the actual answer, but I do think it's instructive and interesting that people likely find the major point of differentiation in the formal allocation of authority.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.
> 
> I haven’t played the full version that was kickstarted not long ago, just the very slim version that had previously been released. I think I grabbed it because @pemerton has mentioned it often.
> 
> I’ve played it a couple of times. I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.



I don't see it as falling in FKR because it has a required resolution system that's table facing.  I mean, I've only read that free version, but that's how that works as I read it -- you roll when you try to do things that are important.  It's not the GM says what happens but could ask you to roll, if they want.  This, as far as this thread has convinced me, makes CD a non-FKR game.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I referenced this earlier-
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the actual answer, but I do think it's instructive and interesting that people likely find the major point of differentiation in the formal allocation of authority.




Have you played the game at all? 

I get that the core mechanic is light enough to be applied in a variety of ways....it works for just about any action declaration that a player may make for a character.....so in that sense, it feels like it fits into the idea of "play worlds, not rules". But the mechanics are entirely player facing, which seems against some of the comments posed in this thread. 

To take one element of the game, there's the bit where if you get into a confrontation with a mythos creature, you die. This was something that made my group pause, but I convinced them to try the game anyway. I can't imagine how the game or the experience would be improved by not sharing this rule with them. If one of the PCs attempted to directly attack or engage a mythos creature, and I simply said "Oh okay....yeah, it eats you" I don't see how that's a better option. 

I see the rules as written as informing them of the reality of the fictional world, and which gives them information that will inform how they make decisions as players. 

I don't see this awareness as "playing the rules"; do you?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Have you played the game at all?




No, of course not. I only mention it regularly and easily cite to its provisions.

That's a productive way to start a conversation! 


hawkeyefan said:


> I get that the core mechanic is light enough to be applied in a variety of ways....it works for just about any action declaration that a player may make for a character.....so in that sense, it feels like it fits into the idea of "play worlds, not rules". But the mechanics are entirely player facing, which seems against some of the comments posed in this thread.
> 
> To take one element of the game, there's the bit where if you get into a confrontation with a mythos creature, you die. This was something that made my group pause, but I convinced them to try the game anyway. I can't imagine how the game or the experience would be improved by not sharing this rule with them. If one of the PCs attempted to directly attack or engage a mythos creature, and I simply said "Oh okay....yeah, it eats you" I don't see how that's a better option.
> 
> ...




I think you are confusing a lot of different things here. But to simplify- if you think that the ruleset of Cthulhu Dark (to use one example that I brought up) or Dark Empires (to use another example that I brought up) are "player facing" because the players might happen to know that one system has monsters that kill you dead (which they should know from the fiction) and the other uses opposed 2d6 rolls ... well, okay!

Again, though, you can look back to the front page of this thread and you can see that I provided a link to one post that had several salient details of FKR games- none of them are what you are describing. But maybe they're wrong! Who knows. It's a mysterious world out there.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No, of course not. I only mention it regularly and easily cite to its provisions.
> 
> That's a productive way to start a conversation!




It was meant as a genuine question not a challenge. I don't know what games you may or may not have played, nor what you regularly cite in discussion. I've only played it twice. I GMed one session, and played in a second. My experience with it is limited.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think you are confusing a lot of different things here. But to simplify- if you think that the ruleset of Cthulhu Dark (to use one example that I brought up) or Dark Empires (to use another example that I brought up) are "player facing" because the players might happen to know that one system has monsters that kill you dead (which they should know from the fiction) and the other uses opposed 2d6 rolls ... well, okay!




I'm asking specifically about Cthulhu Dark and about the bit where if a PC engages a mythos creature, that PC will die. Is this something the players are aware of? Or is it something that they are not aware of? 

To me, this is a rule that lets the players know what kind of fiction this will be. It's not pulpy adventure cthulhu or Delta Green where there may be some manner of victory at times. 

FKR ethos, as it seems to be presented, may advocate for removing this codified rule from the game, and instead relying on the GM to make that call. 

Do you think Cthulhu Dark would work better if that was the case? I'm genuinely asking.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, though, you can look back to the front page of this thread and you can see that I provided a link to one post that had several salient details of FKR games- none of them are what you are describing. But maybe they're wrong! Who knows. It's a mysterious world out there.




Yes, well we're on page 8 of a discussion, and others have been involved and shared their thoughts. You'll forgive me if I don't limit my comments solely to your first post in the thread.

But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm asking specifically about Cthulhu Dark and about the bit where if a PC engages a mythos creature, that PC will die. Is this something the players are aware of? Or is it something that they are not aware of?



If they've read the rules, they'd be aware of it. If they've read much Cthulhu Mythos fiction, they'd be aware of it.


hawkeyefan said:


> To me, this is a rule that lets the players know what kind of fiction this will be. It's not pulpy adventure cthulhu or Delta Green where there may be some manner of victory at times.



Exactly. But it's also something that can be picked up on from reading the Cthulhu Mythos stories. It's codified in Cthulhu Dark simply to make the point plain.


hawkeyefan said:


> FKR ethos, as it seems to be presented, may advocate for removing this codified rule from the game, and instead relying on the GM to make that call.



Not at all. FKR is about minimalist rules, but what rules do exist should support the fiction. So it's a perfectly valid rule to have. You're conflating _my preference_ for players not having knowledge of the rules with what FKR presents. They're not the same, but to me, the logical conclusion of FKR ethos is that the rules should be entirely DM-facing. But that's not something written in stone.


hawkeyefan said:


> But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.



That's due to the tendency of gamers to focus on the rules. So you will inevitably come to a point where the player has to pick between the rules and the fiction. Gamers being gamers, that will come sooner rather than later and they will inevitably pick the rules over the world. Again, the article and video I linked about gamers optimizing the fun out of games. The overlap between video game players and RPG players is significant. The total fan base of RPGs is a rounding error for video games, so I'm more than happy deferring to the data they've collected.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm asking specifically about Cthulhu Dark and about the bit where if a PC engages a mythos creature, that PC will die. Is this something the players are aware of? Or is it something that they are not aware of?
> 
> To me, this is a rule that lets the players know what kind of fiction this will be. It's not pulpy adventure cthulhu or Delta Green where there may be some manner of victory at times.
> 
> ...




I've quoted the relevant portion of the rules to you- the game allows for different modes of play- you can do it a FKR-style, "DM decides" or as a collaborative-style, player-authoring the fiction.

I think it is unhelpful to ask if it works "better" one way or the other. Instead, it is more productive to look at what works best for the people you play with.

Some people prefer to explore the fiction through the use of "tactical infinity" and players solving problems by engaging the fiction; other prefer to have players in control of some authority and with the ability to have at least some shared control of the fiction. Whatever floats your boat!



hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, well we're on page 8 of a discussion, and others have been involved and shared their thoughts. You'll forgive me if I don't limit my comments solely to your first post in the thread.
> 
> But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.




I think you might be misunderstanding two different ideas- I think that there is a preference in FKR for players engaging the fiction, not the rules. That's different that "hiding the ball." Simplified rulesets and "rules lite" means that the players don't have to worry about the rules, and gaming the system. Just the action declarations (for example) that make sense within the fiction.

But yes, if you are a fan of "engagement of the rule," then it's probably not the style of game for you. I don't think it's productive to look at simplified rules (such as 'combat kills you dead" in CD or "opposed 2d6 rolls" in DE) and view that as "player-facing rules meant for player engagement." 

I mean, you could ... you can do anything you want! But I'm just not going to board that train with you.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> If they've read the rules, they'd be aware of it. If they've read much Cthulhu Mythos fiction, they'd be aware of it.




I think that depends on what fiction, honestly. 



overgeeked said:


> Exactly. But it's also something that can be picked up on from reading the Cthulhu Mythos stories. It's codified in Cthulhu Dark simply to make the point plain.




Yes. This is my point. The rule enables understanding of the fiction rather than obscures it.



overgeeked said:


> Not at all. FKR is about minimalist rules, but what rules do exist should support the fiction. So it's a perfectly valid rule to have. You're conflating _my preference_ for players not having knowledge of the rules with what FKR presents. They're not the same, but to me, the logical conclusion of FKR ethos is that the rules should be entirely DM-facing. But that's not something written in stone.




Oh, I'm not taking anything as written in stone. I don't think that's even possible. I'm just discussing. 

And I appreciate that making all rules to be GM-facing may be your preference, but I don't think you're alone in that. Having read through many of the links that have been shared, I've seen that sentiment come up enough.



overgeeked said:


> That's due to the tendency of gamers to focus on the rules. So you will inevitably come to a point where the player has to pick between the rules and the fiction. Gamers being gamers, that will come sooner rather than later and they will inevitably pick the rules over the world. Again, the article and video I linked about gamers optimizing the fun out of games. The overlap between video game players and RPG players is significant. The total fan base of RPGs is a rounding error for video games, so I'm more than happy deferring to the data they've collected.




Oh, I don't disagree that it can happen. I just think there are other ways it can be addressed. But I understand what you're saying, for sure.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that depends on what fiction, honestly.



I tend to stick with HPL's stuff and ignore the rest. So that's my frame of reference. I'm not a fan of the pulp-action Cthulhu stuff or the modern guns & ammo versions of Cthulhu stories.


hawkeyefan said:


> Yes. This is my point. The rule enables understanding of the fiction rather than obscures it.



Because of the kind of rule it is. It's a short, declarative if, then statement. There's no wiggle room. Nothing players can latch onto to try to fiddle with, bend, or break. "If you fight the monsters, you will die." It's a rule that informs the players of the kind of fiction the game will be about. That's wildly different than say...16 pages of skills and their use. Lists of skills vaguely point at the kind of game it will be. "If you fight the monsters, you will die" is very much an explicit "this is what the game is about" kind of rule. Most rules aren't that good, straightforward, and simple.


hawkeyefan said:


> And I appreciate that making all rules to be GM-facing may be your preference, but I don't think you're alone in that. Having read through many of the links that have been shared, I've seen that sentiment come up enough.



Yeah. Like I said, I think it's a logical conclusion, but it's not core.


hawkeyefan said:


> Oh, I don't disagree that it can happen.



I think that's where we disagree, then. In my experience it's inevitable. It's a foregone conclusion. This is supported by my nearly 40 years playing and running RPGs, along with the article and video I linked.


hawkeyefan said:


> I just think there are other ways it can be addressed.



Gamers being gamers...they will inevitably exploit whatever system you put in front of them. No matter how absurd the action, how out of genre the action, or how utterly dumb the action...they will push. "Sure, you can fire an arrow into the sun from the surface of the earth if you roll six 100s in a row on 1d100." Insert "so you're telling me there's a chance" meme here.

The only ways to address it are to remove the temptation (i.e. remove the system from their side of the screen), remove the gamers (i.e. solo DM play), or to create a rules set so simple that it cannot be exploited (i.e. rules ultra-light games such as presented in Dark Empires or Over the Edge 3rd Edition or Cthulhu Dark).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I've quoted the relevant portion of the rules to you- the game allows for different modes of play- you can do it a FKR-style, "DM decides" or as a collaborative-style, player-authoring the fiction.
> 
> I think it is unhelpful to ask if it works "better" one way or the other. Instead, it is more productive to look at what works best for the people you play with.
> 
> Some people prefer to explore the fiction through the use of "tactical infinity" and players solving problems by engaging the fiction; other prefer to have players in control of some authority and with the ability to have at least some shared control of the fiction. Whatever floats your boat!




Yeah, I get it....I'm just asking you what floats your boat.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think you might be misunderstanding two different ideas- I think that there is a preference in FKR for players engaging the fiction, not the rules. That's different that "hiding the ball."




Nope, I understand the distinction. But the two often go hand in hand. @overgeeked certainly seems to make that connection, and plenty of other folks seem to as well, based on the links you posted, and in other sources I've seen.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Simplified rulesets and "rules lite" means that the players don't have to worry about the rules, and gaming the system. Just the action declarations (for example) that make sense within the fiction.
> 
> But yes, if you are a fan of "engagement of the rule," then it's probably not the style of game for you. I don't think it's productive to look at simplified rules (such as 'combat kills you dead" in CD or "opposed 2d6 rolls" in DE) and view that as "player-facing rules meant for player engagement."




I'm not a fan of "engagement of the rule" so much as I like clear rules that enable play instead of complicate it. But at the same time, this totally depends on the rule and/or the game.

I was citing the "combat kills you dead" from Cthulhu Dark as an example of that. Here is a rule that does not limit a player's understanding of the fiction but rather it makes their understanding of it absolute. It's a rule, but it can't be gamed or subverted or applied in a way that conflicts with the fiction.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> the provocation of FKR is to say, wait, you are trying to play a peaky blinders game...why not just start and end there, at least on the player side.



Maybe because I don't want to play a game which is mostly finding out what the GM thinks about Peaky Blinders?

You're presenting the question as if it's an obviously rhetorical one, but why should it be? I mean, even the earliest OSR-ish versions of D&D have combat mechanics. They don't just start and end with the GM deciding whether or not the Orcs beat the PCs when they meet one another in the dungeon.

I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with _GM decides_ as a resolution method. But I think there are obvious reasons why people adopt other methods too. It's not that "GM decides" has never occurred to them!



Malmuria said:


> OSR games also rely on GM adjudication and are explicitly a reaction against trad play.  In an OSR game, the dm can design a scenario (like a dungeon), but has no pre-conceived idea of how the players will navigate it.  The players, meanwhile, are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet, but by "tactical infinity" in John Ross' term.  The rulings that the dm has to make are in reaction to players trying something out of the box.



I think this is an oversimplification, and in oversimplifying it obscures.

For instance: what happens, in an OSR game, if a player has his/her PC pray for divine intervention? If the GM just decides whether or not the gods listen, we are in the same general territory as "rocks fall" - it's just GM storytelling. Which is fine, but doesn't seem all that OSR-ish. (And if the GM says that you can't just get help by praying, then "tactical infinity" is gone. Or to put it another way: it's all very well to tell players to play the fiction, but if only the GM truly knows the fiction, and is free to make it up in the moment of adjudication, then what are the players _really_ playing. @chaochou and @Ovinomancer have both pushed this point.)

If the GM calls for a check, what should it be? How should it compare to the abilities of the cleric PCs?

Similar questions arise in other domains: should a MU with 18 STR have the same chance to plough through the phalanx with a charge as the fighter with 18 STR? Or does the fighter get to have their _fighting_ ability matter?

These are the sorts of practical questions that have been at the forefront of D&D adjudication since 1974. Gygax made up answers, wrote some of them down, and published some of that in his AD&D rulebooks. His suite of answers perhaps wasn't the best - in particular the needless proliferation of baroque subsystems - but the _reasons_ behind them are easy enough to see.



Malmuria said:


> Yeah similarly, I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular.  I've played and enjoyed rules lite games (and if I were to run another game of dnd I would go for something rules lite), but I've never actually played something that explicitly conceived of itself as an FKR game.  So I'm more FKR-curious than anything else, and what I'm expressing here is not a defense of that style of gaming, but an explanation for why I'm curious to try.



I've played Cthulhu Dark. I have an active Classic Traveller campaign. These both seem to get mentioned as FKR games or FKR-adjacent games but neither of them uses "GM decides" as the main form of resolution.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I tend to stick with HPL's stuff and ignore the rest. So that's my frame of reference. I'm not a fan of the pulp-action Cthulhu stuff or the modern guns & ammo versions of Cthulhu stories.




I can't blame you there. I like some tangential stuff along the lines of like "Lovecraft Country" and the like, but as far as what I consider to be mythos and as it relates to what I'd expect an RPG to be, yeah, the original material is where it's at. 

I only meant that not all will share that sentiment. Some folks may think they can or maybe even should engage with some of the mythos creatures....especially the ones that are smaller in scope than Cthulhu and the like.



overgeeked said:


> Because of the kind of rule it is. It's a short, declarative if, then statement. There's no wiggle room. Nothing players can latch onto to try to fiddle with, bend, or break. "If you fight the monsters, you will die." It's a rule that informs the players of the kind of fiction the game will be about. That's wildly different than say...16 pages of skills and their use. Lists of skills vaguely point at the kind of game it will be. "If you fight the monsters, you will die" is very much an explicit "this is what the game is about" kind of rule. Most rules aren't that good, straightforward, and simple.




Yeah, it's very straightforward, which is why I like it. There's no doubt left for the player. 

Now, it's not a rule that the players evoke or anything, so that's simpler to pull off, but even the core mechanic of Cthulhu Dark is easily understood and flexible. It is one that the players evoke and have to consider, but I don't know if you would say they could game it.



overgeeked said:


> Yeah. Like I said, I think it's a logical conclusion, but it's not core.
> 
> I think that's where we disagree, then. In my experience it's inevitable. It's a foregone conclusion. This is supported by my nearly 40 years playing and running RPGs, along with the article and video I linked.
> 
> ...




I think how foregone a conclusion it may be will very much depend on the specific game/system and the specific group of players. Or perhaps I should say how problematic it may be will depend. 

And you've listed three possible ways to address it (of which the third is the one I most prefer), but I think there are more.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> What do you guys think of Cthulhu Dark? It was included on one of the lists of games identified as FKR.





hawkeyefan said:


> Have you played the game at all?



I've played it.



hawkeyefan said:


> To take one element of the game, there's the bit where if you get into a confrontation with a mythos creature, you die. This was something that made my group pause, but I convinced them to try the game anyway.





hawkeyefan said:


> I'm asking specifically about Cthulhu Dark and about the bit where if a PC engages a mythos creature, that PC will die. Is this something the players are aware of? Or is it something that they are not aware of?



I'm guessing I mentioned it when we played. I don't think it ever really came up. In one of our sessions an invisible shoggoth went past the PCs, and I think I described a rushing wind. But no one tried to fight it!

I don't see that rule as a big part of the system, so I'm struck that it gave your group pause.



hawkeyefan said:


> I found it light enough that I think it qualifies as FKR in that sense. But I don’t think it makes any attempt to hide anything from the players.





hawkeyefan said:


> I get that the core mechanic is light enough to be applied in a variety of ways....it works for just about any action declaration that a player may make for a character.....so in that sense, it feels like it fits into the idea of "play worlds, not rules". But the mechanics are entirely player facing, which seems against some of the comments posed in this thread.



Yeah, I don't see how to reconcile Cthulhu Dark with the idea that the GM decides based on experience, or the GM calls for a roll based on what they know about the setting.

The highest result in the pool tells us how well the PC did, and if a die was rolled for opposition, tells us whether or not the PC succeeded or failed. The GM doesn't get to set a target number or call for some boutique roll or anything like that. And as far as "playing worlds" is concerned, what counts as a sufficiently well-formed action declaration, and what range of consequences are permissible, are not discussed in the rulebook. The group has to bring that from some other RPGing experience. I used BW-style intent-and-task.

EDIT:


hawkeyefan said:


> even the core mechanic of Cthulhu Dark is easily understood and flexible. It is one that the players evoke and have to consider, but I don't know if you would say they could game it.
> 
> I think how foregone a conclusion it may be will very much depend on the specific game/system and the specific group of players. Or perhaps I should say how problematic it may be will depend.



I don't even know what it would mean to "game" the Cthulhu Dark system.

Or what it would mean to "game" most of the RPGs I play, to be honest.

This is part of my puzzle with FKR. To the extent that it means _fictional positioning_ is a necessary prerequisite to action declaration, then the only RPGing it seems to be in disagreement with is a certain sort of approach to D&D play that probably peaked during the 3E era.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 5, 2021)

pemerton said:


> For instance: what happens, in an OSR game, if a player has his/her PC pray for divine intervention? If the GM just decides whether or not the gods listen, we are in the same general territory as "rocks fall" - it's just GM storytelling. Which is fine, but doesn't seem all that OSR-ish. (And if the GM says that you can't just get help by praying, then "tactical infinity" is gone. Or to put it another way: it's all very well to tell players to play the fiction, but if only the GM truly knows the fiction, and is free to make it up in the moment of adjudication, then what are the players _really_ playing. @chaochou and @Ovinomancer have both pushed this point.)
> 
> If the GM calls for a check, what should it be? How should it compare to the abilities of the cleric PCs?



Whatever point you are trying to make here, it would apply to any version of dnd.  It's actually a quite good example of how rules fail, because it's something that cannot be resolved _without_ a fair amount of gm adjudication and decision.  

In 5e, it is resolved thusly:

"Divine Intervention​Beginning at 10th level, you can call on your deity to intervene on your behalf when your need is great.

Imploring your deity's aid requires you to use your action. Describe the assistance you seek, and roll percentile dice. If you roll a number equal to or lower than your Cleric level, your deity intervenes. The DM chooses the Nature of the intervention; the Effect of any Cleric spell or Cleric domain spell would be appropriate. If your deity intervenes, you can't use this feature again for 7 days. Otherwise, you can use it again after you finish a Long Rest."

So the rules, instead of the gm, decide that you "can't just get help by praying" unless you are at least 10th level.  Why is that better than the gm just making a reasonable decision and possibly allowing a roll, even at 1st level?  Further, the rule here ultimately is that the "dm decides" what the intervention looks like.  

If we are playing b/x, there is no specific rule related to divine intervention (at least that I can find in a quick search of my OSE books).  As a gm, I might decide that a player has a 1% chance, and as gm, would still decide what that intervention looks like should it be successful.  One can imagine a scenario in which a player says, "wait, that's not fair!  It should be at least 5%."  But if that's the hill your player is going to die on, then you do not have a high trust game.  But maybe given the specific circumstance of the roll, it's not just the cleric calling out for intervention, but a cleric that is seeking to reclaim a temple of their god, overrun by undead.  Maybe in that case the gm decides it's more than a 1% chance.

Do you really want a rule that says "divine intervention is a 1% chance, unless the cleric is in the midst of reclaiming a lost temple in which case it is 5%, and if they've done at least 10 good deeds over the previous month that increases to 11%..." and so on?  To me, this seems like the _*exact*_ situation that calls for "ruling not rules."  The rules cannot cover every edge case.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Whatever point you are trying to make here, it would apply to any version of dnd.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So the rules, instead of the gm, decide that you "can't just get help by praying" unless you are at least 10th level.



Like you, I assume that the answer in 5e D&D is _no, you can't successfully pray for divine intervention unless you're a cleric_ - because otherwise the cleric class ability would be pointless.

Conversely, in 4e D&D it might be the inclusion of Religion in a skill challenge. We saw that quite a bit in our game.

So I don't think my point applies to any version of D&D. That's why I expressly called out an OSR game. I also had in mind that Gygax's DMG has a rule that formalises the chance for divine intervention, and I can guess exactly where that rule came from! It's Gygax writing down some version of the procedure that he, or someone else he gamed with, came up with in order to resolve that sort of situation, which is highly forseeable in a fantasy game with active gods, especially among players who have read Elric stories.



Malmuria said:


> Why is that better than the gm just making a reasonable decision and possibly allowing a roll, even at 1st level?



Well, as I posted upthread - I think in reply to you - I've got no view on whether it's better or worse. (As far as preferences go among versions of D&D, I prefer 4e.)

My point is what I posted:


pemerton said:


> I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with _GM decides_ as a resolution method. But I think there are obvious reasons why people adopt other methods too. It's not that "GM decides" has never occurred to them!
> 
> <snip discussions of various situations like divine intervention and charging through a line of soldiers>
> 
> These are the sorts of practical questions that have been at the forefront of D&D adjudication since 1974. Gygax made up answers, wrote some of them down, and published some of that in his AD&D rulebooks. His suite of answers perhaps wasn't the best - in particular the needless proliferation of baroque subsystems - but the _reasons_ behind them are easy enough to see.



In other words, what explains the subsystem proliferation in Gygax's DMG is not just a fetish for rules! Is that the same situations come up, and he's worked out ideas for resolving them, and then he is sharing that with future GMs: it's like an extended, one-person OSR blog.

Consistently with my own preference for 4e among D&D versions, I think there are better ways to approach these issues than Gygax's. Of classic games my favourite is Classic Traveller, in part because I think it has a better suite of solutions to these issues.



Malmuria said:


> If we are playing b/x, there is no specific rule related to divine intervention (at least that I can find in a quick search of my OSE books).  As a gm, I might decide that a player has a 1% chance, and as gm, would still decide what that intervention looks like should it be successful.  One can imagine a scenario in which a player says, "wait, that's not fair!  It should be at least 5%."  But if that's the hill your player is going to die on, then you do not have a high trust game.



I think trust here is an absolute red herring. Why is a player not entitled to die on that hill? - eg if they are playing a paladin who has been exemplary in honour and alignment and is on a holy mission that will fail unless the divinity intervenes here and now!

I mean, if you're playing B/X what hill do you think a player is more entitled to die on? That their MU PC is allowed to cast spells? That their fighter gets to roll a d8 for hit points? That the GM not have red dragons on the 1st level wandering monster charts?

I don't see why the divine intervention chance is a special case for any general principle of trust in the GM to make things up.



Malmuria said:


> To me, this seems like the _*exact*_ situation that calls for "ruling not rules."  The rules cannot cover every edge case.



I don't see why divine intervention is any different from shooting an arrow at an Orc, or trying to get a good price on a bardiche from the local polearm shop.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 5, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> So far, what I'm taking that the guiding principles of the FKR movement are simply to give the GM complete authority.  Everything else is negotiable, it seems, as there's hide stuff from the players alongside seek consensus and be consistent and trustworthy in adjudication alongside try not to use the same adjudication method too often and consistency is not a goal.  At the end of all of this, I still don't know what distinguishes FKR except that it's all about maximizing GM authority.



Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."



Not sure how cynical I was trying to be, there.  Were I going for cynical I might point out the many references to 'saving the players from themselves."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 5, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Cynical as this may be, but this may be my big take away from this thread when it comes to "that's what the FKR is all about, Charlie Brown."




So, in my opinion, that's one of the difficult things about having this conversation in this thread, given some of the people discussing the issue. It's hard unless you approach the subject with an open mind. Genres are necessarily difficult to pin down with precision (something I've written about before); a subject that is often anathema to people who enjoy theory.

On this, I would say that one of the major, big, dividing differences between rules-lite games that could be categorized as "FKR" as opposed to "Story Now" or "Fiction First" or other terms would be the allocation of authority. When I look at the genesis of FKR and the conversations around it, that's something I notice. In fact, I use the example of Cthulhu Dark (lite) for that reason - if I play it with "Keeper adjuration" and Pemerton plays it with his background, we are using different techniques- even though we are using the same rules.

 But is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Let me give you another example just to make things more confusing. Messerspiel is considered another "FKR" game (and explicitly so)- it is, in fact, called BiTD meets FKR! But if you look at the (very) minimalist ruleset, you will see that there is the ability for the players to "resist" the outcome of the referee and narrate a new outcome.

Which means that this game, which explicitly calls itself FKR, allows for a different allocation of authority. 

Interesting, isn't it? Anyway, the point of this is that it's usually better to enjoy and celebrate this type of activity at the margins of our hobby than it is to denigrate it by actively attacking it and using pejorative "Bob Says" language. 

IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So, in my opinion, that's one of the difficult things about having this conversation in this thread, given some of the people discussing the issue. It's hard unless you approach the subject with an open mind. Genres are necessarily difficult to pin down with precision (something I've written about before); a subject that is often anathema to people who enjoy theory.
> 
> On this, I would say that one of the major, big, dividing differences between rules-lite games that could be categorized as "FKR" as opposed to "Story Now" or "Fiction First" or other terms would be the allocation of authority. When I look at the genesis of FKR and the conversations around it, that's something I notice. In fact, I use the example of Cthulhu Dark (lite) for that reason - if I play it with "Keeper adjuration" and Pemerton plays it with his background, we are using different techniques- even though we are using the same rules.
> 
> ...



I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 5, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).




That's a fair statement. I might not be as attuned to some of that, but I am unfortunately far too aware that there are toxic elements within our community. As far as I know, nothing about FKR is part of that, but if I'm wrong please let me know.

I would additionally  say that there are also many people that aren't like that- and, for example, you have lots of people like Sacrosanct who not only champion OSR but also design explicitly inclusive rulesets. (That's my plug for his Chromatic Dungeons, by the way!).


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I would additionally  say that there are also many people that aren't like that- and, for example, you have lots of people like Sacrosanct who not only champion OSR but also design explicitly inclusive rulesets. (That's my plug for his Chromatic Dungeons, by the way!).



I am a proud backer of said Kickstarter.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This is part of my puzzle with FKR. To the extent that it means _fictional positioning_ is a necessary prerequisite to action declaration, then the only RPGing it seems to be in disagreement with is a certain sort of approach to D&D play that probably peaked during the 3E era.




That's kind of my thinking on it. It seems mostly about addressing things that are often considered the failings of modern versions of D&D. I wouldn't say that these things are specifically issues with D&D, but they're common there and D&D has in turn influenced many games and, perhaps more importantly, many gamers. 

The major issue that the FKR seems to be attempting to address is overwrought systems. Which is a perfectly fine goal, in my opinion. My point of concern is the need (perhaps perceived on my part) to couple that with increasing GM authority. It seems that some games that are considered FKR don't do this, but it's one of the most commonly mentioned elements in many of the sources that have been sited.



Aldarc said:


> I suppose it is difficult for me to fairly talk about FKR because a lot of the language that its self-ascribed adherents use to talk about it come across as red flags or dog whistles to me: e.g., "high trust game," "people know better than rules [ergo more GM adjudicating authority]," "dedicated to realism," "players don't need to know rules," etc. Without getting too political, let's just say that the whole trusting to the GM to adjudicate what's realistic sets off all sort of alarms to a variety of issues that have been flown under the banner of "realism" in our hobby (e.g., gender, race, etc.).




"Realism" is something that I tend to bounce off when it's mentioned in relation to RPGs. I'm all for some kind of internal logic or consistency with the fiction created by a game, but usually when I hear "realism" as a goal, I go on guard. Not for the kinds of concerns you've sited (although now that you mention it, absolutely) but just because I find that the sense of "realism" varies from gamer to gamer in potentially significant ways. 

Though in the past what I've found is that the folks who are calling for "realism" tend to be the folks who want to add MORE rules rather than reduce rules. So the FKR idea of less rules to help increase "realism" is at least a refreshing change in that sense.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> "Realism" is something that I tend to bounce off when it's mentioned in relation to RPGs. I'm all for some kind of internal logic or consistency with the fiction created by a game, but usually when I hear "realism" as a goal, I go on guard. Not for the kinds of concerns you've sited (although now that you mention it, absolutely) but just because I find that the sense of "realism" varies from gamer to gamer in potentially significant ways.



I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules. 


hawkeyefan said:


> Though in the past what I've found is that the folks who are calling for "realism" tend to be the folks who want to add MORE rules rather than reduce rules. So the FKR idea of less rules to help increase "realism" is at least a refreshing change in that sense.



It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules.
> 
> It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.



The problem here is that you've just describe Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Cortex Prime, FATE, Fiasco, numerous OSR titles...  It's a conceptual framework that isn't unique to FKR, so the question then becomes how do you do this, because the above list all have different ways of doing this.  And here's where the points of contention in this thread exist -- it's not in the concept space, most of us are great with that, but in the execution space.  How do you do these things?  And, so far, the only definitional how is that as much as possible is made GM says.  The pushback isn't about the high concept bits, it's about this bit -- how does GM says actually produce the high concept reliably and consistently?  This is met with vague buzzwordy things like high trust and other bits that, as has been noted, tend to raise red flags about things.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> And you've listed three possible ways to address it (of which the third is the one I most prefer), but I think there are more.



What would they be?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I think adherence to genre conventions is presented as a far more important goal than realism. The idea is to be able to use any source as a game reference. You want to play Tarzan, read or watch Tarzan (just everyone pick the same version so you’re all on the same page). You want to play Earthsea, pick up some Le Guin. If you’re feeling The Nevers, binge it. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the realism FKR is after is about gender-based stat mods or other similar BS. Only moving away from patently-absurd rules that clash with common sense. It’s a focus on play rather than rules.




I think adhering to genre conventions is a much better way to put it, and a more reasonable goal. But typically it's phrased as something along the lines of "FKR strips out most of the rules to increase realism". Now, I can understand that perhaps realism here is meant as shorthand for some kind of internal consistency within the fictional world. But at the same time there are groups of folks who consider genre and realism as being diametrically opposed.

I don't tend to look at them that way myself, but it comes up often enough that I tend to focus on the words being used in any example.



overgeeked said:


> It’s the drive for table-focused design. There’s nothing wrong with adding rules and using them. FKR just puts primacy on the people at the table playing the game. What works for you at your table in the moment is far more important than what’s written in some 400-page reference work. And it’s easier to start simple and build (if you want) than to start with a tome and whittle down.




I don't disagree with this part of it at all. I prefer slimmer rules systems myself. I think most games tend to expect each play group to make things work for them.



overgeeked said:


> What would they be?




If we're talking about a game that's to be designed, then I would say to address this in the game's methods and principles for play and GMing. I'm a big fan of games that offer these kinds of goals that, although they are not rules in the mechanical sense, are rules in that they are guidelines for how to play and/or GM. I think these can go a long way toward preventing players from subverting the rules in some way.

For a game that already exists, if the players and GM want to slim things down, then they can do that. However, I agree that can be a tall order depending on how many rules there are, and how they all interact. Making a change in one area can impact how others work, and that may not be immediately obvious. I don't think it's impossible, and I think that the idea of "rulings not rules" of the OSR and 5E D&D kind of touch on this. 

I think a less severe version of "removing rules from the player side of the screen" may simply to be to give the GM the ability to say no. "No, you can't do that no matter how many 100s you roll" (or whatever counter may be necessary). The appeal to genre conventions should probably suffice here; one would hope folks are on the same page in this regard, but if not and a player wants to try something that clearly defies genre logic, having the GM be able to deny the action is a pretty simple way to get the job done.

To me, that's where the "high trust" thing seems odd....not because I don't think it's a good goal, or that FKR games don't try to focus on that, but because if there is high trust between GM and players, then these kinds of attempts to bend the rules by the players seem less likely.

I think removing the rules from the player side or playing solo mode are both examples of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that such extreme measures are necessary, though I understand why they may appeal to any given person.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 5, 2021)

I'm going to be characteristically blunt -- I think that FKR may indeed be a valid and independent approach, but that the people championing it are not doing the critical analysis necessary to clearly enunciate the principles and goals that make it so.  And I think that this is because this kind of analysis is viewed poorly because of things like the Forge and the general anti-analysis mindset that rose against it.  It's like a mini-version of the culture war, and it's what's clashing here.  FKR should have some clearly stated principles of play but this feels like talking like a Forge-ite so it's avoided.

To me, if I were doing the steelmanning, FKR should be saying that the game is about:


making sure the play adheres to genre conventions and genre logic at all times.
make the setting a character in play -- bring the setting to life at all times
The job of the GM is to facilitate play, not to lead it.  Let the players tell what's important in play
I'm sure I could come up with a few more, but this seems to be something I could grasp and understand as a distinct approach to play.  This separates itself from OSR and Story Now.

The only issues I see are really in how adversity is generated and maintained in play.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think adhering to genre conventions is a much better way to put it, and a more reasonable goal. But typically it's phrased as something along the lines of "FKR strips out most of the rules to increase realism". Now, I can understand that perhaps realism here is meant as shorthand for some kind of internal consistency within the fictional world. But at the same time there are groups of folks who consider genre and realism as being diametrically opposed.



In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.


hawkeyefan said:


> If we're talking about a game that's to be designed, then I would say to address this in the game's methods and principles for play and GMing. I'm a big fan of games that offer these kinds of goals that, although they are not rules in the mechanical sense, are rules in that they are guidelines for how to play and/or GM. I think these can go a long way toward preventing players from subverting the rules in some way.



Yeah, I love the AW / PBTA games that offer principles for the players and DM. Don't necessarily like all the mechanics involved in those games, but principles are a fantastic way to get the players and DM on the same page. Also prevents everyone having to read into the rules to suss out what the game is about. That way lies madness.


hawkeyefan said:


> For a game that already exists, if the players and GM want to slim things down, then they can do that. However, I agree that can be a tall order depending on how many rules there are, and how they all interact. Making a change in one area can impact how others work, and that may not be immediately obvious.



I gotta say, I really miss the old DIY aesthetic of RPGs.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think it's impossible, and I think that the idea of "rulings not rules" of the OSR and 5E D&D kind of touch on this.



Sort of. They nervously approach the idea but it's not quite the same.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think a less severe version of "removing rules from the player side of the screen" may simply to be to give the GM the ability to say no. "No, you can't do that no matter how many 100s you roll" (or whatever counter may be necessary).



The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.


hawkeyefan said:


> The appeal to genre conventions should probably suffice here; one would hope folks are on the same page in this regard, but if not and a player wants to try something that clearly defies genre logic, having the GM be able to deny the action is a pretty simple way to get the job done.



Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.


hawkeyefan said:


> To me, that's where the "high trust" thing seems odd....not because I don't think it's a good goal, or that FKR games don't try to focus on that, but because if there is high trust between GM and players, then these kinds of attempts to bend the rules by the players seem less likely.



I don't see how those are connected at all. The players trusting the DM has no bearing on the players trying to optimize the fun out of the game. That's a trait inherent to gamers, like water being wet. The player can have infinite trust in the DM but the player will still try to game the system. High trust as a phrase to use is mostly a stop gap to prevent players used to heavier systems from freaking out about running a rules light or ultralight game. Put trust in the DM to make fair rules and rulings rather than putting trust in the game book. The DM is the one at the table running this game with these players, not the designer in some other city, other state, and other time zone who never has and likely never will even meet these players. The DM knows the players at their table better than the typically nameless, faceless designer. So yeah. Trust the DM. If they show that they don't deserve that trust, walk. You're not eternally binding yourself to this person simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt and some trust up front.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think removing the rules from the player side or playing solo mode are both examples of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that such extreme measures are necessary, though I understand why they may appeal to any given person.



I agree with you on playing solo, but couldn't disagree more about player-facing rules. I see literally zero benefits and an endless list of downsides to player-facing rules. Again, the article and video about players optimizing the fun out of the game.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 5, 2021)

Optimizing the fun out of the game is basically another way of saying that dopamine is one hell of a neurotransmitter. Basically we will do what it is efficient even if it's less enjoyable. In my experience this does not go away with minimalist rules. Sometimes it's exacerbated. See Greyhawking the dungeon, playing the game of 20 questions every time you enter a room, etc. You change what players will tend to optimize, but you do not get away from human nature just because you have a lighter or even no system. Sid Meier was actually making the point that we need to design better games where what's optimal is also what's enjoyable for the player.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer more minimal games, but protecting players from their dopamine signaling generally is not one in my opinion.

My own experience with hidden rules in particular is that players will attempt to suss them out over time. In information poor environments they will look for the patterns the same way most D&D players will try to reason out a monster's AC and saves. I'm players. In information poor environments my gamer brain goes into overdrive. I enjoy that type of play in an OSR context, but to get to that place where I feel comfortable just playing my character I need a good handle on things. It's kind of like going into survivor mode.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 5, 2021)

Two things I want to say right quick (as I'm time-restricted):

* GM's Say being in abundance (as it is in FKR) is not a de facto bad thing.  I don't think that you'll find (across the distribution) of Story Now advocates that we feel that a default spread like this System's Say 1 / GM's Say 6 / Player's Say 3 means "crap game" (I've GMed so many hours of "Big GM's Say" games its not funny...likely more than any other setup).  A scant number of folks may feel that way, but I'm confident that position isn't widespread.  What is widespread is "if GM's Say is going to be 6+", then (a) own it, (b) speak clearly about its merits, (c) allow for analysis upon the implications of play of this distribution so that (d) people can make informed choices about what to play and (e) participants of "High GM's Say" systems can improve at their craft (particularly the GM's...eg "own Force, understand it, get better at deploying it).

* I don't agree (like...at all...its empirically not true...because I've run every manner of game under the sun since 1984....thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of GMing everything possible...and I know it for a fact) that rules-heavy games inherently and/or fundamentally mean tables are preoccupied with, and driven by, rules over fiction.  Its just not true.  I've GMed so many games on the rules-heavy side of things where the rules are clear, beautifully integrated, cognitively queueable (meaning the uptake of them and the uptake of sequential and integrated/related rules are "sticky" for the brain), and easily inferable from first principles (as to the what/how/why of their application and the adjudication of exceptions).  When games are like this (Moldvay Basic, D&D 4e, Sorcerer, Torchbearer, Blades in the Dark, probably Aliens but I'm still TBD on this), in practice, they're every bit as nimble as Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, and Apocalypse World at the table. 

Its when systems are opaque, byzantine, incoherent, and not well integrated is when this becomes a problem.  GMs and Players Best Practices defy what the game is supposed to be about as incentive structures and (purported) play goals/premise becomes misaligned, cognitive overhead becomes overwhelming, and table time is disproportionately spent on "non-play."


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> The problem here is that you've just describe Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Cortex Prime, FATE, Fiasco, numerous OSR titles...



And HeroQuest revised. And Prince Valiant. Even Burning Wheel!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.
> 
> Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.
> 
> ...



What systems do you have in mind here, other than WotC D&D?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.




Sure, I think this is possible, for sure. I don't think it's a certainty, but I would agree with the general idea, and I'd say the more rules that a game has, the more likely this may be. 

But there are also rules that work just fine without limiting how the players interact with the fiction.




overgeeked said:


> Yeah, I love the AW / PBTA games that offer principles for the players and DM. Don't necessarily like all the mechanics involved in those games, but principles are a fantastic way to get the players and DM on the same page. Also prevents everyone having to read into the rules to suss out what the game is about. That way lies madness.




I think it's something more games should do, or that they should present these ideas more overtly. Principles like this can do a lot of the heavy lifting in this area. 

"Don't be a weasel" is one for Blades in the Dark that would apply to the kinds of players you're discussing.



overgeeked said:


> I gotta say, I really miss the old DIY aesthetic of RPGs.




I think the FKR and OSR spheres show that aesthetic is alive and well, not to mention the many other games that folks are tweaking and hacking to do something new or different. Go onto itch.io and you'll find so many DIY projects that it's overwhelming.



overgeeked said:


> Sort of. They nervously approach the idea but it's not quite the same.
> 
> 
> The DM is always allowed to say no. Players just argue about it. The WotC editions of D&D have put a lot more into the players' hands and so we have a generation or two of players who think that's how it should be. That the rules in the books bind the DM and they're not allowed to say no.




Well I think it's about being able to ignore or ditch rules situationally as needed. So your two guards blocking the hall example.....it seems absurd given the situation, the GM can just say "you can pass them" or "you can pass them with a successful X check" or what have you. 

I think this is already the case, but I think presentation can matter quite a bit, and some of this has been lost at times, or is dismissed because of perception about how a game is supposed to play.



overgeeked said:


> Sure. But the players will argue. They always do. I think this is one of the reasons you see a return to the notion of DM authority. To explicitly prevent those kinds of things. Players have to be reminded that the DM is the final arbiter, not the book.




I think it depends, honestly. If that's what works, sure. And I think that's likely true for some situations, but maybe not all. I think games can also benefit from constraining GM authority. But a lot of that will depend on what the goal of play is, and where the participants would like to see the split in authority.



overgeeked said:


> I don't see how those are connected at all. The players trusting the DM has no bearing on the players trying to optimize the fun out of the game. That's a trait inherent to gamers, like water being wet. The player can have infinite trust in the DM but the player will still try to game the system. High trust as a phrase to use is mostly a stop gap to prevent players used to heavier systems from freaking out about running a rules light or ultralight game. Put trust in the DM to make fair rules and rulings rather than putting trust in the game book. The DM is the one at the table running this game with these players, not the designer in some other city, other state, and other time zone who never has and likely never will even meet these players. The DM knows the players at their table better than the typically nameless, faceless designer. So yeah. Trust the DM. If they show that they don't deserve that trust, walk. You're not eternally binding yourself to this person simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt and some trust up front.




But you assume that players will always and absolutely behave one way, but then point out how GMs know their players better than anyone else. I see these being at odds, no? Unless there are differences from player to player? In which case, your monolithic take that they will always game the system seems lost. 

I personally find that trust goes both ways. Perhaps if a GM were able to trust his players more, he wouldn't need to worry about them always trying to subvert the rules? 

Your take seems to be that the players can't be trusted with the rules. What about the GM? Why can they be trusted so much? I'm struggling to understand why there's such a strong distinction between player and GM in this regard.



overgeeked said:


> I agree with you on playing solo, but couldn't disagree more about player-facing rules. I see literally zero benefits and an endless list of downsides to player-facing rules. Again, the article and video about players optimizing the fun out of the game.




Yeah, I get that's your take. I don't share it....but thankfully, I don't find it to be true in most of the games I've participated in. It can come up at times, sure, but never so much that I had to take such drastic measures. I think rules can be both visible to players and unobtrusive to the fiction.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Optimizing the fun out of the game is basically another way of saying that dopamine is one hell of a neurotransmitter. Basically we will do what it is efficient even if it's less enjoyable. In my experience this does not go away with minimalist rules. Sometimes it's exacerbated. See Greyhawking the dungeon, playing the game of 20 questions every time you enter a room, etc. You change what players will tend to optimize, but you do not get away from human nature just because you have a lighter or even no system. Sid Meier was actually making the point that we need to design better games where what's optimal is also what's enjoyable for the player.



Exactly. Design the game in such a way that it produces the results you want in play. Further, that using a carrot to produce the results you want is far better than using a stick. So if you want players to rush in, reward rushing in. If you want players to focus on the world instead of the rules, you need to push the rules into the background. That's dramatically easier to do with lighter rules than heavier.


Campbell said:


> There are plenty of reasons to prefer more minimal games, but protecting players from their dopamine signaling generally is not one in my opinion.



No, but that's definitely a reason to keep whatever rules you're using on the DM's side of the screen.


Campbell said:


> My own experience with hidden rules in particular is that players will attempt to suss them out over time. In information poor environments they will look for the patterns the same way most D&D players will try to reason out a monster's AC and saves. I'm players. In information poor environments my gamer brain goes into overdrive. I enjoy that type of play in an OSR context, but to get to that place where I feel comfortable just playing my character I need a good handle on things. It's kind of like going into survivor mode.



Sure. And you can do that by telling the players "the system is 2d6, roll high; and if you're in a direct contest opposed 2d6 rolls, high roll wins" is the sum total of the game system. You have a completely open game, the players know all the rules, and they're light enough that they stay out of the way so everyone can focus on playing the world, not the rules.


Manbearcat said:


> * I don't agree (like...at all...its empirically not true...because I've run every manner of game under the sun since 1984....thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of GMing everything possible...and I know it for a fact) that rules-heavy games inherently and/or fundamentally mean tables are preoccupied with, and driven by, rules over fiction.  Its just not true.



Well, good thing that's not what the argument is. The argument is (and it's backed up by heaps of actual data) that gamers will optimize the fun out of the game, i.e. they will pick the most efficient path regardless of how boring and dull it is and that they will make choices based on the game's mechanics rather than a) what's fun, or; b) what their character would do if they were a real person in a real world as presented by the fiction. The empirical evidence I've collected in my time running and playing games since 1984 matches that conclusion exactly. 

Some examples. Grappling in 3X. Regardless of whether the fiction would call for or the character would honestly choose to grapple a target, the mere fact of using 3X D&D means that there's a huge hurdle to that choice, one that elicits groans from players and DMs to this day when it's mentioned. So, instead of doing that thing that makes the most sense for the fiction or the character (i.e. grapple a target), the player will always choose something else because almost without exception whatever that "something else" is will be easier than dealing with the grappling rules. 

Improvised actions and basic attacks in 4E. Despite the wonderful Page 42, the majority of players ardently stuck with their at-will powers because it was the optimal choice. Likewise with the refusal to make basic attacks going so far as to admonish other players for making basic attacks instead of using an at-will power because a basic attack was sub-optimal. 

And going all the way back to AD&D...the tap, tap, tapping of 10ft poles. Despite it being literally the most boring, tedious, ridiculous waste of time and least fun option possible, it was such an ingrained default style of play that when people start AD&D games now they take the time to ask if they need to bother with them or not. So players would literally waste half the game session or more poking and prodding at every square inch of a dungeon simply because there might be a trap somewhere. I think that's the king of "players will optimize the fun out of the game". The optimal choice is to carry a 10ft pole and tap at every surface you can reach, because there might be traps. It's also the most boring style of play possible. Yet it utterly dominated the era. 


Manbearcat said:


> I've GMed so many games on the rules-heavy side of things where the rules are clear, beautifully integrated, cognitively queueable (meaning the uptake of them and the uptake of sequential and integrated/related rules are "sticky" for the brain), and easily inferable from first principles (as to the what/how/why of their application and the adjudication of exceptions).  When games are like this (Moldvay Basic, D&D 4e, Sorcerer, Torchbearer, Blades in the Dark, probably Aliens but I'm still TBD on this), in practice, they're every bit as nimble as Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, and Apocalypse World at the table.
> 
> Its when systems are opaque, byzantine, incoherent, and not well integrated is when this becomes a problem.  GMs and Players Best Practices defy what the game is supposed to be about as incentive structures and (purported) play goals/premise becomes misaligned, cognitive overhead becomes overwhelming, and table time is disproportionately spent on "non-play."



Right. Rules that focus on the fiction, that present a coherent world, and drive play towards particular goals produce better results. But there are multiple kinds of rules and rule books. Check this out. The FKR just relies more on aligning the table's invisible rulebooks and getting on with it rather than pouring over thick tomes of rules. Do you need 20 pages of social interaction rules or can you just pretend your character is a real person and interacting with other real people and talk to them as such? Do you need a list or precisely detailed moves or can you just declare what your character would do and roll 2d6? Neither is better or worse. Rules heavy, rules medium, rules light, rules ultralight, freeform. They're all great. As long as the rules don't get in the way, don't produce absurdities, and don't contradict the fiction they're supposedly trying to represent. Some people want more rules scaffolding, others less.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Well, good thing that's not what the argument is. The argument is (and it's backed up by heaps of actual data) that gamers will optimize the fun out of the game, i.e. they will pick the most efficient path regardless of how boring and dull it is and that they will make choices based on the game's mechanics rather than a) what's fun, or; b) what their character would do if they were a real person in a real world as presented by the fiction. The empirical evidence I've collected in my time running and playing games since 1984 matches that conclusion exactly.
> 
> Some examples. Grappling in 3X. Regardless of whether the fiction would call for or the character would honestly choose to grapple a target, the mere fact of using 3X D&D means that there's a huge hurdle to that choice, one that elicits groans from players and DMs to this day when it's mentioned. So, instead of doing that thing that makes the most sense for the fiction or the character (i.e. grapple a target), the player will always choose something else because almost without exception whatever that "something else" is will be easier than dealing with the grappling rules.
> 
> ...




I'm not disagreeing that gameable systems don't yield a tendency for social animals to attempt to game them (or perceive that others will do so and therefore engage with a game theoretical model that pressures them into engaging to game the system).

I would never disagree with that as it defies everything my formal life training, work, and everything I've learned outside of that training/work.

What I'm disagreeing with the other claim being put forth in this thread (by you and by FKR):

More rules = Assured focus of table participants on rules over fiction during table time (and the claim appears to also be that this happens in proportion to rules weight).

This is an empirical claim like the other one (that gameable systems yield a tendency for social animals to attempt to game them et al).  This is the claim I'm disputing...because its not true.  Yes, it may be true for a particular population distribution (eg D&D 3.x players who have been inculcated by a TTRPG model that pressures them into gaming a gameable system), but it isn't true across the distribution of (a) all people nor (b) all TTRPG players.  

Its trivially not true.  I've run games for probably north of 700 people in my life.  The number of people who I have seen that this holds true for isn't even the majority (its probably just south with an increased tendency to do so depending upon the game; like 3.x D&D combat particularly at level 9+).  In the last 2 years of my life I've GMed for about 40 strangers (many now friends) that I had never interacted with in real life prior to running various games for them (Dogs in the Vineyard, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Dread, Blades in the Dark, Scum and Villainy, Aliens, Lady Blackbird, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Aliens...I may be forgetting one or two).  Many of these games are rules heavy (and others are lite to medium).

Of those 40 strangers, the number of them that hew to the "more rules = assured focus of table participant on rules over fiction" = zero.  Zilch.  Nada.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 5, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> But there are also rules that work just fine without limiting how the players interact with the fiction.



That's a contradiction. The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules. The examples above that I gave. 3X grappling and 4E improvised action and basic attacks.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think it's something more games should do, or that they should present these ideas more overtly. Principles like this can do a lot of the heavy lifting in this area.



Agreed.


hawkeyefan said:


> "Don't be a weasel" is one for Blades in the Dark that would apply to the kinds of players you're discussing.



I'm not sure what you mean.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think the FKR and OSR spheres show that aesthetic is alive and well, not to mention the many other games that folks are tweaking and hacking to do something new or different. Go onto itch.io and you'll find so many DIY projects that it's overwhelming.



Oh, yeah. Obviously it still exists. I'm more lamenting that it's now niche rather than the mainstream.


hawkeyefan said:


> Well I think it's about being able to ignore or ditch rules situationally as needed. So your two guards blocking the hall example.....it seems absurd given the situation, the GM can just say "you can pass them" or "you can pass them with a successful X check" or what have you.



Right. But that's partially the point. It takes the DM saying so for that rule to be ditched. If the DM doesn't, it's the physics of the world. That physics is patently absurd. Far better to simply remove that absurd rule in the first place rather than rely on the DM recognizing the absurdity of it and giving you a pass in the moment. That a rule produces absurdities is, in itself, a problem.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think it depends, honestly. If that's what works, sure. And I think that's likely true for some situations, but maybe not all. I think games can also benefit from constraining GM authority. But a lot of that will depend on what the goal of play is, and where the participants would like to see the split in authority.



I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad. That's just not a thing. As you mentioned above, the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim. In either case, the DM ignoring rules to benefit the players or ignoring rules to hinder the players, the players' only real recourse is to vote with their feet. There's no appeal to the rules or appeal to the designer. Sure. In the moment you can open the book and point to the page and read the rule, but the DM's still in charge. As you say, they can ignore the rules at their whim.

The books can try to teach DMs and players the game designers' idea of the "proper" way to play the game, i.e. what their intent was in designing it. But once it's in the wild, that's it. It's now up to the DM and players to make it work.

To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it. And if a player doesn't like how a DM runs their game, leave. Those are literally the only options. Play or don't. I mean, it's like that thing going around about empathy. "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." If someone doesn't care, they don't care. If someone doesn't have empathy, you're not going to be able to explain to them the benefits of empathy by appealing to their empathy. If a DM doesn't care what the rules say, you're not going to be able to explain why they should care about the rules by appealing to the rules.


hawkeyefan said:


> But you assume that players will always and absolutely behave one way, but then point out how GMs know their players better than anyone else. I see these being at odds, no? Unless there are differences from player to player? In which case, your monolithic take that they will always game the system seems lost.



You're making the mistake of assuming this one behavior (optimizing the fun out of the game) is the sum total of all behaviors, it's not. That's only one aspect among many. It is a given that players will optimize the fun out of the game. It's not a given whether the players at my table enjoy epic fantasy, jungle adventures, or pike & shot warfare. It's also not a given whether my players will want to engage with strict encumbrance rules or whether they want pure, unending combat, or prefer an entire campaign of pure roleplaying.


hawkeyefan said:


> I personally find that trust goes both ways. Perhaps if a GM were able to trust his players more, he wouldn't need to worry about them always trying to subvert the rules?



What an odd assumption. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't play with them. Understanding this aspect of gamer behavior isn't about trust or lack thereof. It's understanding human psychology. I don't get mad at dogs for barking. Dogs bark. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at the wind for blowing. Wind blows. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at my players for trying to optimize the fun out of the game. Gamers optimize the fun out of the game. My trust doesn't enter into it.


hawkeyefan said:


> Your take seems to be that the players can't be trusted with the rules.



Again, it's not about trust. It's about eliciting a more honest response to the circumstances as presented in the fiction. Rules get in the way and the players will inevitably filter their decisions through the rules. So to avoid that, lighter rules are better or obscured rules.


hawkeyefan said:


> What about the GM? Why can they be trusted so much? I'm struggling to understand why there's such a strong distinction between player and GM in this regard.



Because they're already trusted with the sum total of the entire game, game world, fiction therein, world building, running all the NPCs, factions, etc. If you're not trusting enough of your DM to let them handle the rules, why are you trusting enough to let them handle literally everything outside of your character?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules.



I am still curious as to what variety of games you have in mind.

I am also curious how we have moved from _genre_ (eg upthread I think you mentioned Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea stories) to _realistic responses_.

In real life, if I go to sea in a leaky boat I am likely to drown. In A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged washes up on an uncharted island where he meets exiled members of a Khargad royal family. I think it reasonable for a player to want to know which rule applies in the game they are playing!

In real life, I think being surrounded by foes in battle is mostly a recipe for disaster. In 4e D&D, if my paladin has Valiant Strike (+1 to hit per adjacent foe) then when I hurl myself into battle indifferent to the sea of foes I increase my prospects of striking them down - especially if they are minions.

More generally, is combat brutal and visceral (eg Burning Wheel can be like that) or not (Prince Valiant is almost never brutal or visceral - the rules expressly say that PC death is normally not an important part of Prince Valiant play).

Knowing how actions will be adjudicated, and how consequences will be established, and what principles will govern establishing those consequences, is pretty fundamental to playing a game.



overgeeked said:


> I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad.



Who thinks that a book can protect anyone from anything?

But rules - whether explicit or implicit - are pretty fundamental to a wide range of organised social activities.

The reason for having scoring rules in soccer isn't to protect anyone from anything. It's to structure the game.

The reason for having rules in Burning Wheel isn't to protect anyone from anything. It's to structure the game. The rules of BW create one play experience. It's different from playing Prince Valiant. Either is different from playing Cthulhu Dark. And all three are different from having a storyteller tell a story while taking suggestions as they go.



overgeeked said:


> the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim.



So can the players.

I mean, if I ignore the rule about robbing banks on a whim, I might find myself in serious trouble with the police and their friends! But if I ignore the rule in a RPG, what is going to happen to me? The only sanctions are informal social ones. Those sanctions operate against all participants. GMs are not in any distinct position in this respect.



overgeeked said:


> To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it.



This implies that you think everyone who ever talked about player-driven RPGing is _dishonest_. Is that what you meant? Or are you simply saying that _you prefer_ GM driven RPGing - say, the DL modules - to player driven RPGing - say, Apocalypse World played in accordance with Vincent Baker's rulebook?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 5, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That's a contradiction. The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules. The examples above that I gave. 3X grappling and 4E improvised action and basic attacks.




Because the character in the fiction is also filtering their decisions through a number of considerations....risk versus reward, the chance for physical or social harm, fight or flight.....any number of considerations. A character who is about to climb a mountain has very likely given thought to his chances of success, or the necessity of the action, and so on. They have an understanding of their world that cannot be perfectly translated to a player. They consider these factors when they decide on how to act. A player considers the rules of the game.

I have a reasonable understanding of my chances of sinking a free throw in basketball. If I was an RPG character and someone were controlling me, how would they know what my chances are? "Pretty good" per the GM? Does that mean as much as "you've got a 70% chance" or similar mechanical game expression? 

Now, that's not to say that all rules are like this. I agree with you that some become a tail wagging dog type of situation. But your insistence that this applies to all rules is just not true.




overgeeked said:


> Agreed.




Woo-hoo!!  




overgeeked said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.




"Don't be a weasel" is a Player Best Practice for Blades in the Dark. It addresses the fact that players should be principled in their choice of what Action to use in a given situation. So in Blades, the GM doesn't say "give me a Stealth roll" or the like, it's actually the player who chooses what Action they will use. So the player may say "I'm going to Prowl to silently sneak up on this guard" or they may say "I'm going to use Finesse to carefully pick my path toward the guard". It's up to the player to choose which Action they use. 

"Don't be a weasel" is telling them that this power comes with responsibility, and they should choose the action with integrity, and not just based on their highest score.



overgeeked said:


> Oh, yeah. Obviously it still exists. I'm more lamenting that it's now niche rather than the mainstream.
> 
> Right. But that's partially the point. It takes the DM saying so for that rule to be ditched. If the DM doesn't, it's the physics of the world. That physics is patently absurd. Far better to simply remove that absurd rule in the first place rather than rely on the DM recognizing the absurdity of it and giving you a pass in the moment. That a rule produces absurdities is, in itself, a problem.




Well, I would say that left unaltered by the GM, it being the "physics of the world" is a pretty specific interpretation. But I can agree with you that not all rules will always make sense. That sometimes, they lead to absurd conclusions. When that happens, the GM can use his judgment to tweak things in a way that better suits the situation. 

Now, if you want to say that D&D is overloaded with rules, I'm not really going to disagree....I have plenty of criticisms of D&D rules and processes. So I absolutely get where this approach comes from.



overgeeked said:


> I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad. That's just not a thing. As you mentioned above, the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim. In either case, the DM ignoring rules to benefit the players or ignoring rules to hinder the players, the players' only real recourse is to vote with their feet. There's no appeal to the rules or appeal to the designer. Sure. In the moment you can open the book and point to the page and read the rule, but the DM's still in charge. As you say, they can ignore the rules at their whim.




Well you use DM a lot instead of GM, so that may be the issue. Not every game says "The GM is free to decide whatever they like". There are games that limit when and how the GM can act. If the GM ignores those rules and just does whatever he wants, he'd be breaking the rules, and everyone at the table would be aware. 

Could there be a time when it would make sense to do so? Sure. But there's no way for the group as a whole to no be aware that it's happening. 




overgeeked said:


> The books can try to teach DMs and players the game designers' idea of the "proper" way to play the game, i.e. what their intent was in designing it. But once it's in the wild, that's it. It's now up to the DM and players to make it work.
> 
> To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it. And if a player doesn't like how a DM runs their game, leave. Those are literally the only options. Play or don't. I mean, it's like that thing going around about empathy. "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." If someone doesn't care, they don't care. If someone doesn't have empathy, you're not going to be able to explain to them the benefits of empathy by appealing to their empathy. If a DM doesn't care what the rules say, you're not going to be able to explain why they should care about the rules by appealing to the rules.




Yeah, I'm not sure I can get on board with that. I've seen GMs improve. I've improved as a GM. Very often, it's as a result of messing something up and having a player point it out, or having a conflict with a player because we have differing expectations, and then realizing that's largely on me as the GM. 

GMing is a skill, and can be improved.



overgeeked said:


> You're making the mistake of assuming this one behavior (optimizing the fun out of the game) is the sum total of all behaviors, it's not. That's only one aspect among many. It is a given that players will optimize the fun out of the game. It's not a given whether the players at my table enjoy epic fantasy, jungle adventures, or pike & shot warfare. It's also not a given whether my players will want to engage with strict encumbrance rules or whether they want pure, unending combat, or prefer an entire campaign of pure roleplaying.




Is it a given that your players will want to engage with whatever story you've come up with as a GM? Or that they'll agree with the judgments you make as a GM just because they may not be aware of what has informed your judgment?



overgeeked said:


> What an odd assumption. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't play with them. Understanding this aspect of gamer behavior isn't about trust or lack thereof. It's understanding human psychology. I don't get mad at dogs for barking. Dogs bark. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at the wind for blowing. Wind blows. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at my players for trying to optimize the fun out of the game. Gamers optimize the fun out of the game. My trust doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Again, it's not about trust. It's about eliciting a more honest response to the circumstances as presented in the fiction. Rules get in the way and the players will inevitably filter their decisions through the rules. So to avoid that, lighter rules are better or obscured rules.
> 
> Because they're already trusted with the sum total of the entire game, game world, fiction therein, world building, running all the NPCs, factions, etc. If you're not trusting enough of your DM to let them handle the rules, why are you trusting enough to let them handle literally everything outside of your character?




So what is it that makes GMs trustworthy and not players? Why aren't GMs subject to the same gamism that you think consumes all players? 

How do I know I can trust the GM to honor all the rolls and rules even if it means the NPC that he created with the intention of being a badass threat to the PCs winds up getting beat down like a chump? Why is a GM immune to seeking an advantage through the rules? And how would increasing his authority in any way lessen this possibility? 

Also, how can I as a player trust that, should I decide that my character is indifferent to the badass NPC and his plot, that the GM won't take that cue and drop the content he created in favor of what the players decide to do?


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 6, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I am still curious as to what variety of games you have in mind.
> 
> I am also curious how we have moved from _genre_ (eg upthread I think you mentioned Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea stories) to _realistic responses_.
> 
> ...




Remember my 5e thread "DC 30...35?" from days of yore (what was that...2015?  16?).  

Genre logic vs this "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic was one of the primary aspects of DC handling that I was trying to suss out in that thread.  Unsurprisingly, there not only wasn't a consensus on use-case handling, but it deviated wildly.  No one could pin down 5e's procedures and principles (because the designers, intentionally, leave it up to the GM) as they relate to these two very different approaches to handling both (a) setting DCs and (b) deriving Consequences post-action resolution.

The fact that this is both (i) left for the GM to sort out and (ii) the GM facing nature of the process is intentionally inscrutable on a case-in/case-out basis has far-reaching implications on play.  This is a large component of that feedback loop I mentioned above in my break-out of System's Say / GM's Say / Player's Say.  A game that may rise to a 3 in Player's Say (vs a 6 in GM's Say), but it doesn't start out that way because the player has to gain the experience necessary to decode when a GM is apt to use genre logic and when they're apt to "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic in both (a) and (b) above (and sometimes that is completely incoherent...the GM might use "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic to set the DC but then use genre logic to derive Consequences post-action resolution....or they might do vice versa...and it might change on another, similar use-case!).  In such a case, Player's Say would start out at perhaps a 1.5 (with GM's Say starting at 7.5), but, after a year or so of play under that GM, they might suss out the GM's predilections and "earn" that extra 1.5 to arrive at the Holy Grail of 3


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Remember my 5e thread "DC 30...35?" from days of yore (what was that...2015?  16?).
> 
> Genre logic vs this "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic was one of the primary aspects of DC handling that I was trying to suss out in that thread.  Unsurprisingly, there not only wasn't a consensus on use-case handling, but it deviated wildly.  No one could pin down 5e's procedures and principles (because the designers, intentionally, leave it up to the GM) as they relate to these two very different approaches to handling both (a) setting DCs and (b) deriving Consequences post-action resolution.
> 
> The fact that this is both (i) left for the GM to sort out and (ii) the GM facing nature of the process is intentionally inscrutable on a case-in/case-out basis has far-reaching implications on play.



I remember it, and I agree with your last sentence.

Just to add some more thoughts:

"Naturalistic" logic is tricky in fantasy games. It's tricky even in sci-fi games: eg if I hit the accelerator on my air/raft, will I cause the thug in the back seat to lose his footing and perhaps even drop his gun? (Much as if I suddenly accelerated a car or bus?) Or does the anti-grav technology that keeps the thing flying and moving also establish some sort of constant inertial field? Clearly the latter is true for spaceships, which can accelerate at up to 6Gs without everyone falling over or falling unconscious. But the rules neither state nor imply anything for air/rafts. So we have to just make it up!

Suppose we decide that there is no inertial field in an air/raft because it uses "grav modules" whereas a starship uses "grav plates". So my plan to disarm the thug can work (yay!). How likely is the thug to fall over? To drop his gun? Does anyone have that empirical knowledge? Have studies been undertaken? My understanding is based entirely on personal experience of riding in cars and buses as a passenger!

Cortex+ Heroic will treat this as an attempt to impose a complication (my pool includes, let's say, my Reflexes and my Vehicle specialisation; the thug gets to put his Thug specialty into the pool because thugs don't drop their weapons lightly!, and whatever else might make sense). In Classic Traveller, on the other hand, the referee sets a throw which probably shoud be modified by DEX - maybe extrapolating from the rules for putting on a vacc suit following explosive decompression, which is the closest thing I can think of in the system (and which uses full DEX - from 1 to 15 - as a mod to the 2d6 throw). Perhaps my Air/Raft skill is a debuff on the check.

I don't see how either is inherently superior. The Cortex+ approach is probably more transparent. The Traveller approach - based on my actual experience of play - is a bit more gritty and visceral. I play both!


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 6, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> What I'm disagreeing with the other claim being put forth in this thread (by you and by FKR):
> 
> More rules = Assured focus of table participants on rules over fiction during table time (and the claim appears to also be that this happens in proportion to rules weight).



Again, that's not the claim that's being made.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 6, 2021)

Ok, then who said this:



overgeeked said:


> FKR is about minimalist rules, but what rules do exist should support the fiction.




and then immediately said this:



overgeeked said:


> That's due to the tendency of gamers to focus on the rules. So you will inevitably come to a point where the player has to pick between the rules and the fiction. Gamers being gamers, that will come sooner rather than later and they will inevitably pick the rules over the world.




in response to this:



> hawkeyefan said:
> But I have read many of the pages linked in your initial post, and also some of those further linked in those pages. Some I agree with....or if not agree then I can at least understand why they might be appealing. Others I don't agree with. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong. I find the general idea of "play worlds, not rules" to be a good one. But it's coupled so strongly with limiting player awareness and engagement of the rules, which I don't like.




and then who said this doubling down on the "rules bloat/cruft/expansion/heft makes players focus on/make decisions around rules rather than world/fiction" premise:



overgeeked said:


> In that sense, I agree that "realism" is also a goal. But the version of "realism" there is avoidance of rules cruft that pushes absurdities and accepts the messiness of lighter rules that broadly cover everything rather than lots of narrow rules that eventually add up to cover everything. You get a more "realistic" response when the player makes decisions based on the world and their character rather than the rules and trying to game them.




And this:



overgeeked said:


> Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game.





What inference is one supposed to draw from all of this (and there is plenty more) and your support from FKR other than:

*Table-facing, codified rules cause players to focus on rules instead of fiction and the focus is in proportion to the heft of those rules (so therefore not rules-heavy...not rules-medium...not rules-lite....therefore minimalist rules).*


I don't even understand why you're choosing to make this a thing.  It seems as noncontroversial a thing as there could ever be (attributing this position to you and FKR).


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 6, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> What *inference* is one supposed to draw from all of this (and there is plenty more) and your support from FKR other than:
> 
> *Table-facing, codified rules cause players to focus on rules instead of fiction and the focus is in proportion to the heft of those rules (so therefore not rules-heavy...not rules-medium...not rules-lite....therefore minimalist rules).*



Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.


Manbearcat said:


> I don't even understand why you're choosing to make this a thing.  It seems as noncontroversial a thing as there could ever be (attributing this position to you and FKR).



I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as. 

And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 6, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.



So, then, I'm curious.  Are you not in favor of minimalist rules?  Are you not in favor of obscuring any rules that might exist from the players?  Are you not of the opinion that having rules the players know leads to the players relying on the rules rather than engaging the fiction?

I'm curious to your answers because this seems exactly what MBC just posted as a sum up and also aligns well with what you've said in this thread.


overgeeked said:


> I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as.
> 
> And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.



I've read a few of the linked things -- they aren't any more illuminating than you've been as to what actually makes FKR a unique approach to gaming.  Most of them seem to be starting from the position that FKR is a thing and then casting about for reasons why, rather than building up a coherent set of principles that define the approach.  Maybe you've read things you haven't linked, here, that do this work.  If so, I'd be keen to read them.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 6, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Whatever inferences you'd like. But don't pretend it's something I said.
> 
> I'm not making "it" a "thing". You're saying I said something that I didn't. I'm objecting to that. Simple as.
> 
> And don't mistake my positions for the whole of the FKR. I, along with a few others here, have simply read more about it than the rest of the posters here. I'm not a spokesman for the...what..."movement". I'm offering up my opinions and my take on what the FKR is trying to do. That's all.




Who are you and what have you done to overgeeked?!  

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want.  

If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my overgeeked go now, that'll be the end of it.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 6, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I can tell you I don't have money.



Well of course you don't. You're a gamer.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 6, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> "Don't be a weasel" is a Player Best Practice for Blades in the Dark. It addresses the fact that players should be principled in their choice of what Action to use in a given situation. So in Blades, the GM doesn't say "give me a Stealth roll" or the like, it's actually the player who chooses what Action they will use. So the player may say "I'm going to Prowl to silently sneak up on this guard" or they may say "I'm going to use Finesse to carefully pick my path toward the guard". It's up to the player to choose which Action they use.
> 
> "Don't be a weasel" is telling them that this power comes with responsibility, and they should choose the action with integrity, and not just based on their highest score.




Ooh oh oh oh oh!

This is something I've been meaning to write about! So until I get the full post up, I thought I'd mention this briefly-

The two areas that I find interesting when it comes to this are as follows:

1. Here, for example, we have a written principle. Which is great and all, but would that be any different than a norm? In other words, imagine a game that has the same division of authority (with players getting the choice) that doesn't explicitly say "Don't be a weasel." Absent that explicit principle in the game, is the default to be a weasel, or not to be a weasel?

2. Given that principles cannot be enforceable rules (don't be a weasel is not exactly black & white, and who knows what horrors lurk in the hearts of the various lizard people we play with), do we provide the same general understanding of the principles for being a DM as we would for ones for players, whether written or unwritten? Be fair? Don't be a weasel? That sort of thing?

Not sure when I'll have this in full, but this is something I've been meaning to write about for a while ...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 6, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Ooh oh oh oh oh!
> 
> This is something I've been meaning to write about! So until I get the full post up, I thought I'd mention this briefly-
> 
> ...




Sure, it very well could be. Absent that principle, many folks may go the route that @overgeeked has described. I agree with him in that when presented with a game and here are the rules and this is the goal, people are going to try to achieve the goal through the rules, and part of that will be in testing the rules or seeing if they can be usurped or subverted in some way. 

I think this is why having such principles clearly stated for the players and not just for the GM can be a big mitigating factor toward the kinds of issues that have been described, i.e. gaming the system, optimizing the fun away, etc. 

I think it also depends on what the goal of play may be. In D&D, it's to win. We often say that's not the goal and talk about how there's no winners or losers in the game.....but that's kind of BS. The goal in D&D is to win....to beat the monster, to navigate the dungeon, to get the treasure....and so on. That's been so conditioned into players that the idea of seeking any and all advantages may become their default approach. Hence, 10' poles and door protocol and trap-springers hirelings and so on. These are all born of the need to win. These are all part of the game world, but they largely exist and were so common because of the game. 

So I think that it really is a combo of many things that may lead to the kinds of concerns we've been discussing.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> 2. Given that principles cannot be enforceable rules (don't be a weasel is not exactly black & white, and who knows what horrors lurk in the hearts of the various lizard people we play with), do we provide the same general understanding of the principles for being a DM as we would for ones for players, whether written or unwritten? Be fair? Don't be a weasel? That sort of thing?
> 
> Not sure when I'll have this in full, but this is something I've been meaning to write about for a while ...




Right. This is the question I posed.....what makes the GM so capable of being neutral and trustworthy while the players are considered incapable of it? I do think that we can hold all participants to some kinds of play standards. Some would be universal and some would be specific to the role of GM or player. And although they may not be as codified as rules....they may fail at times or we may fail to achieve them in some instances of play....I think they go a long way.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 6, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right. This is the question I posed.....what makes the GM so capable of being neutral and trustworthy while the players are considered incapable of it? I do think that we can hold all participants to some kinds of play standards. Some would be universal and some would be specific to the role of GM or player. And although they may not be as codified as rules....they may fail at times or we may fail to achieve them in some instances of play....I think they go a long way.




Oh, as I will elaborate on further, I don't think that it's the case that the GM can or should be considered more trustworthy. As I always say, "People suck. They listen to Coldplay and play Bards."

I think it comes down to a variety of factors-
1. What does the table prefer? 
2. What are the relative desires/skills of the participants?
3. Is there some inherent advantage with a particular division of authority?

I think one way that (some) people look at it is at a very basic level- with a GM-centric model, you have one point of failure; with a table-centric model, you can have multiple points of failure. Of course, the flip-side of that is that with a GM-centric model, the point of failure is usually catastrophic, whereas it tends to be less-so with a table-centric approach.

Maybe. Still working on it.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 6, 2021)

Meh. Approaching topics like this with an assumption of bad faith play is pretty pointless. Pretty much any RPG falls apart with bad faith play on either side of the screen. Assumptions about player drives and actions, like the ones above, don't even pass the smell test for me. I don't play with munchkins and I don't play with jerks, so subversion of the game/rules by way of optimization really isn't a problem at my table. On the occasions where it does happen (almost always as a result the unforeseen synergy between rules ) we have a little chat as a group, decide how to handle it, and move on. I also don't generally believe that players are out to subvert the game, an idea here which seems to have been welded on to the idea of optimization without good rationale. They aren't the same thing, nor do they inevitably happen together.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 6, 2021)

I think there is massive value in enumerated principles for both players and GMs because it helps us to establish explicit boundaries and expectations for play. Sure they are not enforceable in the same way explicit procedures are, but they can be useful for ongoing conversations about what we all expect from play. I know it has been useful to me when running/playing Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, etc. Sometimes you alter the list a bit for the specific group, but having them out in the open is immensely useful.

I am used to this sort of thing though. It is a big part of scouting, martial arts, sports, and active duty military life so it was formative to me.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I think there is massive value in enumerated principles for both players and GMs because it helps us to establish explicit boundaries and expectations for play. Sure they are not enforceable in the same way explicit procedures are



To be honest, I don't think I agree with that last sentence.

In my 4e game, the PCs won a skill challenge - a social encounter. That was the end of that session. The next session began with me framing the combat that followed on from that challenge. As I was stating part of my framing, one of the players pulled me up, and reminded me that _as a result of the players' success in the skill challenge_, it was established in the fiction that everyone knew the evil advisor, and not the PCs, was responsible for the bad stuff that was happening.

That's enforcement of a principle (in this case, of respecting the established consequences as binding). To my mind it's no different from pointing out that someone added up their AC wrong. In both cases - given we're talking about a leisure activity - the process and sanctions for "enforcement" are purely informal social ones.

Another example: in the BW game where I'm a player, the GM had framed a scene involving elves (he loves elves!). I could see what he was doing - it evoked memories of other games and sessions we'd played together - but it didn't connect to my own priorities (Beliefs, etc) for my character. So, following the advice to players set out in the rulebook, I declared an action that would reorient things - I tried to persuade the elf captain to accompany me back to my ancestral homeland so he could help me deal with the evil that festers there! I knew that I had little or no chance of winning this Duel of Wits - and that turned out to be the case! I didn't even get a compromise - but the process itself was enough to bring the game back onto its principled focus: my PC and his struggles.

I think it distorts our understanding to trot out cliches like _the players only recourse is to quit the game_ or _there is no solution to principles-violating play other than not to play with d*ckheads_. I mean, of course not playing with d*ckheads is a good idea, but people violate principles all the time, in all areas of life, without being fundamentally unworthy people. (My BW GM is one of the best GMs I've known.) And there are all sorts of ways we handle that short of ragequitting!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2021)

A sequel to my reply to @Campbell just upthread:

I find references to _trust _or suggestions that sceptics of some or other sort of RPGing are imputing _bad faith play_ basically unhelpful.

_Good faith play _of snakes and ladders means not cheating on your dice rolls and being honest in your counting of squares. I played snakes and ladders (in _so _many variants - the worst was a Bob the Builder one) with my kids when they were little. But we don't play it any more, because it does not deliver a fun experience. Finding out what happens when you roll a die, and practising your counting, just don't cut it anymore as a leisure activity.

_Good faith play _of chess means not knocking over the board so that no one can remember the position, and - even if playing other than touch-move - not engaging in so many ums and ahs and takebacks that the game really turns into one person's practice workshop. I don't play much chess, because I don't enjoy it all that much. (And there is a causal interrelationship there to the fact that I'm not that good at it.) Now someone could come along and tell me how great chess is, and how I'd really love it if I just played more of it. And maybe they're right! But maybe they're not. And whether or not they're right, and whether or not I'm going to try and play a bit more chess, has nothing to do with anyone's _good faith_. And it's not going to change the fact that I still want to play whist-type auction-and-trick card games.

As Vincent Baker has said, at the core of RPGing is _negotiated imagination_. So what is fundamental to any particular approach to RPGing is _who gets to say what, when, in accordance with what rules and principles, and make it part of the shared fiction_. One answer to that question is _the GM_. But obviously that's not the only possible answer. There are many possibilities, particularly once we think about all the different sorts of things that we might want to say in the course of our RPGing (_what happened before? what happens next? what are things like here-and-now? what will happen if I (as my PC) do this thing rather than that thing? _etc).

My enjoyment of a RPG experience, and the particular nature of that enjoyment given the particular nature of the experience, will depend on the answers to those questions about _who gets to say what when_. References to_ trust_ and to _good or bad faith _do not go even a single step, as far as I can see, to providing those answers.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 7, 2021)

My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. *The players describe what they want their characters to do. *
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

If the goal of the game is _to announce actions_ then I can achieve that, but the moment the goal of the game is defined in terms of _affecting the gameworld_ this loop only gives power to do that to the DM.

This isn't theoretical. I've years of experience of zero agency play. You are, at best, an advisor and at worst an irrelevance or irritation.

And no amount of 'trust' or appeals for the DM to 'not be a douche' raises you from advisor to player. The construct doesn't allow it. The DM gatekeeps everything.

It's an interesting theme amongst dictators through history that they always claim to be absolutely essential. Personally, I've never been convinced.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

To riff off of what @chaochou has just written above, I wonder what would happen at the following FKR table:

* 4 players + 1 GM

*1 player is interacting with the GM exclusively in a protracted scene

* During the protracted 1 on 1 scene, the other 3 players start to talk to each other while inhabiting their characters and faithfully "playing the world" based on the conceits of character design and play (looking at Dark Empires Dark Empires by D3B4G , they're using all of the stuff on the bottom page 2 to page 3 and the outlined premise of play).

* After the protracted scene that the 1 player + 1 GM plays out, the conversation of those 3 players (not overseen by nor vetted by the GM but entirely hewing to "playing the world" and the conceits of the game's character building, theme, and premise) has established a few layers of fiction.  They now make a collective action declaration that is contingent upon that fiction that the 3 of them have established being true.  


What happens?  Is this a violation?  Is this principled play?  Is there no normative statement about FKR play that can categorize this event?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.
> 2. *The players describe what they want their characters to do. *
> ...



Right. Like I posted just upthread of you, what's key is not _trust _but _who gets to say what, when_. And in this model, only the GM gets to say what is happening in the fiction.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> To riff off of what @chaochou has just written above, I wonder what would happen at the following FKR table:
> 
> * 4 players + 1 GM
> 
> ...



Basically that's how this hobby started, Arneson did that with a fellow player and Wesely came up with something in response to that action declaration AFAIK


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2021)

@Manbearcat, that's a variant of Vincent Baker's smelly chamberlain.

Baker takes as a premise that "The GM has responsibility for everything in the game world but the players' characters; the players get to say what their characters think, feel and undertake to do." Which is basically the same as the play loop that @chaochou has described.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Basically that's how this hobby started, Arneson did that with a fellow player and Wesely came up with something in response to that action declaration AFAIK




I very much appreciate the insightful reply but, “came up with a response” doesn’t do enough work to sate my curiosity.

What Id be curious to know about that anecdote is:

* Was the “play the world” fiction they authored honored even though there wasn’t  GM oversight/vetting/exchange?

* Was the action declaration they made (contingent upon that authoring) extrapolated to “say yes” or “roll the dice” (and why or why not)?

* Is this handling normative (meaning the “play worlds not rules” principle + character creation rules/premise + “trust each other” principle undergirds exactly this sort of thing)?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 7, 2021)

AFAIK again, yes it was honoured, dice were rolled as an ad-hoc ruling since PvP situation, and to your last point: yes, I guess so.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 7, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @Manbearcat, that's a variant of Vincent Baker's smelly chamberlain.
> 
> Baker takes as a premise that "The GM has responsibility for everything in the game world but the players' characters; the players get to say what their characters think, feel and undertake to do." Which is basically the same as the play loop that @chaochou has described.



I remember the smelly chamberlain


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Numidius said:


> AFAIK again, yes it was honoured, dice were rolled as an ad-hoc ruling since PvP situation, and to your last point: yes, I guess so.




Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.

* This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.

* They’re stipulating aspects about the world/setting as it relates to their characters (for Dark Empires, this might be one character speaking to something they’re running from to another character about the culture that has helped shape them to another character to how they are rich + can use magic and how all this relates to (a) their thoughts on Napoleon and (b) a just made up between them evidence of cult worship and incursion of ogres in the already established dark woods nearby).

* They’re then declaring an action (say in the example above they’re calling upon the riches + Magics of one PC and the cultural contacts of the other to address the thing the third PC is running from; the ogre-worshipping cult in the dark woods).


What happens?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.
> 
> * This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.
> 
> ...




P. 4

_Action, Risk and consequences...
The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players. The players use common sense *and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions*.
The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences.
If the outcome of the situation is unclear, is very risky or has a poor chance of success the player and gm both roll 2d6. If the player rolls higher than the gm they succeed! If the gm rolls higher, the player fails in some way or the action succeeds but at some cost.
The difference in the results indicates the degree of success or failure.

Playing the world not the rules...
Use what you know about the setting and fiction.
.....
*Trust each other, have fun!*_


Based on the action resolution system and the principles, the game master should determine if there are any other factors (such as ones that the players do not know about) that would make the outcome unclear and require an opposed role; if not, narrate the consequences like to result in-fiction from the player's actions.

At a basic level, this trust works both ways. We are assuming good faith, and that the players are actively and happily engaged with the fiction!  

IMO, etc. But that's how I'd run it without knowing more details.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.
> 2. *The players describe what they want their characters to do. *
> ...




I'm confused what you mean by agency.  You have agency in that you have complete control over your character.  When you walk out the front door, what agency do you have over the world?  Do you control the weather, the traffic, if your neighbor is out watering the plants?  Player agency debates that I've seen usually revolve around DMs deciding things are going to happen in the story regardless of PC actions--i.e., there _will_ be the ogre encounter whether or not the players go left or right or how careful they try to be.  That is, the DM might have difficulty being neutral, or not wanting to impose a particular story, OR, the players may simply not trust that the DM can be neutral and just play the world.  

The above concerns are not particularly related to FKR, but are questions for any rpg.  The gameplay loop that you identify as problematic, for example, is identical to the one listed on p.6 of the 5e players handbook.  





> Spoiler: 5e gameplay loop
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Let me clarify as it wasn’t clear in my initial post.
> 
> * This isn’t PVP. They’re interacting exclusively with each other, but it’s not versus.
> 
> ...




I don't know...what would you do in that situation?  I skimmed the rules...it seems for any action the player declares where they might be uncertainty, the dm and player roll 2d6 and compare results.  In terms of players collaborating on building the setting, I suppose our group could rely on whatever knowledge we had about Napoleonic Europe, and maybe it would help if we read some of the referenced novels.  Then we would just talk about it and see what's most fun.  Might take a page out of a book like The Ground Itself and go around the table building up aspects of the world.

I think the result would be, is that you would start with the short Dark Empires pdf, use some combination of historical and literary knowledge, and design some mechanics or subsystems to use on the fly, probably based on prior rpgs people at the table have played.  You would forget about half your houserules by the next session, and make it up again?  I imagine it would almost be like designing an rpg game together, and what you design would vary from table to table.  And maybe it would devolve into an argument!  Or maybe there are social dynamics at the table between the players, including players that are shy or want to be polite, that would affect gameplay. That's certainly a risk that other games try to mitigate in one way or another.

It will be argued that some of the FKR blogs don't include principles or procedures to ensure that the above conversation happens, or happens in a particular way.  I'm not sure I can articulate why that doesn't bother me?  I think I try to imagine how the scenario would work with my play group, based on how we already play, and feel confident that we could figure it out.

Anyway, I'll again mention that the above is not particular to "FKR" games.  The question about whether players can contribute to the setting, for example, would extend to any trad _or_ osr game, where the general answer is 'no' or 'yes, with DM consent.'  Similarly, I don't think Dark Empires is very sharply distinguished from an OSR zine.  For example, there are games like Whitehack and Maze Rats that include free-form magic systems that basically involve the player naming their spell and the dm and player together deciding what it does.  That is, many OSR games already play like some of these proposed FKR games (which maybe makes the FKR label somewhat meaningless in the context of the hobby, but that's separate from how a game plays).


----------



## chaochou (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> My fundamental issue is that the play loop for this style is zero agency from the player point of view. People are absolutely free to enjoy it, but I don't.
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.
> 2. *The players describe what they want their characters to do. *
> ...






Malmuria said:


> I'm confused what you mean by agency.



Which part of what I’ve said above are you not able to understand?

In that play loop only the GM changes the game world, so any goals of play which involve altering the state of the game world are only achievable by the GM. Its a crystal clear construction.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Which part of what I’ve said above are you not able to understand?
> 
> In that play loop only the GM changes the game world, so any goals of play which involve altering the state of the game world are only achievable by the GM. Its a crystal clear construction.



You said that resulted in "zero agency."  I disagree with this--players have agency over what their character does, and the DM narrates how the world reacts to their characters actions.  The player can choose to have their character stab a town guard in the throat, the dm narrates if the character is successful, and if so how the town reacts.  It's the core gameplay loop of 5e...do you think 5e is a game where players have zero agency?

Agency in the above context is the ability for the player to make a decision about what their character does, not their ability to narrate how the world reacts to what their character does.  It's similarly up to the DM to think about how the PCs actions would affect the gameworld, and narrate accordingly.  

The above loop won't work as well if you are aiming for collaborative setting-building or story-making, but it does work for an rpg where you play a character in a simulated world. (And I'll mention again this has nothing to do, really, with FKR specifically).


----------



## chaochou (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> You said that resulted in "zero agency."  I disagree with this--players have agency over what their character does, and the DM narrates how the world reacts to their characters actions.



Again, unless the goal of play is to announce actions then the goals of play can only be met by the GM.

if you disagree then show me. I’ll GM, you play and your goal is to stab the guard in the throat. Give it a shot. We both know you’ll fail, because the only one with permission to say if that happens is me.

But go ahead. Show me.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> It's an interesting theme amongst dictators through history that they always claim to be absolutely essential. Personally, I've never been convinced.



The DM as dictator. Wow. That's certainly a steaming hot take.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

The issue, agency-wise, is that the player statement described has zero impact on what actually happens. Most games, at the very least, offload some of that onto the mechanics, and in many cases offload a little, or more than a little, onto the player as well. Here, it's entirely with the GM. I wouldn't argue with the use of 'zero agency' here. Keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean 'not fun' or 'wrong'.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> The issue, agency-wise, is that the player statement described has zero impact on what actually happens. Most games, at the very least, offload some of that onto the mechanics, and in many cases offload a little, or more than a little, onto the player as well. Here, it's entirely with the GM. I wouldn't argue with the use of 'zero agency' here. Keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean 'not fun' or 'wrong'.



In most traditional RPGs, the players have control over their PC but not the world or NPCs. So a PC trying to do something or interact with an NPC needs the DM to adjudicate, whether that's a roll or rubber stamp. Because that action should have consequences that have an effect on the world going forward. That cannot be integrated into the world unless the DM knows about it...because the DM controls everything outside of the PCs. If players want to define "zero-agency" as the inability to affect the game world without DM input...well, then you're not going to be interested in the vast majority of RPGs. Which is fine. It's a "big" hobby in that there are all kinds of games with all kinds of mixes for player vs DM control of the narrative. Seems like intentionally shooting yourself in the face to define agency that narrowly.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> The issue, agency-wise, is that the player statement described has zero impact on what actually happens. Most games, at the very least, offload some of that onto the mechanics, and in many cases offload a little, or more than a little, onto the player as well. Here, it's entirely with the GM. *I wouldn't argue with the use of 'zero agency' here*. Keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean 'not fun' or 'wrong'.




I would, for two main reasons.

First, if you are using a term, it is best to use it in a manner that promotes discussion. If you are using it as a defined term (or jargon), then that might be one thing. But if you are using it in such a way that it is likely to cut-off discussion, or cause debate about the term itself, then you probably shouldn't use it that way. "Player agency," as commonly described by the majority of gamers (since the vast majority of gamers plays some variation of D&D- either one of the main D&D games or a variant like PF) use the type of action resolution system we typically describe-
A. DM describes environment.
B. Player announces action.
C. DM announces resolution.
D. Goto (A).

There are variations, twists, modifications, but that's the basic process. Now, people can (and do!) have debates about player agency _within the ambit_ of this resolution system. We all recognize that, right? Because that's exactly what @Malmuria was talking about- issues like illusionism and railroading and all that good stuff.

So, if someone else says, "Hey, listen y'all. And by y'all, I mean the vast majority of gamers .... none of you have player agency. NONE OF YOU. And ZERO PLAYER AGENCY." Well, that's not likely to lead to a productive discussion because that's just an antagonistic way to have a discussion, which I think should be obvious? It would be more productive to have a conversation about, say, players authoring the fiction _instead of using a term like agency_ that is already widely used for something else by a lot of people.


Second, I wouldn't do it because it tends to overheated rhetoric like, "dictator," and so on. But that's me. Overheated rhetoric should be reserved for the truly deserving and evil, like soulless, dead-eyed elves.


EDIT- ninja's by @overgeeked


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> In most traditional RPGs, the players have control over their PC but not the world or NPCs. So a PC trying to do something or interact with an NPC needs the DM to adjudicate, whether that's a roll or rubber stamp. Because that action should have consequences that have an effect on the world going forward. That cannot be integrated into the world unless the DM knows about it...because the DM controls everything outside of the PCs. If players want to define "zero-agency" as the inability to affect the game world without DM input...well, then you're not going to be interested in the vast majority of RPGs. Which is fine. It's a "big" hobby in that there are all kinds of games with all kinds of mixes for player vs DM control of the narrative. Seems like intentionally shooting yourself in the face to define agency that narrowly.



My point was more that the rules and mechanics usually provide specific guidelines for what success and failure look like for a given action. So while, yes, the GM adjudicates the success or failure, they do so within a structure or framework provided by the rules. Not so in the example here. Player agency, in cases of adjudication frameworks is that by selecting action X or action Y players have some control over the outcome, even if that control does not extend to narration (which it doesn't in a lot of TTRPGs). The lack of agency in the example from this thread is what it is, more in the way of fact than one of narrow definitions. That doesn't make it a bad thing, just a thing. How much people enjoy it will vary, as with any RPG.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I don't know...what would you do in that situation?  I skimmed the rules...it seems for any action the player declares where they might be uncertainty, the dm and player roll 2d6 and compare results.  In terms of players collaborating on building the setting, I suppose our group could rely on whatever knowledge we had about Napoleonic Europe, and maybe it would help if we read some of the referenced novels.  Then we would just talk about it and see what's most fun.  Might take a page out of a book like The Ground Itself and go around the table building up aspects of the world.
> 
> I think the result would be, is that you would start with the short Dark Empires pdf, use some combination of historical and literary knowledge, and design some mechanics or subsystems to use on the fly, probably based on prior rpgs people at the table have played.  You would forget about half your houserules by the next session, and make it up again?  I imagine it would almost be like designing an rpg game together, and what you design would vary from table to table.  And maybe it would devolve into an argument!  Or maybe there are social dynamics at the table between the players, including players that are shy or want to be polite, that would affect gameplay. That's certainly a risk that other games try to mitigate in one way or another.
> 
> ...




If the setting generation they created during their conversation has conflict that I feel needs to be resolved, I’d likely go to Dogs in the Vineyard player-authored-kickers during chargen, except more a hyper-rules-lite version of Blades complex flashbacks with binary results and Fail Forward informing failure.

Ok, you’ve set the scene player. Let’s roll our 2d6 contest and see who wins. You can take +/-1 because of this chargen element. 

If they win, their setting stipulation is true. If they lose, sure…it’s true…but this other thing that sucks is also true.

We play from there and resolve the new scene that they’ve devised a kicker around.

We’ve just made up some layers of system so that It’s functional for play right now…but _wholly unsatisfying for me to GM because I don’t want to spend any portion of my cognitive workspace devising rules, stress-testing them, and iterating during play_ (Id rather GM a hacked Dogs in the Vineyard where we’re subbing Napoleon-fealty for Faith and handling each of the chargen stuff like Dogs’ does and then use Dogs conflict resolution, agenda, and principles). There is so much meat missing from the bone that we’re inevitably building and stress-testing and iterating system through play to play at all (2d6 contests are not remotely sufficient to resolve conflicts let alone a host of them in snowballing succession…I’m going to have to devote cognitive space to working out the rest or negotiating it on a case by case basis).

And how I resolve this tells me nothing about what the standard distribution of tables does when this particular scenario arises. And it tells me nothing about how the standard distribution of this particular subset of TTRPGers (FKRers) would resolve this. So, therefore, if I’m a prospective player joining a game, it’s unclear what I’m going to get. If I’m a prospective GM courting players, it’s unclear what their expectations of the play experience are going to be.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Again, unless the goal of play is to announce actions then the goals of play can only be met by the GM.
> 
> if you disagree then show me. I’ll GM, you play and your goal is to stab the guard in the throat. Give it a shot. *We both know you’ll fail, because the only one with permission to say if that happens is me.*
> 
> But go ahead. Show me.



This post is clarifying for what we might mean by high-trust vs low-trust situations.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> This post is clarifying for what we might mean by high-trust vs low-trust situations.



Why? Which part of the gameplay loop are you claiming I’m not doing?

You declare your action and I’ll tell you the outcome.

Thats what it says and that’s what will happen.

Aren’t you excited to demonstrate all the agency you’re so sure you have?

I certainly am. I can’t wait to see it!


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> My point was more that the rules and mechanics usually provide specific guidelines for what success and failure look like for a given action. So while, yes, the GM adjudicates the success or failure, they do so within a structure or framework provided by the rules.



There's two problems with that. First, in the thread -- and in RPG discussions -- it's been repeatedly shown and agreed to that the DM can arbitrarily change the rules on a whim. Second, the DM can, and is expected to, adjust the difficulty of actions while staying within the framework of the rules. D&D and DCs, for example. The DM sets the DCs. The DM declares whether an action is an automatic success, what the DC is, or if it's an automatic failure. What recourse does the player have to the DM deciding the difficulty of the action? None. It's literally the expected behavior of the DM. It's part of their job. So if a PC has a bit of text that declares they can light something on fire, the DM still has the ability to decide how difficult that is. And other mechanics and bits of text that declare other character can stop, start, slow, hinder, or enhance that fire. Right. So what in the rules prevents the DM from being a jerk about it? Literally nothing. It's not in the rules. It's in the social contract. You have to trust the DM not to be a jerk. You have to trust that they will set DCs fairly. You have to trust that they won't simply declare "rocks fall, everyone dies" the moment something they don't like happens. There's literally zero rules about that in the books. Yet, the overwhelmingly vast majority of DMs don't do that. Why? Because it's a jerk move and most DMs aren't jerks. And the players trust them not to be jerks.


Fenris-77 said:


> Not so in the example here. Player agency, in cases of adjudication frameworks is that by selecting action X or action Y players have some control over the outcome, even if that control does not extend to narration (which it doesn't in a lot of TTRPGs). The lack of agency in the example from this thread is what it is, more in the way of fact than one of narrow definitions. That doesn't make it a bad thing, just a thing. How much people enjoy it will vary, as with any RPG.



The player's agency is in selecting their character options, deciding their gear and gold expenditures, and in declaring their intent of actions. That's where it stops, in traditional RPGs like D&D. The player controls their character, not the rest of the world. The player has zero control over the outcome. As above, the DM is free to set the DCs in D&D and most interesting actions have dice involved.

The example given isn't a lack of agency. It's a player not wanting to check with the DM before simply declaring something is true in the world. That's not a lack of agency, that's a lack of narrative control. Those are not the same thing.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> My point was more that the rules and mechanics usually provide specific guidelines for what success and failure look like for a given action. So while, yes, the GM adjudicates the success or failure, they do so within a structure or framework provided by the rules. Not so in the example here. Player agency, in cases of adjudication frameworks is that by selecting action X or action Y players have some control over the outcome, even if that control does not extend to narration (which it doesn't in a lot of TTRPGs). The lack of agency in the example from this thread is what it is, more in the way of fact than one of narrow definitions. That doesn't make it a bad thing, just a thing. How much people enjoy it will vary, as with any RPG.




The rules don't depend on player knowledge of them, but do depend on dm knowledge of them.  That is, in 5e for example, the player announces that they cast fireball, and the dm narrates the result of their declaration, but they have a rulebook in front of them to provide guidance/instruction as to what should happen when the player declares that specific action.  Even if the player has read the rule, they have to *trust* that the dm will apply it fairly, even though it is within their prerogative to say, "oh but these specific goblins are actually immune to fire sorry."

I recently introduced my 8-year old nephew to dnd by giving him the excellent Young Adventurer's Guides.  (We had already been playing No Thank You Evil).  Anyway the YA guides are probably my favorite 5e books for a few reasons, but they include only "fluff" and no "crunch."  He read through them with his mother, and so came to play with an understanding of and investment in the fiction of dnd.  And he has trust in me, because, as should be obvious, I am the coolest and best uncle that ever lived.  So when he casts magic missile at the ooze, he really had no idea what the mechanics of that were, he just knew what the fiction was.  I used the rule to help me figure out damage, but I could have just made it up on the spot; the mechanic was really not the most important thing in that situation.  He has no interest in the mechanics and is not really capable of reading the rule book, but he does like to role dice.  Now, my neutrality as referee is compromised in all sorts of ways, because I want to remain the cool uncle and I want to encourage his imagination and so forth.  So there's potential for the illusionism and railroading (that happens anyway in a lot of 5e games), and so a certain level of consistency in DM rulings is needed.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

I don't think examples of bad faith play, which is most of the @overgeeked  example above, really move the discussion along. What prevents the DM from being a jerk, in most cases is the either implied or formal social contract that governs pretty much any game table. Agency and narrative control are not the same thing, and the example at hand is correctly identified as extraordinarily low agency compared to other games. I wasn't judging that state of affairs at all, obviously many people enjoy FRK games, just identifying the nature of one of the game elements.

Also, if you don't understand how adjudication frameworks add to player agency, perhaps stop and consider it for a moment. It is actually true, despite your protestations to the contrary.

@Malmuria - deciding by fiat that the goblins are immune to fire is not something that comes as a standard part of the DM tool kit, for 5E or any edition. Player knowledge of the rule enforces a certain amount of colouring inside the lines by the DM in terms of adjudication.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> If the setting generation they created during their conversation has conflict that I feel needs to be resolved, I’d likely go to Dogs in the Vineyard player-authored-kickers during chargen, except more a hyper-rules-lite version of Blades complex flashbacks with binary results and Fail Forward informing failure.
> 
> Ok, you’ve set the scene player. Let’s roll our 2d6 contest and see who wins. You can take +/-1 because of this chargen element.
> 
> ...



Fair enough!  I think in the end, yes, there will be rules that enter into the picture in some way.  So a game that is designed and playtested will be better able to articulate a somewhat reliable set of rules.  But I also always ask, what rules can be taken away from a game and have it still work.  This came up somewhere in a discussion on starter sets for games...why are the starter sets so often a much better and clearer articulation of the rules than the main rulebook?

I also find it interesting with OSR games how much of them are taken up with random tables.  Like, what is Mork Borg really?  Because it's not a bunch of rules.  It's mostly random tables, a bare-bones setting, and evocative (or annoying, depending on your pov) graphic design.  Supplemental rules have been cobbled together by the community in various zines and unprintable pdfs.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> What prevents the DM from being a jerk, in most cases is the either implied or formal social contract that governs pretty much any game table.



Yeah, I literally said that.


Fenris-77 said:


> Agency and narrative control are not the same thing...



Yep. I said that, too.


Fenris-77 said:


> and the example at hand is correctly identified as extraordinarily low agency compared to other games.



No, it isn't. It's exactly the same level of agency as the vast majority of games, D&D included.


Fenris-77 said:


> your protestations to the contrary.



Since you're not quoting anyone..."your" is a bit vague. Who are you talking to?


Fenris-77 said:


> @Malmuria - deciding by fiat that the goblins are immune to fire is not something that comes as a standard part of the DM tool kit, for 5E or any edition.



Uhm...the DMGs of every edition of D&D would like a word with you. The DM literally creates the world and everything in it. If in their world goblins are immune to fire, then the goblins in their world are immune to fire.


Fenris-77 said:


> Player knowledge of the rule enforces a certain amount of colouring inside the lines by the DM in terms of adjudication.



Not really. DMs house rule things left, right, and center. DMs home-brew monsters on a daily basis. The players have one choice in how the DM runs the game: play or walk.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't think examples of bad faith play, which is most of the @overgeeked  example above, really move the discussion along. What prevents the DM from being a jerk, in most cases is the either implied or formal social contract that governs pretty much any game table.* Agency and narrative control are not the same thing, and the example at hand is correctly identified as extraordinarily low agency compared to other games.* I wasn't judging that state of affairs at all, obviously many people enjoy FRK games, just identifying the nature of one of the game elements.
> 
> *Also, if you don't understand how adjudication frameworks add to player agency*, perhaps stop and consider it for a moment. It is actually true, despite your protestations to the contrary.
> 
> @Malmuria - deciding by fiat that the goblins are immune to fire is not something that comes as a standard part of the DM tool kit, for 5E or any edition. Player knowledge of the rule enforces a certain amount of colouring inside the lines by the DM in terms of adjudication.




I'll bite.

I think you started by identifying the division correctly. But then ... not so much. So I will explain this in more detail. 

*Player agency* (in other words, do players have _meaningful choices_) is one thing.
*Player authority* is a different thing.

Let's break down player agency, first.

To have meaningful choice (beyond chargen, etc.), you usually need three things:
A. Player has control over the alter ego ("PC") decisions.
B. Decision must have consequences within the gameworld.
C. Player can reasonably anticipate consequences before making decisions.

A, B, C. That's a pretty standard way to look at it. Right? In a traditional RPG, such as D&D, this is achievable through the standard process of play.
1. The player declares the action.
2. The action will have consequences (that the DM will narrate) within the gameworld.
3. The player can reasonable anticipate the consequences of the decision.

Again, all of this requires the basic background of "Don't be a jerk" for the DM and the player - but it works. And it's the same with FKR, too!

When does this break? On the standard issues that people talk about in trad games when discussing player agency.

Player says, "I go west."
(DM has only planned one combat, and it was to the east, so moves it on the map to the east)
_The action had no consequences- no agency._

The bard surrenders to the party.
Snarf says, "I kill the bard!"
The DM says, "No, you character wouldn't do that."
_The player isn't allowed to declare their own action._

Fenris comes up with a great plan to bamboozle the shopkeeper.
The DM doesn't want that to happen, so decides that there is a spell there that is triggered by any bamboozling and prevents Fenris's plan.
_The player could not reasonably anticipate the consequences of the decision. _


Here, we have examples of the type that are CONSTANTLY DISCUSSED at enworld in terms of player agency- for someone to label these as "not player agency" is beyond silly.


That said, this is different that player authority. Player authority (the ability to narrate the fiction, or decide consequences) is also important to people, but to have a real discussion, you really need to separate it out from player agency.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, it isn't. It's exactly the same level of agency as the vast majority of games, D&D included.
> 
> Uhm...the DMGs of every edition of D&D would like a word with you. The DM literally creates the world and everything in it. If in their world goblins are immune to fire, then the goblins in their world are immune to fire.
> 
> Not really. DMs house rule things left, right, and center. DMs home-brew monsters on a daily basis. The players have one choice in how the DM runs the game: play or walk.



As to your first point above without an adjudication framework, which D&D has in spades, you are incorrect. 

As to your second point, I said deciding by fiat that they are immune to fire. I thought that was clearly indexing a decision made in the moment, not something done during setting design. Sure, of course goblins can be immune to fire in D&D, but not because you just now decided that was the case.

As to your third point, I wasn't talking about house rules at all. I was talking about the adjudication guidelines present in the rules at the time of play. So the fact that fireball works like X (it doesn't matter of its RAW or house-ruled) confines or constrains the way the DM adjudicates the results of that action. If your DM gets to randomly change rules like that on the fly I think your D&D experience is non-standard, to say the least.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> I think you started by identifying the division correctly. But then ... not so much. So I will explain this in more detail.
> 
> ...



'C' and Number three there was what I was indexing. Without the adjudication framework provided by the rules that bit can get mighty slippery. I'm not even saying it can't work because sure it can, but it's a lower agency way to play. I'm surprised this was such a controversial statement. Surprised, but not upset. I like a good discussion.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> @Malmuria - deciding by fiat that the goblins are immune to fire is not something that comes as a standard part of the DM tool kit, for 5E or any edition. Player knowledge of the rule enforces a certain amount of colouring inside the lines by the DM in terms of adjudication.



Maybe, but the point is that the rule comes in at step 3 of the gameplay loop--"the DM narrates the results of their actions."  DMs are free to make up new monsters...why not fire-resistant goblins?  

What if I'm playing with my nephew (or really any new player)...they don't yet know the rules, or even some of the common tropes.  So they would respond to the situation by saying, "oh darn, I'll try something else," where a player familiar with the rules would declare the gm to be acting in bad faith to negate a PC ability.

The difference between those two situations does not come down to the core gameplay loop described in the opening pages of the book, but rather a number of contextual elements, like player knowledge and player expectations.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Fair enough!  I think in the end, yes, there will be rules that enter into the picture in some way.  So a game that is designed and playtested will be better able to articulate a somewhat reliable set of rules.  But I also always ask, what rules can be taken away from a game and have it still work.  This came up somewhere in a discussion on starter sets for games...why are the starter sets so often a much better and clearer articulation of the rules than the main rulebook?
> 
> I also find it interesting with OSR games how much of them are taken up with random tables.  Like, what is Mork Borg really?  Because it's not a bunch of rules.  It's mostly random tables, a bare-bones setting, and evocative (or annoying, depending on your pov) graphic design.  Supplemental rules have been cobbled together by the community in various zines and unprintable pdfs.




I think my most succinct answer to random tables is it allows GMs to offload creative energy onto something else while avoiding all 3 of the below.

As a whole, here are my thoughts best put together. In the absence of system architecture (conflict/action resolution rules that sufficiently interact with situation and yield satisfying decision-points and have governing principles/best practices of sufficient zoom/resolution to inform them), the GM will do this in any given moment of play:

1) GM storytelling

2) Conch passing

3) The GM is going to have to devote significant cognitive workspace to continually build out system in the course of play (devise > stress test > iterate).

All 3 of these are system. Tables fall under 3. So if GMs don’t want to conch pass or storytell, they’re going to be devoting a lot of table time and a lot of cognitive workspace to 3.

Some GMs love that. Some GMs love to mix 1 and 3 in equal parts. Maybe they also like a smidgeon of conch passing (historically this happens in low/zero stakes moments of play that are characterization/color-heavy like 45 minute campfire musings/laments or drunken tavern hooliganism or bakery/dress window shopping shenanigans).

I get it.

I’m just saying the useful analysis of prospective FKR GMs and players starts there.

This is what will happen as a result of your collision with this (presently…not so much after session 8) rules-minimalist game. The implications of GM Storytelling are x. The implications of Conch-passing are y. The implications of rules development/stress-testing/iterating live during play are z. Enjoy as your table sort this stuff out in its own unique way.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Maybe, but the point is that the rule comes in at step 3 of the gameplay loop--"the DM narrates the results of their actions."  DMs are free to make up new monsters...why not fire-resistant goblins?
> 
> What if I'm playing with my nephew (or really any new player)...they don't yet know the rules, or even some of the common tropes.  So they would respond to the situation by saying, "oh darn, I'll try something else," where a player familiar with the rules would declare the gm to be acting in bad faith to negate a PC ability.
> 
> The difference between those two situations does not come down to the core gameplay loop described in the opening pages of the book, but rather a number of contextual elements, like player knowledge and player expectations.



Again, we aren't talking about the same thing. Of course you can create fireproof Goblins. What you can't do (in D&D) is declare your normal Goblins fireproof as part of adjudication the casting of fireball. Well, I mean you can, but that falls _way_ outside any of the normal expectations of play and certainly is something the game gives you specific permission to do. 

The example of playing with your nephew is a very different example. A marvelous example, but not one that really sheds light on how the rules of D&D work (or don't).


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Maybe, but the point is that the rule comes in at step 3 of the gameplay loop--"the DM narrates the results of their actions."  DMs are free to make up new monsters...why not fire-resistant goblins?
> 
> What if I'm playing with my nephew (or really any new player)...they don't yet know the rules, or even some of the common tropes.  So they would respond to the situation by saying, "oh darn, I'll try something else," where a player familiar with the rules would declare the gm to be acting in bad faith to negate a PC ability.
> 
> The difference between those two situations does not come down to the core gameplay loop described in the opening pages of the book, but rather a number of contextual elements, like player knowledge and player expectations.




I disagree with “the rules comes in (or should come in) at point 3 of the gameplay loop (and your final paragraph points to this)” and I think this is something that we get caught up on a lot in these conversations.

In a game like D&D where skilled play is a big priority, these sorts of things MUST BE an input (often the primary if not exclusive) which informs a player’s OODA Loop.

Perhaps not in every conflict, but the bulk of conflicts should be undergirded by players skillfulness informing their orientation to the fiction and their attendant action declarations. If any large number of moments of play is instead governed by arbitrariness (THESE goblins are fire resistant and there was/is no way for you to suss this out because there was little to no telegraphing/portending it - a soft move in PBtA parlance - from which the player could draw the inferrence/puzzle solve) rather than skill and engagement with the the fiction.

There must be a feedback loop where fiction + rules binds GM narration and informs player OODA Loop and vice versa or there is no skilled play (instead it becomes an unsteady ground of arbitrariness monster lurking at any given moment of play).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> 'C' and Number three there was what I was indexing. Without the adjudication framework provided by the rules that bit can get mighty slippery. I'm not even saying it can't work because sure it can, but it's a lower agency way to play. I'm surprised this was such a controversial statement. Surprised, but not upset. I like a good discussion.




I think it's controversial because of the statement that the standard process loop used by the majority of TTRPG gamers has "zero player agency."

It's needlessly pejorative, denigrates large numbers of people that play our hobby, and also ... well, it takes a commonly used term and twists it in a way so that most people here wouldn't understand it and provides no added value in terms of understanding.

It's sufficient to note that most trad games heavily or completely restrict player authority (in terms of authorship of the narrative, consequences, etc.).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's controversial because of the statement that the standard process loop used by the majority of TTRPG gamers has "zero player agency."



Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> 'C' and Number three there was what I was indexing. Without the adjudication framework provided by the rules that bit can get mighty slippery. I'm not even saying it can't work because sure it can, but it's a lower agency way to play. I'm surprised this was such a controversial statement. Surprised, but not upset. I like a good discussion.



This is partly where the issue of trust comes in.  A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep.  The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere.  Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables.  This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table.  If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left _and_ what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player *agency* has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.

But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left?  There, the players *authority*, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction.  The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream.  And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound.  You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree.  Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars.  Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.  

When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action.  Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the *encounter*.  In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next *story beat.*


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.




Why?

Let's go through the examples again, and let's use an FKR-style game. Dark Empires (and most FKR games) use the same loop-

_1. The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players. 
2. The players use common sense and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions.
3. The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences._

Now, while there aren't hard & fast rules, I think that most FKR games have a much higher tolerance for player authority. But let's just concentrate on player agency.

Here, it's all reliant "on the GM's thoughts to adjudicate actions[.]" But if we are assuming your prima facie assumptions (it's all in good faith, no one is a weasel or jerk), and the GM and players are applying the principles (both the ones written and unwritten) then there should be as much player agency in FKR games like Dark Empires as in D&D!

Again, let's look at the player agency conditions-
A. The player declares the action.
B. The action will have consequences within the gameworld.
C. The player can reasonably anticipate the consequences of the decision.

A is met.
B is met.
If there is an issue with C (if there is an issue with reliance interest- if the players cannot predict the consequences of their actions), then yes, there is a serious problem with the GM and the game! But the whole point of this type of system is that this shouldn't happen. If it is happening, if there is a mismatch, then ... well, this is probably a poor choice for the table, and they would do better with a stricter set of published rules to rely on. But there is nothing, _per se_, about this system that limits player agency.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

I suspect we aren't going to agree about this, but that's ok. I think the scaffolding provided by, for example, the D&D rules in terms of adjudication does impact player agency, and pretty significantly. I was not, I repeat not, assuming bad faith play though. When you have bad faith play any RPG falls apart. To put my position simply, I think that good faith play plus an adjudication framework provides move agency than just good faith play by itself. However, when we start to look at specific FRK systems I will freely admit that the landscape could change.

If we disagree about how much player agency is inherent simply in good faith play I can live with that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> This is partly where the issue of trust comes in.  A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep.  The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere.  Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables.  This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table.  If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left _and_ what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player *agency* has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.
> 
> But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left?  There, the players *authority*, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction.  The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream.  And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound.  You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree.  Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars.  Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.
> 
> When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action.  Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the *encounter*.  In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next *story beat.*



That's a terrible attempt to portray Blades in the Dark play.  You're starting from a trad game, standard GM-provided premise of a door that the players have to declare an action to get the GM to tell them more about the play, and then assuming that the gear rules or resistance rolls actually integrate into this play at all.  They don't.  There's never an opening situations like you've provided, to start, and the resistance or gear deployment don't operate in that manner.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> As to your first point above without an adjudication framework, which D&D has in spades, you are incorrect.



And since the DM is free to ignore the rules on a whim and/or adjust the DCs as they see fit, they amount to the same thing. The DM decides. Either they decide it works, it doesn't work, or they give you a chance and ask for a roll. The player's agency is limited to what they decide to do. The player controls their actions, not their actions' outcomes. That's the purview of the DM. Agency is choice of actions, not narrative control of the outcomes of those actions. If the DM sets the DC at 15, that's up to the DM. Likewise if they set the DC at 45, that's up to the DM. There's no appeal to the rulebook the player can make to force the DM to pick a different DC. The player has no recourse but to accept the DM's ruling or gather their stuff and walk.


Fenris-77 said:


> As to your second point, I said deciding by fiat that they are immune to fire. I thought that was clearly indexing a decision made in the moment, not something done during setting design. Sure, of course goblins can be immune to fire in D&D, but not because you just now decided that was the case.



Can but shouldn't as explained below.


Fenris-77 said:


> As to your third point, I wasn't talking about house rules at all. I was talking about the adjudication guidelines present in the rules at the time of play. So the fact that fireball works like X (it doesn't matter of its RAW or house-ruled) confines or constrains the way the DM adjudicates the results of that action. If your DM gets to randomly change rules like that on the fly I think your D&D experience is non-standard, to say the least.



Not really, no. Again, the DM can decide mid-cast that any number of things happen. Counterspell, wild magic surge, etc. Or simply decide that this one fireball is different somehow. Or that the circumstances right now (that the PCs and/or players are completely unaware of) changes how things work. But, the players trust the DM generally won't do those things or if they do, the players trust that the DM will explain why at some point.

What does a fireball do when cast into a space smaller than it's AoE? That's pure DM fiat. You expect the DM to rule that fairly. You trust them. How long does it take fire to catch on something wet? That's pure DM fiat. You expect the DM to rule that fairly. You trust them.


Fenris-77 said:


> What you can't do (in D&D) is declare your normal Goblins fireproof as part of adjudication the casting of fireball. Well, I mean you can, but that falls _way_ outside any of the normal expectations of play and certainly is something the game gives you specific permission to do.



Right. You *can*, but you *shouldn't*. Why? Because it breaks the players' trust. And DMs _*really*_ don't want to break the players' trust. Why? Because if they do the entire house of cards, shared delusion, shared fiction, suspension of disbelief crumbles. Maintaining that is all about trust. Literally the whole of the hobby is about trust. The players have to trust the DM to be fair and run and interesting and engaging world. You have to trust these other humans with your time. Trust these other humans in your house.

This is why it's silly that trust is somehow a bugbear word now. In traditional games the DM is in complete control of literally everything and you generally trust them not to be a jerk. Yet, somehow trusting the DM not to be a jerk is now this weird, scary thing. Pick one. Either you trust the DM or you don't. You don't get it both ways. (General you, of course.)


Fenris-77 said:


> Well rest easy then, I didn't say that. I said that a system that relies entirely on the GMs thoughts to adjudicate actions, by which I mean a game without the adjudication framework D&D does have, has zero player agency, or close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter.



And since the DM can freely change that on a whim...the players have effectively the same agency in both. There is no appeal to the rules the player can make that forces a DM to relent if they do something the player doesn't like. Only the social contract, breaking trust, and the players' voting with their feet.

The point is that the rules don't provide the agency for the players. For every thing you can point to in the rules that says "this is how this functions" there's a line in the DMG or otherwise that says the DM is in charge. It's the DM's show from start to finish. What races and spells you can pick, DM fiat. Roll stats or array or point buy, DM fiat. Max hit points or rolls or averages, DM fiat. What the monsters can or cannot do, DM fiat. The shape of the planet you're on, or whether you're even on a planet at all, DM fiat. The house rules, if any...DM fiat. The setting and world and monsters and factions and NPCs...yep, still all DM fiat. The only agency traditional games give the players is their character creation options and choice of actions...which are also constrained by DM fiat. That's literally identical to what the FKR game being used as an example gives the players.

Your constant pointing to the rulebook as some kind of source of player agency is the gamer equivalent to an appeal to authority. The book isn't in charge of the game as played at the table...the DM is. The DM can default to the rules, if they want to. Or they can ignore the rules entirely. Again, the players' only choice is to go along and play or walk. The rulebook isn't a charm person scroll you can activate by thumping it to magically compel the DM to do something you want.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 7, 2021)

As I understand it agency is a measure of your ability to impact your environment. Autonomy is your ability to choose what you will do. If we are playing a game and there are no meaningful constraints on what any player (including the GM) may choose to do based on the actions we choose to take than we have perfect autonomy and no real agency. If we cannot affect each other reliably and be vulnerable to consequences for our choices than no real agency exists.

Those constraints do not have to come from resolution mechanics, but they do have to be there in some way. We can be constrained by our prep, by the shared fiction, etc. We get to this in OSR play by instructing the GM to be a neutral arbiter and referee. 

My use of agency here is coming from the dictionary meaning of the word. Not some RPG theory lexicon.








						Definition of AGENCY
					

the office or function of an agent; the relationship between a principal and that person's agent; the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : operation… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




Here's autonomy for comparison








						Definition of AUTONOMY
					

the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government; self-directing freedom and especially moral independence; a self-governing state… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> This is partly where the issue of trust comes in.  A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep.  The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere.  Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables.  This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table.  If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left _and_ what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player *agency* has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.
> 
> But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left?  There, the players *authority*, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction.  The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream.  And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound.  You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree.  Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars.  Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.
> 
> When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action.  Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the *encounter*.  In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next *story beat.*



As for trust, the only reason trust comes into play is that the GM does hold all of the authority, and you need trust to assume the GM is going to deploy that authority in a way the players expect.  This is basically admitting the low-agency playstyle but claiming that the GM can share that agency back to the players by gifting them through an understanding of how the GM will adjudicate things.  It's going right back to rules, which are exactly this, but trying to claim that there's something special about "trust" that ennobles this rather than obfuscates it.

Just lean into the play -- the GM is going to use their authority to present a game that the players make moves to get more of from the GM.  Perfectly fine way to play.  It's largely how I run 5e, although I do adhere to the rules as presented and don't overrule them if at all possible.  Still that choice is my gift to the players to give back agency by informing them, clearly in my case, how I plan to utilize my authority to adjudicate.  I don't pretend that some mystical call out to trust ennobles this.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Campbell said:


> We get to this in OSR play by instructing the GM to be a neutral arbiter and referee.



The Referee in FKR games has the same instructions.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I suspect we aren't going to agree about this, but that's ok. I think the scaffolding provided by, for example, the D&D rules in terms of adjudication does impact player agency, and pretty significantly. I was not, I repeat not, assuming bad faith play though. When you have bad faith play any RPG falls apart. To put my position simply, I think that good faith play plus an adjudication framework provides move agency than just good faith play by itself. However, when we start to look at specific FRK systems I will freely admit that the landscape could change.
> 
> If we disagree about how much player agency is inherent simply in good faith play I can live with that.




So, this touches on a slightly different issue which I briefly mentioned in the prior post (subject to a much longer post I've been thinking about for a while)-

What you're saying when you talk about "scaffolding" is the concept of published and known rules. Others might use the term "player-facing" rules. 

Rules (as in published, generally known explicitly official regulation) allow for reliance. 
"If you roll over a 15, you hit the Boojum."
The player knows that if she rolls over a 15, she will hit the Boojum! Boom! 

This type of published, known rule is part of the process of play- in that when the player declares their action (I attack the Boojum!) they know what the consequences will be (they have a 25% chance of hitting the Boojum). 

The thing is- other things can be important and relied upon as well. Written principles (Don't Be a Weasel, from BiTD). Heuristics (Rule of Cool, Say Yes, Fail Forward). Unwritten guidelines (If the fiction fits- try it). 

These can all be relied upon! There is some advantage to the written rule... don't get me wrong! But there are also drawbacks (especially when it can grow to resemble the prolixity of a legal code). I do think it is a mistake to think that something must be written to be relied upon for adjudication, especially when it comes to TTRPGs.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I disagree with “the rules comes in (or should come in) at point 3 of the gameplay loop (and your final paragraph points to this)” and I think this is something that we get caught up on a lot in these conversations.
> 
> In a game like D&D where skilled play is a big priority, these sorts of things MUST BE an input (often the primary if not exclusive) which informs a player’s OODA Loop.
> 
> ...



I guess skilled play can have a variety of meanings too.  In 5e, players might know that to look for traps you roll perception or use passive.  To disarm you roll dexterity.  I don't think in the OSR this knowledge of the rules would be considered "skilled play."  The OSR prefers to stay in the fiction, where the player has to describe in detail how their character looks for traps and use their (mundane) items creatively.  The "skill" comes in staying within the fiction, not in "pressing buttons" on your character sheet.  Similarly, in combat, the "skill" would come in everything that happens outside of initiative, the ways the PCs can survey the situation and stack the odds in their favor and, again, less about what "buttons" they push during combat itself (putting quotes around everything because I don't mean to sound pejorative, just repeating my understanding of how osr games work).

5e combat in theory has a try-anything approach, with advantage and the "rule of cool" and what not, but in practice comes down to things like figuring out how many creatures you can get inside of your cone-shaped spell.  There's an interesting and probably contentious conversation to have there about whether codified rules are somewhat in conflict with "tactical infinity"--e.g., 'no you can't stab the guard in the throat, you can make a generic melee attack for 4 pts of damage.  To that end, reliable and relatively extensive rulesets might enable player agency because they will know how an action should resolve, but might disable agency that occurs outside of the predefined box.  That is, an adjudication framework that keeps the dm honest might have the effect, intended or unintended, of constraining player tactics.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 7, 2021)

To clarify there is nothing wrong with *GM decides*. Even a completely unqualified *GM decides*. It's just without qualification there is no real way to reliably have a demonstrable impact on play.

GM decides based on whatever. No agency.
GM decides based on known x, y, z. Agency is possible because players can make decisions trusting the GM will consider x, y, z.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

@Snarf Zagyg  I don't disagree with anything you said there. It doesn't really change my mind, but I do indeed see what you're pointing at. I wasn't really indexing rules-heavy games either. I personally find those a bit of trial, and many of my favorites rely to a great extent on principles. Anythewho...


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a terrible attempt to portray Blades in the Dark play.  You're starting from a trad game, standard GM-provided premise of a door that the players have to declare an action to get the GM to tell them more about the play, and then assuming that the gear rules or resistance rolls actually integrate into this play at all.  They don't.  There's never an opening situations like you've provided, to start, and the resistance or gear deployment don't operate in that manner.



Please enlighten me.  I mean it!  I'm relatively new to Blades in the Dark, not an expert, so I would appreciate knowing how I'm looking at it the wrong way.  (it is disheartening to hear that I can read the book several times and read advice for how to run things online and ask questions on the discord server and still get it so wrong, but I'm trying)


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I guess skilled play can have a variety of meanings too.  In 5e, players might know that to look for traps you roll perception or use passive.  To disarm you roll dexterity.  I don't think in the OSR this knowledge of the rules would be considered "skilled play."  The OSR prefers to stay in the fiction, where the player has to describe in detail how their character looks for traps and use their (mundane) items creatively.  The "skill" comes in staying within the fiction, not in "pressing buttons" on your character sheet.  Similarly, in combat, the "skill" would come in everything that happens outside of initiative, the ways the PCs can survey the situation and stack the odds in their favor and, again, less about what "buttons" they push during combat itself (putting quotes around everything because I don't mean to sound pejorative, just repeating my understanding of how osr games work).




This I agree with.

Skilled Play in Magic the Gathering is different than Skilled Play in Pictionary or Telephone (whether you’re conveying the message or decoding it).

Both of these Skilled Play paradigms can (and do) exist in the same game (I’ll put “however” here as I’m unclear if you agree or disagree).

@Snarf Zagyg

I did a post upthread about governing principles.

The thrust of that was they matter in proportion to (a) how well they delineate this form of play from that (or another) form of play in the moment and (b) how well they engender a coherent experience that integrates with the whole of play (including the macro agenda/goal and all adjacent micro goals/aspects of play).

So for this to be true, the principles can’t be generic (they need to have sufficient zoom/resolution and they should sufficiently delineate in a way that matters to actual play) and they need to have just enough text (no less…no more) so that they’re easily digestible and their routine application leads to coherent play.

“Skip the gate guards and get to the fun” is crap. I mean I know what it’s saying…but it’s crap.

How about “At every moment…drive play towards conflict” or “Cut to the Action” (where “the action” has been laid out prior)?

Much better.

You know what else sucks? “Have fun!” (for the same reasons).

Thoughts?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 7, 2021)

@Malmuria  Egad, don't feel bad about Blades taking some getting used to. My reaction to a bunch of the rules after my first read through was WTF?!. After some time with rules it gets easier. Position and effect was the thing I had the most trouble wrapping my head around. I think it's worth the effort though, I love the game.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Please enlighten me.  I mean it!  I'm relatively new to Blades in the Dark, not an expert, so I would appreciate knowing how I'm looking at it the wrong way.  (it is disheartening to hear that I can read the book several times and read advice for how to run things online and ask questions on the discord server and still get it so wrong, but I'm trying)



There's a thread about Apocalypse World that covers most of this topic.  Lots of different posters explaining how these style of games work.  Blades has particulars with how resistance and gear work, yes, but you really need to grasp the fundamental approach to play before these will make any sense -- in isolation, they're almost always construed incorrectly.

However, if you're interested in more hands on learning, pick up the free game Ironsworn and run a solo game for yourself.  It should make some of the concepts click.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 7, 2021)

To zoom back out a bit, here is the listed gameplay loop of 5e, and I think would apply to many other "trad" games as well

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Upthread it was posited that this loop allows for "zero agency," which is a surprising for me claim because it would imply that 5e or really any trad game would similarly have zero agency because the players can never do (1) or (3), that is, have reliable control over what's going on in the world or how the world reacts to their characters actions.  

In the context of this thread this is posited as a criticism of FKR (not allowing agency of players), but is really a criticism of a whole range of RPGs, (including, incidentally, the most popular one.)  And maybe that's totally fair!  Maybe games that formalize player control over (1) and (3) are just better.  I don't think FKR has much to say about those kind of games.

But I do think that FKR has something to say about games that use the above gameplay loop and accordingly set out a roughly similar relationship between gm and players within the game.  And basically that seems to be, what does one need to enable that part of the DM narrating the results of actions.  Rules, prep, consistent dice mechanics?  But its a conversation happening _*within*_ games that use that basic loop and everything it implies.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> To zoom back out a bit, here is the listed gameplay loop of 5e, and I think would apply to many other "trad" games as well
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.
> 2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
> ...



The claim about agency is correct.  That loop does not allow for any player agency over the game.  The trick between a game where this is the entirety of the loop and 5e, is that 5e has the strong expectation that you will use the rest of the rules primarily, especially in combat.  While, yes, the loop on page 4 of the PHB does pretty clearly state that if you declare swinging a sword at an orc that the GM can just say you miss as your blade turns into butterflies and then you're find yourself married to the orc in a beautiful ceremony.  In other words, 5e sets up the expectation that the rules will be used as presented and that loop really only applies to which/how the GM applies those rules.  If you showed up to a 5e table, for instance, and you declared you were attacking the orc, and the GM said, "sure, pick up 2d6 and roll" and you did and the GM said, "sorry, you missed because I rolled higher" then you'd, very rightly, have room to be upset that the game being played is not 5e.

But, yes, as presented, there's no agency in the 5e playloop.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I did a post upthread about governing principles.
> 
> The thrust of that was they matter in proportion to (a) how well they file rate this form of play from that (or another) form of play in the moment and (b) how well they engender a coherent experience that integrates with the whole of play (including the macro agenda/goal and all adjacent micro goals/aspects of play).
> 
> ...




Yes, but no. I don't disagree, but I also don't agree? I agree with caveats? I contain multitudes? 

Speaking for myself (not in terms of theory, just how I view it) I see two separate things going on-

1. Granularity. This is kinda/sorta what I see you getting at when you are talking about how the principles can't be generic (must have sufficient resolution). I generally think that this is a truism- if you define a principle narrowly enough, it becomes an easy-to-apply rule ... but then it's not really a principle that is flexible enough to use in multiple situations. 

This whole granularity issue is one that pops up a lot- I'm thinking, in real life, of the arguments between GAAP (rules-based accounting) and IFRS (principles-based). There are strengths and weaknesses of each method. 

But generally, narrow principles (rules) are more brittle but easy-to-apply, whereas broader principles are more flexible but also more open to interpretation.

2. But ... I'm not sure I'm on board for your specific examples. Okay, "Have fun!" Yeah, that can be tough (although always a good principle!). I am not sure it is that much worse that the principles you think are easy-to-apply? 
 “At every moment…drive play towards conflict" 
“Cut to the Action”

Those are great principles- and there are fine examples of them in many systems. But ... just like other principles, they require adjudication. Flexibility. People have different ideas of what "conflict" might mean, for example. It requires ... well, it requires the players and GM to have mutual trust and respect in application of principles, and the ability to "be on the same page" (and flexibility regarding outcomes). 


I think that what it comes down to is that I am in agreement with you, I just feel that sometimes we forget that the principles that we are most used to deploying may not always be as obvious to other people.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> In the context of this thread this is posited as a criticism of FKR (not allowing agency of players), but is really a criticism of a whole range of RPGs, (including, incidentally, the most popular one.)  And maybe that's totally fair!  Maybe games that formalize player control over (1) and (3) are just better.  I don't think FKR has much to say about those kind of games.




I know I mentioned this earlier, but to bring it up again.... there are games that are explicitly FKR that not only have a generous allowance for player authority, but that also have an explicit allowance for player authority over the narrative that _can override the referee's authority over the narrative_.

In _Messerspiel_, to use the prior example, the player can resist the outcome narrated by the referee and narrate a new outcome. 

Other FKR games explicitly allow for genre conventions such as "fast-forward, pause, or rewind/redo scenes" and allow not just the referee. but the players to do so. 

It's ... complicated. Which is fun. It's good to see people having fun.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 7, 2021)

Campbell said:


> To clarify there is nothing wrong with *GM decides*. Even a completely unqualified *GM decides*. It's just without qualification there is no real way to reliably have a demonstrable impact on play.
> 
> GM decides based on whatever. No agency.
> GM decides based on known x, y, z. Agency is possible because players can make decisions trusting the GM will consider x, y, z.



And in FKR games it’s: GM decides based on known/shared genre conventions. Tonight we’re playing FKR Star Wars, let’s go, for example. But apparently that somehow means “no agency” to some posters here.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> This post is clarifying for what we might mean by high-trust vs low-trust situations.



I don't GM RPGs so I can tell people a story (whether or not they trust that it will be interesting to them).

I don't play RPGs so I can be told a story by someone else.

I don't think those are character flaws on my part. They are part and parcel of my comportment towards _playing a game with a shared fiction _vs (say) reading a book or watching a film.



Malmuria said:


> I'm confused what you mean by agency.  You have agency in that you have complete control over your character.  When you walk out the front door, what agency do you have over the world?  Do you control the weather, the traffic, if your neighbor is out watering the plants?  Player agency debates that I've seen usually revolve around DMs deciding things are going to happen in the story regardless of PC actions-



Who is the _you_ in that sentence. I think it's obvious to everyone that when I, @pemerton, walk out my front door I control some things - where I move my legs, how I greet people, thus to some extent how they greet me in return (given that I am familiar with the typical customs and responses of my neighbourhood - eg I am able to cause a shop assistant to come and help me by attracting their attention and saying _Can you please come and help me?_). Some other things I don't control, like whether or not it is raining. Some things I could control - eg if my neighbour is watering the plants I could make that otherwise by punching them or throwing a rock at them - but I choose not to because it would be vicious or stupid to try and exercise that control.

When it comes to RPG, I try to avoid doing stupid or vicious things to the friends I'm playing with. But I do do reasonable things. Eg I try and make them imagine certain things, by speaking appropriate words. And I try to get them to agree on the content of a shared fiction, by putting certain ideas forward. Now they often have their own ideas about the shared fiction, and our ideas aren't always compatible. Eg consider this from the last session I played (Agon 2nd edition, using my island of Kassos that I wrote for @chaochou's Not the Iron DM thread):

* I told the players what was happening when they arrived on the island (the storm, the crowd ready to sacrifice Pythios, and of course the signs of the gods). They accepted all this because they deferred to me as GM.

* The leader PC decided they would assist with the sacrifice. We framed the contest of Resolve & Spirit. The check succeeded. And this caused us all to agree that Zeus had accepted their sacrifice.

* I then said that Chryse had hurled herself into the water, after her son.

* One player declared that his PC dove into the water to try and save her. This was a contest of Blood and Valour. I asked the other player if his hero was helping, or joining in the contest. He said that he was. He didn't want to act only on Blood and Valour, though (it's a weaker domain for him). So he spent a point of Pathos to introduce his Craft & Reason also. We talked about what this might mean in the fiction, and agreed that he ran down through the town and grabbed rope, so that he could anchor himself before he waded into the wild waters.

* The rolls were made. Both players failed. So when it came time to recite the deeds of their heroes, I asked them - as the rules dictated - to tell us why and how they had suffered. The player whose character had roped himself up before entering the water said _My rope was too short to let me reach her. _He thereby caused me and the other player to add that idea to our conception of the shared fiction - in my mind the bold hero who had dived off the cliff was struggling in the breakers while Chryse drowned, just out of reach of the more cunning hero who had sensibly roped himself but underestimated the length of cord he would need.

* I also cracked a roleplaying nerd style of joke _- You grabbed 50 feet of rope when you needed 60! - _and that caused the player of the cunning hero to laugh.​
Agon is written by John Harper, and so it is pretty clear in explaining whose job it is to say what when. One thing it _doesn't _say is that the GM is the only one who gets to establish the shared fiction. In the little episode of play I've just set out, here are (some of) the occasions on which the players exercised the sort of agency @chaochou is referring to:

* The players (with the player of the lead hero, naturally enough, taking the lead) established that successfully completing the sacrifice would placate Zeus;

* The player of the cunning hero established that he could get rope from the town - it already being established (by me) that it was a town of handicrafters and market stalls.

* That same player established that his rope was too short to let him reach the drowning Chryse.​


Malmuria said:


> I don't know...what would you do in that situation?  I skimmed the rules...it seems for any action the player declares where they might be uncertainty, the dm and player roll 2d6 and compare results.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Anyway, I'll again mention that the above is not particular to "FKR" games.  The question about whether players can contribute to the setting, for example, would extend to any trad _or_ osr game



I read Dark Empires pdf:

The game master clearly describes the situation and environment to the players. The players use common sense and what they already know about the world to decide upon and then clearly describe their characters actions.

The gm will then decide if their suggested action is feasible and then apply the consequences.

If the outcome of the situation is unclear, is very risky or has a poor chance of success the player and gm both roll 2d6. If the player rolls higher than the gm they succeed! If the gm rolls higher, the player fails in some way or the action succeeds but at some cost.

The difference in the results indicates the degree of success or failure.​
This is not a complete specification of the action resolution procedure. It doesn't tell us who decides if the outcome is unclear, risky or has a poor chance of success. It doesn't tell us what success consists in (eg is it task success, intent success, or both; and does Let it Ride apply or not?). It doesn't tell us how consequences and/or costs are to be established.

If the answer to those questions is _the GM decides whether a check is made, success is task success only_, _Let it Ride does not apply_, and _the GM may make up whatever consequences and/or costs they like_, then we have a game of zero player agency (as @chaochou described)

That can be contrasted with my Agon play. The rules tell us when a check is to be made - ie when a conflict/context occurs - and that is not a sole decision for the GM. As soon as I go to narrate some action or event the players which were otherwise - like Chryse hurling herself into the water after her son - they are able to call for a contest. And once it is determined whether they prevail or suffer, they get to recite their deeds consistently with that mechanically-dictated result. In Agon, success goes to intent as well as task, and there is a clear statement that Let it Ride applies.

Or consider Classic Traveller - a much more "traditional: RPG from 1977. It specifies certain circumstances which trigger throws - eg certain manoeuvres in a vacc suit that require a throw to avoid a dangerous incident occurring, or certain encounters with officials that require a throw to avoid close inspection of documents, etc. These various subsystems reflect the various sorts of subject matters that matter to Traveller (so it has subsystems for officials and for fighting and for recruiting and for space travel; but not for composing music or doing academic research). So again, the rules tell us when a check is to be made - ie when the right sort of "trigger" occurs for one of these subsystems. And then the subsystems tell us whether things go well or badly for the PCs and most of the time they are framed either in terms of finality (so no "takebacks" by the GM manipulating offscreen fiction) or with express rules for retries. It's not as tight as Apocalypse World, but it's quite different from what is found in Dark Empires.



overgeeked said:


> In most traditional RPGs, the players have control over their PC but not the world or NPCs. So a PC trying to do something or interact with an NPC needs the DM to adjudicate, whether that's a roll or rubber stamp.



This isn't accurate. It's not accurate of Classic Traveller. It's not accurate of Rolemaster - eg if a player decides that their PC casts a fireball spell then the GM doesn't have any sort of decision to make: the player makes the appropriate rolls, and whomever is in the AoE (as established by the shared fiction) suffers the appropriate concussion hits and crits.

If a PC talks to a NPC in RM, then there is action resolution via the Influence and Interaction table. The GM has to decide the difficulty of the check, by adjudicating the fiction. but doesn't get to unilaterally decide what follows from the attempt.

Even in Moldvay Basic, if a player declares (as their PC) _I try to open the door _and there is nothing in the GM's map or key to suggest it's an atypical door, then the player is entitled to make the appropriate check as modified by STR to see if the door opens. It's not the case that the GM gets to decide every consequence of every action declaration.

There have always been RPGs around, with associated techniques, that give the players more than zero agency in @chaochou's sense,


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't GM RPGs so I can tell people a story (whether or not they trust that it will be interesting to them).
> 
> I don't play RPGs so I can be told a story by someone else.
> 
> I don't think those are character flaws on my part. They are part and parcel of my comportment towards _playing a game with a shared fiction _vs (say) reading a book or watching a film.




First I don't experience the type of games I sometimes play--OSR dnd type games--as being a "story told by someone else" or that I tell to someone else.  Someone else might look at the gameplay loop of a dungeon crawl (for example) and find it lacking in player agency because the player can only announce their actions.  To me, that's an over simplification to say the least;  I suppose I can see how one formally arrives at that position, but in practice is not how I experience those sorts of games.  Phrases like "high trust" might be unhelpful if they imply a character flaw.  But I'm not claiming that, I'm not sure who is.  It's pretty reasonable, when playing a game, that you want to turn to a neutral reference point, such as the rules, to facilitate your playing of the game.  The reasonableness of that position is not in question for me.  What's in question is how many of those reference points you can remove and still have a functional and enjoyable game.



pemerton said:


> When it comes to RPG, I try to avoid doing stupid or vicious things to the friends I'm playing with. But I do do reasonable things. Eg I try and make them imagine certain things, by speaking appropriate words. And I try to get them to agree on the content of a shared fiction, by putting certain ideas forward. Now they often have their own ideas about the shared fiction, and our ideas aren't always compatible.





pemerton said:


> One thing it _doesn't _say is that the GM is the only one who gets to establish the shared fiction. In the little episode of play I've just set out, here are (some of) the occasions on which the players exercised the sort of agency @chaochou is referring to:



That sounds great.  I've purchased the Agon book, who knows when I'll get a chance to run it.  I understand what you mean by certain games setting out paths for both players and gms to establish and shape the shared fiction.  On the other hand, there are games that more or less put the establishment of the fiction in the hands of the dm, and the players play particular characters, usually just one at a time, in that fiction.  I think it's an exaggeration to claim those games are "zero agency," because the players have control of their characters, and confusing because within that framework the term agency has a different and more specific connotation than "establishing the fiction" of the world.   (btw if "low trust" is pejorative then so is "zero agency" imo)



pemerton said:


> This is not a complete specification of the action resolution procedure. It doesn't tell us who decides if the outcome is unclear, risky or has a poor chance of success. It doesn't tell us what success consists in (eg is it task success, intent success, or both; and does Let it Ride apply or not?). It doesn't tell us how consequences and/or costs are to be established.
> 
> If the answer to those questions is _the GM decides whether a check is made, success is task success only_, _Let it Ride does not apply_, and _the GM may make up whatever consequences and/or costs they like_, then we have a game of zero player agency (as @chaochou described)



It's a six page pdf; it doesn't tell us a lot of things!  I suppose we can assume that all the questions you pose are necessary to playing the game, and then further assume that the answers to all the self-posed questions are as you describe, then characterize that situation as zero-agency when placed in comparison to an unrelated and completely different type of game like Agon.




pemerton said:


> This isn't accurate. It's not accurate of Classic Traveller. It's not accurate of Rolemaster - eg if a player decides that their PC casts a fireball spell then the GM doesn't have any sort of decision to make: the player makes the appropriate rolls, and whomever is in the AoE (as established by the shared fiction) suffers the appropriate concussion hits and crits.
> 
> If a PC talks to a NPC in RM, then there is action resolution via the Influence and Interaction table. The GM has to decide the difficulty of the check, by adjudicating the fiction. but doesn't get to unilaterally decide what follows from the attempt.
> 
> ...



This is quite debatable.  Remember the game loop in question is
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

That's the loop that supposedly results in zero agency.  It supposedly results in zero agency, because the player can describe what they want their characters to do, but have no authority to determine how the world reacts.  The reference to a rulebook, when it comes to determining how much damage a fireball does or what roll to make when opening a stuck door, is what the DM does to help "narrate the result of their [the PCs] actions."  The player is not entitled to look at a dms notes.  The HP and AC of a given monster are a suggestion that a DM can adjust. etc.  I would agree, however, that best practice is to stick to the rulebook unless you have a good, ideally previously-thought-out and written-down reason to diverge from it, because if your world and rulings are not consistent your players will start to lose trust in it and in you, and trust is very important for that kind of game.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This thread has been prompted by some of the recent discussions of the topics mentioned in the thread title.
> 
> *System matters*
> To the best of my knowledge, Ron Edwards is the person who coined this slogan.
> ...




To me, two important elements of Free Kriegsspiel are:

1. Probability and the RNG. It's not usually 'GM decides', it's usually 'GM declares a probability, then rolls the die' (probably a d6).

2. FK originated as a training aid. It's very important that the GM can explain why they decided as they did. It's absolutely not a black box.  When I'm GMing FK style, I'm aiming for complete transparency.

The FK GM definitely does need to know at least as much as the players, or it doesn't work.

I tend to use elements of FK adjudication within mechanically crunchy games. Eg I use a d8 based 'system' for daily weather (lower = colder/stormier, higher = warmer/brighter) that is basically FK adjudication based on the time of year, terrain, and current/previous weather. I often use a d6 based 'system' for off-screen adjudication of battle results, based on lower = worse (for PCs), higher = better.  Better =/= Victory, the TPK at Thermopylae would probably be a '5' for the Spartans.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2021)

Re player-GM arguments. A good FK GM certainly does not claim omniscience. A good General knows that war is always uncertain. That's why you set a probability, explain what you are rolling for, then roll.

Conversely, a good FK player plays the world, not the man. You don't argue with the GM "I can walk 18km in 3 hours in mud, so my men should be able to" - you say "OK, given the muddy conditions, I dispatch my fast Rangers as an advance guard to reach the forward position before the enemy gets there, and hold it until the main body arrives" - then the GM considers, and rolls for success.

Edit: There was a show on British TV a decade or so ago where three real British Army generals played FK. I recall they did the Battle of Waterloo. The General playing Napoleon used Grant/Zhukov 'hammer blow' tactics, immediately throwing in the Imperial Guard at the Allied centre, and smashed 'Wellington'. The Wellington player's last line was:

"Oh well. It's up to Blucher now!"


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Again, unless the goal of play is to announce actions then the goals of play can only be met by the GM.
> 
> if you disagree then show me. I’ll GM, you play and your goal is to stab the guard in the throat. Give it a shot. We both know you’ll fail, because the only one with permission to say if that happens is me.
> 
> But go ahead. Show me.



I argue I could do the same in apocalypse / dungeon world if I really wanted, and not let you trigger any move, just describing in the fiction how they could'nt apply. 
Would I go against principles? Probably Yes, but same would you. 

The 16hp dragon notorious [edit: I meant well known and insightful, NOT notorious]  example of play is all about Gm deciding outcomes of Pc actions until a satisfactory fictional position is reached to deal damage onto the dragon, with or without triggering any move in the meanwhile, or even a hack&slash/volley move in the end. 

Anyway if we're playing an hong kong movie inspired game and the guard is Jacky Chan, your unkillable guard would be spot on; same in a gritty espionage story in which the guard is Jason Bourne. 
No one would complain they can't just stab him in the throat.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> There's two problems with that. First, in the thread -- and in RPG discussions -- it's been repeatedly shown and agreed to that the DM can arbitrarily change the rules on a whim. Second, the DM can, and is expected to, adjust the difficulty of actions while staying within the framework of the rules. D&D and DCs, for example. The DM sets the DCs. The DM declares whether an action is an automatic success, what the DC is, or if it's an automatic failure



What you describe here is not true even of all versions of D&D. A GM in 4e D&D has no general power to declare genre-credible actions automatic failures. A GM in Moldvay Basic has no power to declare an attempt to open an ordinary door an automatic failure.

And it's certainly not true of every RPG!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

The players of a RPG can change the rules on a whim just as the GM can.

The GM insists that the goblins are still alive and murdering the PCs because their hp haven't yet been reduced to zero. But the players just ignore this, and merrily carry on talking about the adventures their PCs have now that the goblins have been killed!

Does the GM have to participate in these players' shared fiction? I dunno. But if the GM decides, arbitrarily, that the PCs' fireballs can't burn the goblins, do the players have to participate in the GM's fiction? I dunno in general. I know that I wouldn't. The last time I had a GM anything like that, ie one who completely ignored the rules and fiction of the game, I and the fellow players set up our own, better, game.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> the DM is free to ignore the rules on a whim and/or adjust the DCs as they see fit, they amount to the same thing. The DM decides.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



What you describe here does not describe any RPG I've ever GMed. And as I posted just upthread, when I played a game whose GM seemed to agree with you I and my fellow players started a new, better game.

The other option, of course, is a free-for-all: the players decide that there is a wild magic surge that protects their PCs; that they are immune to fire even thought that is not written anywhere on their PC sheet; or some other exceptional circumstance applies.

I should add that the games I've GMed which the above does not describe and which I would have thought might count as "trad" include Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X, AD&D (both eds, but much more 1st ed), Classic Traveller, RuneQuest and Rolemaster. And the time period I'm talking about is 1982 through to the present day.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> That's the loop that supposedly results in zero agency.  It supposedly results in zero agency, because the player can describe what they want their characters to do, but have no authority to determine how the world reacts.




Conflating *agency* with *authority* seems like a really bad mistake to me. A 'free agent' may have zero authority. It's like conflating autonomy with power.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> To zoom back out a bit, here is the listed gameplay loop of 5e, and I think would apply to many other "trad" games as well
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.
> 2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
> ...



Can you identify one of these 'trad games" you're talking about.

The above is not the play loop for Classic Traveller, nor Rolemaster, nor RQ, all of which might count as "trad" games.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

Thinking about the play loop: 

Gm, players, or random tables introduce a situation. If no one does, Gm is obliged to do it. 
Discussion on details until satisfaction, Gm is obliged to have final say, by fiat or any resolution, if consensus is not perfectly reached. 

Players announce a general course of actions. If they don't, Gm is obliged to move the story/events/adventure forward to affect them directly. 

Players declare what their PCs/factions/assets do. Gm describe how opposition reacts. Back and forth discussion on further actions and details until satisfaction. 

Resolution by table agreement on the above discussion, or on results of dice rolls imposed by Gm, who is obliged to have a final say if bla bla...


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> And in FKR games it’s: GM decides based on known/shared genre conventions. Tonight we’re playing FKR Star Wars, let’s go, for example. But apparently that somehow means “no agency” to some posters here.



Yes. I think it's a matter of... opportunity? Practicality? 
I really want to play some Vampire the masquerade again. But I'm never going to touch that ruleset again. Still, to my group vampire means manipulating bunch of D10s. 

I could run it tonight going FKR, freeform, diegetic, fiction only and when disagreement arises, as always does, roll a D10 dicepool using Blades resolution and see if it works. 

Simple as that


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> What's in question is how many of those reference points you can remove and still have a functional and enjoyable game.



_Say something to prompt someone else to say something_ might be a perfectly functional, enjoyable game. But it won't be the same game as any of the RPGs I enjoy.



Malmuria said:


> First I don't experience the type of games I sometimes play--OSR dnd type games--as being a "story told by someone else" or that I tell to someone else.  Someone else might look at the gameplay loop of a dungeon crawl (for example) and find it lacking in player agency because the player can only announce their actions.  To me, that's an over simplification to say the least;  I suppose I can see how one formally arrives at that position, but in practice is not how I experience those sorts of games.



When you play a dungeon crawl, is the GM allowed to change the dungeon map at will? If you have entered a room via an open archway, and then declare that you leave the room the same way, is the GM free to tell you that you don't leave? That you suffer a leg cramp and fall to your knees?

The dungeon crawl games I'm familiar with (Moldvay Basic and AD&D, which many OSR games are based one) do not follow you posted play loop. They go something closer to this:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM refers to the map and key.
4. The DM extrapolates from the map and key where the PC goes (if moving) and/or what bits of architecture, furniture or similar that the PC discovers and/or touches. If the DM is not clear about what the PC is doing relative to the geography and architecture, the DM might seek clarificatoin from the player.
5. The DM calls for an appropriate roll if a relevant subsystem is triggered (eg opening a door; climbing a wall), or makes an appropriate roll if a relevant subsystem is triggered (eg searching for a trap or secret door, or listening at a door), or extrapolates the immediate result as faithfully and neutrally as they can if the action is moving things, lifting things, poking things, etc.​
I think that's still probably incomplete, but is closer to what Gygax and Moldvay describe in their rulebooks.



Malmuria said:


> there are games that more or less put the establishment of the fiction in the hands of the dm, and the players play particular characters, usually just one at a time, in that fiction.  I think it's an exaggeration to claim those games are "zero agency," because the players have control of their characters, and confusing because within that framework the term agency has a different and more specific connotation than "establishing the fiction" of the world.   (btw if "low trust" is pejorative then so is "zero agency" imo)



I don't want to be mean, but this is just wrong for huge swathes of RPGs, including so-called "trad" ones.

In Rolemaster, establishing the fiction is not all in the hands of the GM. Eg if a player has their PC talk to a NPC, then if the upshot is contested (eg the player wants to befriend the NPC and the GM doesn't just go along with this) there is an expectation that the Influence and Interaction table will be used. This, in turn, dictates how the NPC responds. Ie the GM has neither sole nor unconstrained authority over the fiction.

Many similar examples could be given for RM, and for other games of a broadly similar character.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I could run it tonight going FKR, freeform, diegetic, fiction only and when disagreement arises, as always does, roll a D10 dicepool using Blades resolution and see if it works.



But this has nothing in common with Dark Empire except they're both RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I argue I could do the same in apocalypse / dungeon world if I really wanted, and not let you trigger any move, just describing in the fiction how they could'nt apply.



This isn't true of Apocalypse World. A player can threaten a NPC, or make them an offer, or try to hit them with a wrench, and that will trigger _go aggro_, or _seduce/manipulate_, or _seize by force_.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I argue I could do the same in apocalypse / dungeon world if I really wanted, and not let you trigger any move, just describing in the fiction how they could'nt apply.
> Would I go against principles? Probably Yes, but same would you.



The gameplay loop I cited made no reference to _moves _or _principles_. It apportioned authority to say things in a way which gives total authority to the DM to say what happens in the gameworld and hence zero agency to players if the goals of the game are defined in terms of changing the gameworld.

Again, it's a very simple position and one which no-one has even attempted to refute except by whiny appeals to authority about 'trad rpgs'.

I didn't even say it was bad or unenjoyable, yet the defensive, kneejerk whingefest it provoked has been illuminating. It is undeniably a zero agency system.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I argue I could do the same in apocalypse / dungeon world if I really wanted, and not let you trigger any move, just describing in the fiction how they could'nt apply.
> Would I go against principles? Probably Yes, but same would you.



You actually cannot without violating the rules of that game.  This is a fairly large difference -- doing this breaks the rules of play for A/DW but is perfectly in line with the rules of Dark Empires.  It might not align with player expectations for Dark Empires, or with the table dynamic/social contract, or be very enjoyable but it doesn't once step outside the established play for the game.


Numidius said:


> The 16hp dragon notorious example of play is all about Gm deciding outcomes of Pc actions until a satisfactory fictional position is reached to deal damage onto the dragon, with or without triggering any move in the meanwhile, or even a hack&slash/volley move in the end.



I'm not sure how notorious this is outside of a group of posters that have chosen to analyze/play the dragons from the point of view of a different system and not DW.  The principles of play and the procedures of play for DW make the dragon insanely difficult and dangerous if used.  It's only when you ignore those that you get to call a dragon with 16hp notorious -- and if it were D&D it would be.


Numidius said:


> Anyway if we're playing an hong kong movie inspired game and the guard is Jacky Chan, your unkillable guard would be spot on; same in a gritty espionage story in which the guard is Jason Bourne.
> No one would complain they can't just stab him in the throat.



I would complain that a guard is suddenly Jackie Chan or James Bond, as that would mean that top tier opponents -- and it hard in those genres to imagine a higher tier of challenges -- are posing as simple guards.  This is the kind of GM fiat play that's being defended as acceptable that is the "I have no way to engage with this fiction in an understandable way, I just have to take what the GM feeds me" that I extremely dislike.  A guard, if described as a guard, in either of those genres should be easy to shank in one go due to genre logic, and if the game is at least adhering to that as a heuristic for resolution, great!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It's a six page pdf; it doesn't tell us a lot of things!  I suppose we can assume that all the questions you pose are necessary to playing the game, and then further assume that the answers to all the self-posed questions are as you describe, then characterize that situation as zero-agency when placed in comparison to an unrelated and completely different type of game like Agon.



I just wanted to address this part.  Cthulhu Dark is 4 pages (including title page, so 3 pages of rules) and is a far more complete game in that it establishes who has what say, how to resolve conflicts at all times, good guidance on how to use the conflict resolution system, and some strong genre points of logic (you die if you fight mythos creatures).  6 pages is not a suitable defense.  Cthulhu Dark establishes a play loop that is not no/low agency.  It does the same thing Dark Empires tries to do and lean on genre logic, but the Cthulhu genre logic is more constrained than what's pointed at for Dark Empire (which goes from detailed period piece to gothic horror to near-fairy tale to spy thriller).  

So the length of the set of rules doesn't excuse the incompleteness of those rules.  My first thought on reading Dark Empire was that it wasn't a complete game.  My second thought was why did they waste space on the tables that don't really matter much when the game isn't complete yet?  My first thought reading Cthulhu Dark was damn, that's a very tight, very light, very elegant bit of RPG!  My second thought was that the ability for another player to declare a failure didn't fit in well with the rest of the game and I didn't like it.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

@Ovinomancer 
My bad. I used notorious by the italian meaning of "notorio" : famous, well known and regarded.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Cthulhu Dark is 4 pages (including title page, so 3 pages of rules) and is a far more complete game in that it establishes who has what say, how to resolve conflicts at all times, good guidance on how to use the conflict resolution system, and some strong genre points of logic (you die if you fight mythos creatures).



Just elaborating a bit on this:

The basic action resolution rule for Cthulhu Dark is

To know how well you do at something, roll . . .  your highest die shows how well you do. On a 1, you barely succeed. On a 6, you do brilliantly. [An example follows.]​
So unlike the playloop posted by @Malmuria upthread, a player can do more than just declare an action: when they declare an action, it succeeds. But the die roll can licence introduction of a complication corresponding do the degree of falling short of brilliance in execution. The rules also say

Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something. . . . Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.​
The game is clearly aware of the issue that it _matters_, to RPG play, who gets to say what. And offers some approaches.

Then there is the rule for failure:

If someone thinks it would more interesting if you failed, they describe how you might fail and roll a die. . . .​​If their die rolls higher than your highest die, you fail, in the way they described. If not, you succeed as before, with your highest die showing how well you succeed. . . .​​To compete: everyone who is competing rolls their dice. Whoever gets highest wins. [There's also a rule for breaking ties.] . . .​​Who decides whether you might fail?​​Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.​
It's clear, here, that there is no rule letting anyone stipulate _automatic failure_. When I've played Cthulhu Dark, the possibility of failure has generally been a GM matter. I can't recall if it's ever come from a player; the most obvious context for that, thinking about it now, would be if another PC is trying to mess with that player's stuff (eg break into their house, get information from their employer, etc).

But anyway, there is very little in common between this and Dark Empire except both are short and use d6s for their rolls!

An EDIT to this:

How does Cthulhu Dark handle the examples beloved of criticisms of player agency, like the action declaration _I ask him to give me all his money?_ First, in practice I think this sort of thing is unlikely to occur without a context that locates it within the fiction, given the fairly tight genre focus of the game. But second, this seems like it's not humanly possible! And so that die won't be in the pool. But an occupation die might be (eg if the character's occupation is _Grifter_) and so might the Insanity die be.

Because there is no way for a player to guarantee unalloyed success in this system (which contrasts with, say, the standard D&D approach to using gp to buy things), changing the fictional positioning so that the PC has all of someone else's money won't break the game. It will just open the door to resolving action declarations that involve spending lots of money. But if such a thing is done very poorly then the accompanying complication might include spending too much, or dropping one's wallet into the river while paying, or . . .

Dark Empire is less clear about this, in my view. It has the player choose both a wealth level and 4 pieces of gear, without explaining how these are related as components of fictional positioning and/or considerations for action resolution.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This isn't true of Apocalypse World. A player can threaten a NPC, or make them an offer, or try to hit them with a wrench, and that will trigger _go aggro_, or _seduce/manipulate_, or _seize by force_.



An MC could keep the game at the basic conversational level playloop of "player declares, Gm tell outcome" as per Baker himself. 
I could also come up with any sort of fictional reasoning why moves won't trigger. 
This just for the sake of argument, by the way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> @Ovinomancer
> My bad. I used notorious by the italian meaning of "notorio" : famous, well known and regarded.



Yeah, it means infamous, well known but not well regarded in English.  Slight difference, lol.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2021)

chaochou said:


> ... yet the defensive, kneejerk whingefest it provoked has been illuminating...




*Mod Note:*
You know what's illuminating?  An inflammatory description of someone else's words.  

Show more respect if you intend to continue in this discussion.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> An MC could keep the game at the basic conversational level playloop of "player declares, Gm tell outcome" as per Baker himself.



You seem to be positing that this is something the game leaves under the control of the GM. I don't agree. I don't think that's consistent with how the game is written (pp 11-12):

You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like _taking turns_, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize. All fine.

All these rules do is mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right?

. . .

When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does.

The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.​
This isn't an optional rule, or GM's discretion. It's at the start of the book under the heading _The Basics_.

In the commentary that I think is what you are referring to, Baker says

A crucial feature of Apocalypse World’s design is that these layers are designed to collapse gracefully inward:

Forget the peripheral harm moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but the rules for harm have got you covered.
Forget the rules for harm? that’s cool. You’re missing out, but the basic moves have got you covered. Just describe the splattering blood and let the moves handle the rest.
Forget the basic moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but just remember that 10+ = hooray, 7-9 = mixed, and 6- = something worse happens.
Don’t even feel like rolling the dice? Fair enough. You’re missing out, but the conversational structure still works.


There is nothing there about GM options either. It doesn't say _if the MC vetoes the use of basic moves_. It talks about generic/universal _forgetting_.

Now if someone says, _Let's play Apocalypse World, but we won't use any dice rolls and I'll just tell you what happens when you have your PC do stuff_, well that's their prerogative to make that pitch but I think it's pretty obvious that we're not playing AW anymore.



Numidius said:


> I could also come up with any sort of fictional reasoning why moves won't trigger.



Again, this is a departure from what the actual rules of AW says. And if you combine it with the above, what you're positing is that the prospective GM says _Let's play Apocalypse, but we won't use any dice rolls and I'll just tell you what happens when you have your PC do stuff, and I don't promise to stick to the principles either - _even moreso, we're not play AW anymore.



Numidius said:


> This just for the sake of argument, by the way.



I get that, but I don't find the argument persuasive. You're positing that AW gives the GM options - to unilaterally dispense with the basic moves, and/or the triggers for moves (ie abandon _If you do it, you do it_), and the principles. But AW doesn't say this - in fact it says exactly the opposite - and Baker doesn't say this in his commentary either.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

chaochou said:


> The gameplay loop I cited made no reference to _moves _or _principles_. It apportioned authority to say things in a way which gives total authority to the DM to say what happens in the gameworld and hence zero agency to players if the goals of the game are defined in terms of changing the gameworld.
> 
> Again, it's a very simple position and one which no-one has even attempted to refute except by whiny appeals to authority about 'trad rpgs'.
> 
> I didn't even say it was bad or unenjoyable, yet the defensive, kneejerk whingefest it provoked has been illuminating. It is undeniably a zero agency system.



Well, I'nt gonna argue about a three sentences play loop in a white room. I proposed my own provisional one.

Since my very first Basic dnd game, I know for a fact that Gm Decides All can suck pretty badly. I started game-mastering soon after and advocating for player agency and authority since then. 

When asked to run Gumshoe purist/gritty Cthulhu, I rapidly did without any fiddly rules bit, leaving only skill points resources, but enphasizing their expenditure to foster agency and authorship. 

So, I as a Gm that does not suck at all and wants to play more than less, find the overall FKR approach useful and easy to teach to would be game-masters. 

Start with setting and characters. Go full on diegetic. Foster descriptions, narration and discussion of fictional stuff. Zoom in and out of details on demand. Find ultralight rules that fit in some way, be it D10 dicepool for White Wolf books; D20 etc for D&D related games, Dfudge, opposed 2d6 or vs TN, and build on that as you go if it's not enough. Blend in-character rpg, mass battles wargame, factions intrigues seemlessly following the fiction and ad-hoc resolutions. 

Needless to say I found very useful also Baker's principles and agenda in AW. Been following his design since, I don't know, Poison'd maybe? That one was wicked. 

Loved Elfs and Trollbabe from Edwards. Quite clunky in actual play, but TB changed the way I run since. 

As a side note: wasn't Sorcerer rpg by Edwards using an opposed dice pool and then table agreement on the disparity between the two, to resolve stuff?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Start with setting and characters. Go full on diegetic. Foster descriptions, narration and discussion of fictional stuff. Zoom in and out of details on demand. Find ultralight rules that fit in some way, be it D10 dicepool for White Wolf books; D20 etc for D&D related games, Dfudge, opposed 2d6 or vs TN, and build on that as you go if it's not enough. Blend in-character rpg, mass battles wargame, factions intrigues seemlessly following the fiction and ad-hoc resolutions.



I don't think any of this gets to the player agency issue.

_Who gets to frame scenes? Under what constraints?

Who gets to say what happens when a player declares an action for their PC? Under what constraints?_

Talking about dice sizes, and opposed checks or target numbers, doesn't touch any of this stuff. Yet this stuff is where all the action is.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> The dungeon crawl games I'm familiar with (Moldvay Basic and AD&D, which many OSR games are based one) do not follow you posted play loop. They go something closer to this:



This is somewhat a matter of interpretation...I would argue (and have been saying) that the loop is like an outline with basic steps that can be expanded upon via resolution mechanics, rules, procedures, worldbuilding/prep, principles/advice, and the somewhat more nebulous play expectations/culture.  5e, which lists the above explicitly as its gameplay loop in the opening pages, follows this up with hundreds of pages of rules which codify how to use dice to resolve uncertainty and outlines specific rules that the dm and player can refer to to help narrate the result of player announcing actions.  So I can say, "I would like to stab the guard in the throat," and the rules outline how the dm should handle that declaration (or at least the stabby part; there are no rules for the throat part.  Further there are lots of rules for the stabby part, almost no rules for determining how the world reacts, which is then left up to whatever the dm finds reasonable given the situation).  So characterizing that gameplay loop as "zero agency" is confusing at best and in bad faith at worst.  

My interest is in how many of those rules, procedures, etc, do you really need?  I've seen with a game like Cairn, which is 20 pages, mostly random tables, that you can remove an awful lot and still have basically the same play experience (e.g. do you need six ability scores?).  Meanwhile some OSR advice argues that players looking at their character sheet or needing to roll dice to determine whether an outcome is successful is a kind of failure state (Maze Rats (12 pages, mostly tables) says that its mechanics are set up so that if you need to roll dice you most likely will fail, so as to avoid players referring to their character sheet).

(btw, the "trad" games that I am familiar with are all the editions of dnd except 4th, Call of Cthulhu, and I guess Vampire and Mage though it's been a minute.  I had assumed "trad" was a relatively non-controversial label for those games; let me know if there is a better term)


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 8, 2021)

What a weird thread.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 8, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I just wanted to address this part.  Cthulhu Dark is 4 pages (including title page, so 3 pages of rules) and is a far more complete game in that it establishes who has what say, how to resolve conflicts at all times, good guidance on how to use the conflict resolution system, and some strong genre points of logic (you die if you fight mythos creatures).  6 pages is not a suitable defense.  Cthulhu Dark establishes a play loop that is not no/low agency.  It does the same thing Dark Empires tries to do and lean on genre logic, but the Cthulhu genre logic is more constrained than what's pointed at for Dark Empire (which goes from detailed period piece to gothic horror to near-fairy tale to spy thriller).
> 
> So the length of the set of rules doesn't excuse the incompleteness of those rules.  My first thought on reading Dark Empire was that it wasn't a complete game.  My second thought was why did they waste space on the tables that don't really matter much when the game isn't complete yet?  My first thought reading Cthulhu Dark was damn, that's a very tight, very light, very elegant bit of RPG!  My second thought was that the ability for another player to declare a failure didn't fit in well with the rest of the game and I didn't like it.



I don't think it's a matter of "excusing" something or not.  It does seem that qualities like completeness (by whatever metric), or elegance, or even design are very important to some people who play or create rpg content, and not that important to others.  I would imagine the fkr games/content would be more concerned with being evocative than being complete.  I would agree that Dark Empires leans into a genre that it also sort of invents...I'm not sure I understood what it was going for.  By the same token, Cthulhu Dark is a complete and elegant game...but how much of the work is being done simply by the inclusion of the the word "Cthulhu"?  Just by referencing Lovecraft, we already know so much about what the game is fundamentally about.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I don't think it's a matter of "excusing" something or not.  It does seem that qualities like completeness (by whatever metric), or elegance, or even design are very important to some people who play or create rpg content, and not that important to others.  I would imagine the fkr games/content would be more concerned with being evocative than being complete.  I would agree that Dark Empires leans into a genre that it also sort of invents...I'm not sure I understood what it was going for.  By the same token, Cthulhu Dark is a complete and elegant game...but how much of the work is being done simply by the inclusion of the the word "Cthulhu"?  Just by referencing Lovecraft, we already know so much about what the game is fundamentally about.



A complete game is one that tells you how it plays and doesn't leave bits out for your to have to invent yourself or guess.  It's not a high bar -- in an RPG is about who gets to say what and how conflicts are resolved.  This can be extremely simple -- the GM presents the scene, the players declare what their characters do, and if a consensus cannot be achieved on the outcome between all parties then a roll off of d6's occurs, with the highest getting the say.  Reroll ties as often as needed.  Bam, complete game.  Dark Empires doesn't even get this far.

Now, if you're coming at this game from a particular viewpoint and expectation that the GM just does whatever they want to fill in the blanks -- ie, anything not detailed by the game is up to the GM and anything detailed by the game is also up to the GM, then the lack of a complete game is, as you note, trivial because the completeness is just the GM says.  That's complete already.  But, if I'm a new player and looking to understand how to play Dark Empires, I don't know how it works because the game as presented is incomplete.

As for the amount of work genre does for Cthulhu Dark -- very little.  The system doesn't really care what scenario you put it up against, it will work to generate an answer.  If you play a game with CD with NO mythos, it still works, although I'd feel you'd be missing a good bit of fun.  Dark Empires doesn't even present a coherent set of genre inputs (some of the suggestions are not well aligned in tropes at all) AND the game isn't complete.  This makes it a game that only works via bringing in the understanding that the GM says is the final and only system needed.  It reads more like a set of suggestions and loose ideas for a game rather than a game -- it's more of a setting supplement than a distinct game because it does so heavily rely on the unspoken system of GM says.  And, even there, as I noted above, it's not very coherent in what's it's about.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 8, 2021)

When I look at Dark Empires I see a text that is dependent on a pretty set view of what roleplaying games are. A view that is interested in roleplaying as an activity, but not really as a game. It pretty much lacks the core features of a game. Combined with a lot of the surrounding rhetoric of _play worlds, not rules _it almost seems somewhat cynical of game design's value. That's a substantial departure from OSR at least, where the idea that we are playing a game is central to our understanding of play.

I appreciate the appeal of freeform roleplay. I just wish these assumptions were spelled out more clearly. I especially wish the rhetoric surrounding it did not feel the need to appeal to being part of a truer, more ancient tradition. I also really do not like all the rhetoric around trust that seems to imply that the rest of us value game design out of a lack of trust for each other. 

What it does is cool for people that are into it. The justifications put forward kind of suck from my perspective.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

Dark Empires is a mini setting written for a Mini Setting Challenge. 
Simple as that


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 8, 2021)

Campbell said:


> When I look at Dark Empires I see a text that is dependent on a pretty set view of what roleplaying games are. A view that is interested in roleplaying as an activity, but not really as a game. It pretty much lacks the core features of a game. Combined with a lot of the surrounding rhetoric of _play worlds, not rules _it almost seems somewhat cynical of game design's value. That's a substantial departure from OSR at least, where the idea that we are playing a game is central to our understanding of play.
> 
> I appreciate the appeal of freeform roleplay. I just wish these assumptions were spelled out more clearly. I especially wish the rhetoric surrounding it did not feel the need to appeal to being part of a truer, more ancient tradition. I also really do not like all the rhetoric around trust that seems to imply that the rest of us value game design out of a lack of trust for each other.
> 
> What it does is cool for people that are into it. The justifications put forward kind of suck from my perspective.




I appreciate what you are saying. 

Then again, from the perspective of people looking at this thread who might not share your perspective, it does seem like there are people who have a very narrow view of what "good" roleplaying games are, an extreme view of "player agency", and that use jargon and little-known games for their examples in order to exclude other people from their discussions (aka, gatekeeping). 

There is certainly a lot to be said about different styles of games. I think you might be unaware of how off-putting a lot of the justifications that have been put forth to rubbish games seem.

Put simply- people are making all sorts of different rules-lite games right now, and exploring with the form. It almost seems like there are people who are standing athwart the gates of "indie games" saying, "Sorry, you aren't cool enough and using the right words."


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I appreciate what you are saying.
> 
> Then again, from the perspective of people looking at this thread who might not share your perspective, it does seem like there are people who have a very narrow view of what "good" roleplaying games are, an extreme view of "player agency", and that use jargon and little-known games for their examples in order to exclude other people from their discussions (aka, gatekeeping).
> 
> ...



"I appreciate what you are saying but I will passively aggressively insult you and your position in a not-so-subtle way that depicts you as a smug, elitist a-hole."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> "I appreciate what you are saying but I will passively aggressively insult you and your position in a not-so-subtle way that depicts you as a smug, elitist a-hole."




Wow. Okay. That's super insanely obnoxious, Aldarc. I will assume that's not what you meant.

Look, there is a very small group of people making FKR-related games. It's not like they're getting rich off of it, even by the standard of the notoriously-poor hobby.

Do you know why? Well, because look at the entire ethos around it. Go on. What's the advice? That's right- it's all DIY. Find media that you like and run your game.

To the extent that's a handful of rulesystems, they are incredibly lite and list for a few bucks (usually, suggested donations).

But you know what? It seems neat! It's fun! I'm glad that people are out there, experimenting. TBH, I think these things go in cycles, but I'm glad it's there.

Unfortunately, we just can't have nice discussions about this sort of thing because there are individuals who reflexively intervene and attack. Now, given what I've seen you post, and your own experience dealing with that type of thing (4e for example), I would think you would be attuned to that sort of thing. Or maybe not.

If you feel better for "paraphrasing" me in an obnoxious way in order to make yourself feel better, good. I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> "I appreciate what you are saying but I will passively aggressively insult you and your position in a not-so-subtle way that depicts you as a smug, elitist a-hole."



Just report it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 8, 2021)

Real quick.

I critique (attack, whatever) games that I love/play all the time.

I’m in the process of critiquing Aliens.

Ive critiqued Blades for its lack of Obstacle: Score Difficulty formula (like Torchbearer has or like 4e’s tight Encounter Budgeting).

I can (and have aplenty) put together a more incisive and thorough critique of 4e than any edition warrior could dream of.

I’ve critiqued DW on a number of points (the integration of melee moves with cognitive workspace + gap-closing/creating and multiple opponents/zones being handled by DD rather than a more robust move-set).

I can (and do) critique games I love and play all day long.

I like talking about design and the implications of that design on play priorities and actual play. If someone looks at my efforts here through a cultural warfare lens, that is not on me. I’m not a culture warrior. The reality is that ENWorld has had a particular majority persuasion. I’ve found myself in the minority for my time here so my critiques will inevitably reflect that.

Put me in another sandbox (say, where people are claiming things about Pawn Stance D&D that I disagree with) and you’ll see the abundance of my critiques go another way.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2021)

*Mod Note:*
Hey, @Aldarc and @Snarf Zagyg - the two of you seem to be having a very non-constructive exchange.  

You probably both ought to disengage now, before you say something you'll regret.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 8, 2021)

I do not think I am better than anyone else. I don't think the games I like are better than the games anyone else likes. I think some games are better at some types of play than others, but I don't put interpersonal drama on some pedestal. I don't think aiming for something that feels like Sons of Anarchy or Altered Carbon is better than aiming for something that feels like Avengers Endgame. At the end of the day I'm just a gym bro software engineer that likes roleplaying games of all pretty much all types. I'm not super big on linear storytelling, but we all have our own biases.

I do not speak for anyone other than myself. I feel like our conversations would be a lot more cordial if we all did so. 

My personal issues with the rhetoric surrounding FKR have as much to do with being a fan of games like Pathfinder Second Edition, Infinity, Conan 2d20, Dune 2d20, Chronicles of Darkness, Vampire 5th Edition, Tales From The Loop, FFG Star Wars, and FFG L5R as they do indie games. Niche games no one plays. Right? Stuff like _play worlds, not rules_ and all the rhetoric around trust implicates the way a vast swathe of players play those games as well as 5e. I feel it throws the way I approach 5e under the bus.

I have no issues with minimalism. I applaud stuff like World of Dungeons, Troika, and Into The Odd even if they aren't jam. You can do minimalism without condescension. People take issue with a lot of the early rhetoric of The Forge with good reason. It was not necessary. Neither is this rhetoric.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think any of this gets to the player agency issue.
> 
> _Who gets to frame scenes? Under what constraints?
> 
> ...



From FKR bloggers I've read, an answer would be: the Referee (Gm) "under constraints" from genre, setting, rules, metacurrencies. I guess it really depends on who you ask and what they're playing. 

My take is of a malleable playstyle that can fit a variety of tables and games. My approach would be dialled differently if I'd run for storygamers, grognards, enthusiasts, shy people or a mix thereof. 
Also the term Referee suggests me to arbitrate new content introduction by players when they are not aligned. 

The example upthread from @Manbearcat would be gold at my table: players acting in character, sharing backgrounds info and elaborating on that appropriately enforcing the setting. 

"What happens then?" I guess an FKR referee would treat in-character, in-fiction, setting appropriate content for what it is and roll with it, with or without actual roll of dice; but ultimately I can speak only for myself.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Cthulhu Dark is a complete and elegant game...but how much of the work is being done simply by the inclusion of the the word "Cthulhu"?





Ovinomancer said:


> As for the amount of work genre does for Cthulhu Dark -- very little.  The system doesn't really care what scenario you put it up against, it will work to generate an answer.  If you play a game with CD with NO mythos, it still works



Initially I clicked "Like" for Ovinomancer's post, but then I reread the bit I've quoted and changed it to "Love".

I've run two sessions, one-offs, of Cthuhu Dark. I'm confident I could run more. The only Mythos element I've used is, in one, a shoggoth - and then only as the label for an implied horror that was carried in the hold of a vessel from Scotland to Boston and then from Boston to Newfoundland. The only time the PCs interacted with it was when I described something they couldn't see rushing past them - in my mind, an invisible horror.

In the other game the horror theme was one of mysterious deaths, madness in an asylum, addiction to laudanum ("nerve tonic"), and were-hyenas.

What carries the weight of the horror themes, as I experienced the game, is the Insanity die and associated rating for each character. I haven't tried, but I think the game could be drifted towards Wuthering Heights just by relabelling this the Passion die: and when it reaches 6 instead of going incurably mad, the character comes to a dramatic or tragic end as their passion dictates.



Malmuria said:


> Phrases like "high trust" might be unhelpful if they imply a character flaw.  But I'm not claiming that, I'm not sure who is.





Campbell said:


> I appreciate the appeal of freeform roleplay. I just wish these assumptions were spelled out more clearly. I especially wish the rhetoric surrounding it did not feel the need to appeal to being part of a truer, more ancient tradition. I also really do not like all the rhetoric around trust that seems to imply that the rest of us value game design out of a lack of trust for each other.



Here Campbell picks up on the same thing that I have done in the rhetoric around _trust _and some of the associated rhetoric.



Malmuria said:


> I would argue (and have been saying) that the loop is like an outline with basic steps that can be expanded upon via resolution mechanics, rules, procedures, worldbuilding/prep, principles/advice, and the somewhat more nebulous play expectations/culture.  5e, which lists the above explicitly as its gameplay loop in the opening pages, follows this up with hundreds of pages of rules which codify how to use dice to resolve uncertainty and outlines specific rules that the dm and player can refer to to help narrate the result of player announcing actions.  So I can say, "I would like to stab the guard in the throat," and the rules outline how the dm should handle that declaration (or at least the stabby part; there are no rules for the throat part.  Further there are lots of rules for the stabby part, almost no rules for determining how the world reacts, which is then left up to whatever the dm finds reasonable given the situation).  So characterizing that gameplay loop as "zero agency" is confusing at best and in bad faith at worst.



To the extent that it's not zero agency, then it's incomplete.

But in fact it's also inaccurate. For instance, suppose that - in a game of 5e - my PC and my friend's PC come to blows. We can use the combat rules to work out what happens next without needing the GM to tell us what happens next. The only difference when it's me vs an Orc rather than me vs my friend is that the GM happens to be the one in charge of the Orc's hit point tally and action declarations.

I guess the alternative to what my previous paragraph asserts is what @overgeeked said upthread, which I took to be that _My PC and my friend's PC can't fight one another unless the GM signs off on that shared fiction_. In which case we have a dramatic demonstration of how it _is _a zero payer agency play loop.

Or to look at it from another perspective, here's the "loop" for _submitting an essay as a university student _and_ giving your draft novel to your friend to read_:

* The writer gives their work to the reader;​* The reader reads it;​* The reader tells the writer what they thought of it.​
And so submitting an assignment for examination is just like getting your friend to tell you what they think of your story, yeah? That's such a misleading equivalence that it shows us something has gone wildly wrong in our presentation of the loop: it's missed out that the whole process, and even point, in the university case is governed by a completely different set of standards, expectations and purposes from the case of the friendly critic.

Or, here's the loop for competition chess and competition singles tennis:

* The two players and the umpire take their places in the competition space;​* The players alternate in performing bodily movements in response to one another;​* The umpire declares the winner.​
Everything that might explain how those two competitions work is missing from my "loop".



Malmuria said:


> My interest is in how many of those rules, procedures, etc, do you really need?



Do you mean _need to use_? Do you mean _need to adhere to_?

Let's take the first.

Rolemaster doesn't really tell us how to play the game? Does it need to? Maybe not - most players extrapolate from prior experience of D&D, plus the implicit logic of the game's presentation, and muddle through.

Classic Traveller's statements of how it is to be played are incomplete and in part contradictory (eg in some places it characterises the referee in the same sorts of "neutral" terms as are found in Moldvay Basic's advice about good dungeon mastering; but in one place it says that the referee has a _duty_ to introduce encounters so as "to further the cause of the adventure being played"). When I first read the Classic Traveller rules, c 1979, I couldn't work out how to play it. When, later, I played it by importing expectations formed from playing D&D and reading some White Dwarf articles, it was a bit of a mediocre experience (character gen was great, but play itself a bit lacklustre). When I came back to it a few years ago with my understanding of Apocalypse World, and also having reread things like that remark about the referee's duty through the lens of both AW and my experience in scene-framed RPGing, I was able to make it work.

So did Classic Traveller "need" better, clearer advice on how to play? I think so, yes.

Let's take the second. Do we need to adhere to rules, principles, etc? I dunno. What sort of experience are you looking for? We're in the realm, here, of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical ones. But I can tell you that I will not play a game that is adjudicated in the fashion implied by @overgeeked's posts in this thread, and by some of what I've read from the FKRers. I've experienced that sort of RPGing, in both club and tournament contexts. And I personally think it's a waste of my time.



Malmuria said:


> I've seen with a game like Cairn, which is 20 pages, mostly random tables, that you can remove an awful lot and still have basically the same play experience (e.g. do you need six ability scores?).  Meanwhile some OSR advice argues that players looking at their character sheet or needing to roll dice to determine whether an outcome is successful is a kind of failure state (Maze Rats (12 pages, mostly tables) says that its mechanics are set up so that if you need to roll dice you most likely will fail, so as to avoid players referring to their character sheet).



What are you driving at here? Obviously we don't ned six ability scores. Rolemaster has ten, plus (just as D&D does) various derived and further attributes eg movement rate. Cthulhu Dark has one: Insanity. Plus a freely-chosen occupation descriptor. In HeroQuest revised, a PC has as many descriptors as are needed within the 100-word PC gen limit.

If the game play will all be the GM directly adjudicating fictional positioning unmediated by any dice rolls, then maybe nothing is needed. (What's the PC sheet even for, then?) The play loop for that game might be a stripped-down version of the dungeon crawl loop I posted upthread:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The DM refers to the map and key.
4. The DM extrapolates from the map and key where the PC goes (if moving) and/or what bits of architecture, furniture or similar that the PC discovers and/or touches. If the DM is not clear about what the PC is doing relative to the geography and architecture, the DM might seek clarification from the player.
5. The DM extrapolates the immediate result as faithfully and neutrally as they can.​
Why do we need to pretend the loop is something different? Why do we need the rhetoric of _trust_, which does no special work in that play loop? And why do we need the language of _need_? I mean, if you want to play that game then that play loop will give you what you need. If you want to play a different game - eg if I want the sort of experience I have playing Burning Wheel - then I will need a different play loop. As I said, we're in the realm of hypothetical, not categorical, imperatives.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2021)

Numidius said:


> From FKR bloggers I've read, an answer would be: the Referee (Gm) "under constraints" from genre, setting, rules, metacurrencies. I guess it really depends on who you ask and what they're playing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Also the term Referee suggests me to arbitrate new content introduction by players when they are not aligned.



That first sentence seems capacious enough to capture Burning Wheel. Is it meant to?

I'm not saying that to be a prick. I'm trying to work out what I'm being told, in this thread and not just by you.

As far as I know I'm the first ENworlder ever to have downloaded and played Cthulhu Dark. For years I was the only one who posted about it. So then when I get told there's this whole RPG movement that is really wonderful, that I don't understand, but that is exemplified by a game like Cthulhu Dark, I get confused. That confusion is only amplified by being told - via rhetorical questions - that I don't _need_ rules like _the very ones found in Cthulhu Dark which is supposed to be an exemplar of this thing that says I don't need rules_.

It feels to me, reading posts in this thread plus the FKRer material, like a reaction to a certain trend in D&D play and design - roughly, what I regard as the terrible design of 3E which has everything that's bad in a game like RM with almost none of what's good - is being held up as a universally valid demand on RPG play. When for me, at least, 3E D&D  and six ability scores is not my baseline for conceiving of a RPG.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> That first sentence seems capacious enough to capture Burning Wheel. Is it meant to?
> 
> I'm not saying that to be a prick. I'm trying to work out what I'm being told, in this thread and not just by you.
> 
> ...




Well, my friend. I'm just responding politely and honestly to questions you asked quoting me as if they're not rethorical ones. Anyway I appreciate you speaking frankly. 

I've read with interest all your play reports of various games, from 4e shenanigans to the Green knight lately. Besides many more advices from you and other forumers, also posting in this thread. 

I haven't mentioned issues of trust, nor agency. I'm noy really interested in those arguments at the moment. 

In recent years, I found necessary to run my games stripping a growing amount of rules and procedures as I went, toying with them in case, in order to help me manage the fiction and involve players on diegetic choices, narration and content introduction. 
(Truth is I"m getting old) 

Then I've found out and realized that FKR stuff just resonated and helped me make a further step in my DIY ongoing process. 
An example: How to blend rpg and wargames/mass battles without any procedure, fiction first, ad-hoc resolution rolls as the table (or the bloody GM) sees fit. 

Regarding your last question, maaaybe Yes, now that I think about it: remember that ultralight Burning Wheel hack I asked your opinion on, lately  
No, I actually had in mind an ultralight Star Wars game with a dynamic similar to the Doom pool from Cortex to represent light and dark sides of the Force.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> If the game play will all be the GM directly adjudicating fictional positioning unmediated by any dice rolls, then maybe nothing is needed. (What's the PC sheet even for, then?) The play loop for that game might be a stripped-down version of the dungeon crawl loop I posted upthread:
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment.​2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.​3. The DM refers to the map and key.​4. The DM extrapolates from the map and key where the PC goes (if moving) and/or what bits of architecture, furniture or similar that the PC discovers and/or touches. If the DM is not clear about what the PC is doing relative to the geography and architecture, the DM might seek clarification from the player.​5. The DM extrapolates the immediate result as faithfully and neutrally as they can.​
> Why do we need to pretend the loop is something different? Why do we need the rhetoric of _trust_, which does no special work in that play loop? And why do we need the language of _need_?



I'm using need in the conventional sense (_In order to play blackjack, you need a deck of cards).  _As stated above, I'm not committed or invested in the word "trust," as it seems to be interpreted in an implicitly pejorative sense.  Anyway in the play loop you articulate, the DM "_describes_, _refers, extrapolates, seeks clarification._"  Maybe also they _adjudicate _and _narrate_.  I understand the language of trust to index whatever is available to the DM to perform those actions (mechanics, principles, prep, being a swell person) in a way that is satisfactory to the players.



pemerton said:


> I mean, if you want to play that game then that play loop will give you what you need.



Agreed!



> I've experienced that sort of RPGing, in both club and tournament contexts. And I personally think it's a waste of my time.



so many words to say something so simple!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I actually had in mind an ultralight Star Wars game with a dynamic similar to the Doom pool from Cortex to represent light and dark sides of the Force.



On my to-do list is to write a Star Wars scenario for The Green Knight. I don't think much change to the special abilities or skills is needed - maybe a Pilot skill?, but I did get stymied trying to think about how that would work in a multi-player scene. The Green Knight doesn't work if only one player steps forward to try and resolve the situation.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I'm using need in the conventional sense (_In order to play blackjack, you need a deck of cards).  _As stated above, I'm not committed or invested in the word "trust," as it seems to be interpreted in an implicitly pejorative sense.  Anyway in the play loop you articulate, the DM "_describes_, _refers, extrapolates, seeks clarification._"  Maybe also they _adjudicate _and _narrate_.  I understand the language of trust to index whatever is available to the DM to perform those actions (mechanics, principles, prep, being a swell person) in a way that is satisfactory to the players.
> 
> 
> Agreed!
> ...



The problem with the use of "high trust" follows closely with what you say here -- if "trust" just means playing in a satisfactory way, then it's just a banality.  All games then require trust to work or they fall apart and all games do best with "high" trust.  FKR is then leaning on a distinction that doesn't exist.

Which then leaves open the thought that it must mean something else because no one's just going to insist on trivialities, right?  And, indeed, what I get from that term isn't that it means satisfactory play but rather than players have to submit to the GM's judgement and that this submission will result in good play.  The problem is that there's no causality provided here and no procedure for how that happens and no guiding principles that ensure it.  It's just a statement that following along with the GM results in good play.  I've done that, it didn't.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 9, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> The problem with the use of "high trust" follows closely with what you say here -- if "trust" just means playing in a satisfactory way, then it's just a banality.  All games then require trust to work or they fall apart and all games do best with "high" trust.  FKR is then leaning on a distinction that doesn't exist.



 I'm not advocating for using the word "trust," I'm just giving you my reading of some of those FKR blogposts.  For example, chess requires two players, the board and pieces, and the rules.  The rules distinguish clearly between legal and illegal moves.  It's rather binary.  As a consequence, you don't need to trust, like, or even know your opponent, unless you can't see/perceive the board in some way.  So it might be considered "low trust" in that way, though again, maybe that's not the most helpful or accurate language.




Ovinomancer said:


> Which then leaves open the thought that it must mean something else because no one's just going to insist on trivialities, right?  And, indeed, what I get from that term isn't that it means satisfactory play but rather than players have to submit to the GM's judgement and that this submission will result in good play.  The problem is that there's no causality provided here and no procedure for how that happens and no guiding principles that ensure it.  It's just a statement that following along with the GM results in good play.  I've done that, it didn't.




And if you have a gm that is intent on making the players submit to their vision, would any written procedures or guiding principles prevent it?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 9, 2021)

Look through Pathfinder Second Edition's page and you will find the text thoroughly peppered by phrases like _the GM might _or _the GM will determine_. The phrase _the GM _appears 385 times in a 642 page book. It appears 380 times in the text of Legend of the Five Rings 5th Edition's 337 page Core Rulebook.  It appears 159 times in Infinity's 544 page Core Rulebook which devotes a substantial amount to setting material. Storyteller appears 339 times in Exalted Third Edition's 686 page Core Rulebook.

The importance of GM judgement to games like Buring Wheel, Blades in the Dark, and Apocalypse World have been well covered elsewhere.

I am at a sincere loss for a single roleplaying game released in the last 5 years that has some sort of aversion to GM judgement, where GMs are not called on to make judgement calls damn near 100+ times a session. Including some of most detailed crunchy games on the current market. This is a hobby that requires a phenomenal amount of trust between participants no matter what game you end up playing. To argue otherwise is to radically misjudge the landscape of modern game design.

I can totally understand wondering what is the point to these 500 page rulebooks if I'm going to make all these judgement calls anyway. I can understand asking what the game is contributing to the process and getting to a place where for the experience you are looking for the answer could be nothing. That's not the same thing at all as claiming a special degree of required trust.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I'm not advocating for using the word "trust," I'm just giving you my reading of some of those FKR blogposts.  For example, chess requires two players, the board and pieces, and the rules.  The rules distinguish clearly between legal and illegal moves.  It's rather binary.  As a consequence, you don't need to trust, like, or even know your opponent, unless you can't see/perceive the board in some way.  So it might be considered "low trust" in that way, though again, maybe that's not the most helpful or accurate language.



Taking this ad argumentum, this is exactly what I think is trying to be conveyed by "high trust:"  that it means more flexible and interesting than a low trust game like chess.  It's not really about trust -- trust is a high value word that's being used as a stand in for the point -- not giving your GM total control means you lack trust, and that's obviously bad because it's bad in other situations.  It's this weird attempt to coopt a term because it sounds good.  I see the same thing with the use of "living world."  It's a term that sounds good but you cannot get it defined by anyone.

FKR play is all about submitting to the GM's vision of the game.  I don't follow why this is being cloaked with "trust."  It's not about trust.


Malmuria said:


> And if you have a gm that is intent on making the players submit to their vision, would any written procedures or guiding principles prevent it?



This is the core conceit of FKR -- that the umpire/GM knows best and will provide a good game if you submit to their vision/rulings/plan.  So this question seems misplaced unless we're assuming bad faith play.  Having players submit to the GM's vision is part of good faith play in FKR.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

I found this 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 @Malmuria 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 @Ovinomancer 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 @Ovinomancer has said, it's yet another way of emphasising the priority of the GM's conception of the fiction.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 9, 2021)

I'm also wondering about the realities of "trust (high especially)" undergirding this whole thing.

I agree that it feels like a marketing word as a stand-in for another concept or another thing.

In that way it feels a lot like "fun" as a guiding principle in TTRPGing.  Its simultaneously sufficiently opaque so as to be indecipherable and wholly pervasive as a concept which underwrites the zoomed out goal of all TTRPG play and all social contracts that participants enter into to play at all.  And, frustrating as all hell to me, it might be weaponized by someone who wants to avoid analysis (either via a Kafka Trap or a Motte and Bailey advance and retreat defense) of play/design.

Here is what I think the word "trust (high in particular" might be doing in an FKR sense:

"High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>."

That is a mouthful yes.  But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play.  All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes).  Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games.  A GM can UTTERLY SUCK at running those games and a GM can be brilliant.  A player (or host of them) can UTTERLY SUCK at playing those games and a player (or host of them) can be brilliant.

However, "high level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <for reasons x and/or y>?"  That explains the paradigm of play and explains the differences between FKR and Dogs in the Vineyard or Blades in the Dark or D&D 4e (all 3 of which are very different games from each other but have similar overlap on the "acquiescence to GM" component of the Venn Diagram).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I found this on reddit..




….that was posted on the first page of this thread.

Post in thread 'System matters and free kriegsspiel'
System matters and free kriegsspiel

Are we really 300 posts in and just now starting to look at what people who use the terms say about the games?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> ….that was posted on the first page of this thread. In reply to you.



OK. So your point is that you found it too? Does that mean you think it's accurate?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> OK. So your point is that you found it too? Does that mean you think it's accurate?




No. My point is that we are 300 posts deep, and just now you’ve started googling about it?

When it was given to you on the first page?

(as for accuracy, I think it is an enthusiast’s description. You have to be to advocate and design for minimalist rule sets. Given the relative newness of this, the ardor and imprecise boundaries are expected.)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm also wondering about the realities of "trust (high especially)" undergirding this whole thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This seems right to me.

It's also consistent with what the OP of this thread posted. In the OP, and then about two-thirds of the way down the first page, we get:

I am not now, nor have I ever been, part of the "Old School Renaissance." This is because I've simply never stopped playing the game the way I always have. No rebirth involved.

However, one of the bases of Braunstein, then Blackmoor, then Greyhawk, was the concept of "Free Kriegspiel," where the referee's judgement is the supreme authority, not a set of written rules.

This fine tradition has all but died out. It needs desperately to be brought back.

Therefore I hereby announce the launch of the "Free Kriegspiel Renaissance," or FKR.

. . .

I'm working on "The FKRs Manifesto," and eventually I'll link to it.

To answer your question briefly, though, I think the most important principle is this:

*ALL AUTHORITY LIES STRICTLY WITH THE REFEREE.*

Most especially, text has no authority! So it's not a matter of "I'm the referee, I am overriding this rule;" it's a matter of "I am the referee, I say that the rule is X in this case." It's not "Rulings not rules;" it's "Rulings ARE rules."

It also means that "The rules don't cover that" is a complete and total non sequitur; the referee's judgement IS the rules. If the referee says "we are going to resolve this combat using the OD&D alternate combat system," that's the rule; if the referee says "You find Evil the Bad Guy all tied up and you hit him in the face with an axe. He's dead, no matter what level he is" ... then THAT is the rule.

You don't NEED special case rules, because "referee's judgement" is ALWAYS the rule.​


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 9, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> That is a mouthful yes.  But trust (high or other) doesn't remotely do the work to delineate FKR from other forms of TTRPG play.  All games share trust and even high trust (on multiple axes).  Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark and D&D 4e are absolutely "high trust" games.



…..Whereas 3e (PF as well) and 5e may have less trust.

Or the idea that trust is engendered by player-facing rules.

And that‘s generally the people that you’re talking to when you’re trying to explain a rules-lite game.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No. My point is that we are 300 posts deep, and just now you’ve started googling about it?



Well, you could ask rather than assume or assert.

I've Googled FKR. I haven't read everything that turns up, because I have temporal finitude. Today I Googled because I was looking for the messageboard post that I've just linked to upthread; and in the course of so-doing found the Reddit thread.

Btw, how's your play of Cthulhu Dark going?


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 9, 2021)

One other thing.  As I wrote above, I think the concept of _"High level of acquiescence to GM adjudication/volition <and then append one or both of "because the GM has exhibited sufficient competency to deliver the goods prior" and/or "because a lead participant taking the most active role and being the most potent force for movement of the gamestate/fiction is preferred because of pacing/flow/cognitive workspace of the individuals at the table up to and including the ability to be passive at their discretion>"_ is better handled on the player's side as a Best Practice.  Its not a GMing principle.  Things like the below:

*BRING ONLY THE ENERGY YOU HAVE TONIGHT* - You don't need to feel pressured to bring it this night or any other night.  Bring only what you can bring tonight.  The game can withstand you being low energy because the GM can pick up the slack.

*THE GM KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING* - You've played with them.  You know.  If, instead, this is your first time at <FKR Game Name Here> Club, you have to fight...errr respect the process.  This isn't a marriage.  There's no ring on any fingers.  If it sucks, you move on.

*WHEN ASKED, HELP KEEP THE PACING AND FLOW ALL SYSTEMS GO *- We're all working together here.  The GM may need some help on an area of expertise that you possess which they do not.  But don't offer unsolicited.  If they ask, be willing to step up and help to resolve the situation satisfactorily so play can keep moving at a brisk pace.


Those look like 3 * Player Best Practices for FKR players that does a lot better (more clear and more robust) work than "this is a high trust game."

@Snarf Zagyg , we cross-posted.  What do you think of those 3 * Player Best Practices instead of "high trust game?"


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Btw, how's your play of Cthulhu Dark going?




Not currently playing it- but I did several one-shots which led me down my current rabbit hole of rules-lite!

You may never get me to play Prince Valiant, but I do believe that Dying Earth and Dark were both mentioned by you first. 

Next on my list is Messerspiel- that’s the FKR adaption of BITD.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

On the topic of _trusting the GM_, this is from DitV (p 89), under the heading Ambush:

What’s at stake: do you get murdered in your bed?

— The stage: your room at night. A possessed sinner creeps into your room without waking you.

— You roll only Acuity, because you’re asleep. I roll Body + Will.

— My first Raise will be to hit you in the head with my axe. I get my axe dice too! I’m rolling a lot more dice than you, so probably you have to Take the Blow. But check it out — that means you take Fallout and get to say how, it doesn’t mean you’re dead. You aren’t dead unless the whole conflict goes my way.

— So let’s say that you take the blow: “I hear him coming even in my sleep, but he gashes me bad...” Then it’s your Raise, and you can escalate: “...I come awake already in motion, with blood in my eyes and my knife in my hand!” Away we go!

I should tell you, in an early playtest I startled one of my players bad with this very conflict. In most roleplaying games, saying “an enemy sneaks into your room in the middle of the night and hits you in the head with an axe” is cheating. I’ve hosed the character and the player with no warning and no way out. Not in Dogs, though: the resolution rules are built to handle it. I don’t have to pull my punches!

(You’ve GMed a bunch of RPGs before, right? Think about what I just said for a minute. You know how you usually pull your punches?)​
I think this is relevant to thinking about how different allocations of authority over the fiction, and different processes for working out what happens next, produce different RPG experiences.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> You may never get me to play Prince Valiant, but I do believe that Dying Earth and Dark were both mentioned by you first.



The Dying Earth is definitely not rule lite.

Prince Valiant is, but not as lite as Cthulhu Dark. So is Maelstrom Storytelling - it's a little bit like a lite version of HeroWars/Quest. It can be downloaded from DriveThru for free as StoryBones.

The other good lite game I know is Wuthering Heights.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> The Dying Earth is definitely not rule lite.
> 
> Prince Valiant is, but not as lite as Cthulhu Dark. So is Maelstrom Storytelling - it's a little bit like a lite version of HeroWars/Quest. It can be downloaded from DriveThru for free as StoryBones.
> 
> The other good lite game I know is Wuthering Heights.




Oh no, Dying Earth isn’ rules lite!! But I picked it up after you mentioned it one time. Totally worth it.

I‘m not familiar with Maelstrom Storytellinag or Wuthering Heights- I’ll check them out when I have the time.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I‘m not familiar with Maelstrom Storytellinag or Wuthering Heights- I’ll check them out when I have the time.



Wuthering Heights can be found in two English versions and a French version (the original).


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I found this on reddit. (My copy-and-paste has killed the links in the original.)



I'm aware that this has been posted already, but if I may hack your post up a bit:



pemerton said:


> 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.​



I will admit that I am skeptical with the claim that "FKR uses table-centric design" when it also claims "FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks," especially  when in conjunction with the holistic perspective of the GM or players' role in the game. As such, "FKR uses table-centric design" may as well mean that it uses "GM-centric design." They may as well call FKR "the ultimate expression of the Cult of Rule 0 design."

Plus what is really meant by "The rules are the servant, not the master of the game"? From what I can tell, the players are switching one master for another: i.e., the rules for the GM.

An Autocrat is more efficient at governing than a Republic or a Democracy. The laws are kept minimal and are entirely invisible. The citizens should not need to know the laws to immerse themselves in their daily living. The citizens should trust their Autocratic leader to make consistent rulings. It's a high trust system of governance.

This is not to cast aspersions on the DIY attitude of the hobby. I think that DIY is great. But I also don't think that this DIY or "high trust" attitude is somehow fundamentally at odds with the rest of the hobby that FKR seemingly frames as antithetical to its own perspective.



pemerton said:


> 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.​



This may be my least favorite point from FKR. It builds one massive uncritical assumption on another.

It's the causal assumption regarding (1) the interaction between realism and rules, (2) that realism should be the "ultimate good" of roleplaying, and (3) giving the DM a lot of authority _as the rules_ is the best way to achieve that. This is again not to mention the final assumption that "a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset" or the implication that faster is better.

This says nothing necessarily about the extent that I agree with these assertions. But I think, much as @Campbell said earlier, that this tends to snub a lot of roleplaying games and not just the indie ones.

Edit: I am curious whether there are two principles that are potentially at odds in this as well: the goal to "increase realism" with "play worlds not rules." Realism and world/genre simulation are not necessarily equivalent. How does one "increase realism" if one were playing the world of Marvel Superheroes? 



pemerton said:


> 3.) FKR has less rules to let players do more.​



This assumption of causality is doing a LOT of heavy lifting for the FKR movement. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it. Again, especially since often so much of it fundamentally rests on "GM decides." Looking through subreddit threads on FKR shows that we're not the only people who are picking up on this issue or the whole "high trust" framing of FKR.

To be clear, I don't think that less rules or more rules necessarily says anything about how much players can do. That seems like a somewhat shallow understanding of rules. It says nothing about the content of the rules, what the rules that are present achieve, or how they go about doing that.

I generally think the amount of rules needed for a game depends on the game.



pemerton said:


> 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.​



Does the knowledge or fairness of players not count for anything? Are they incapable of applying clear, consistent rulings?



pemerton said:


> 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.​



The issue of framing this in terms of fun and "play worlds, not rules" has been talked about enough by others, IMHO. Or even the veiled condescension that frames very crunch RPGs like boardgames with the implication that players of these TTRPGs are rollplaying rules and not roleplaying worlds.

I'm also skeptical of the claims of "tactical infinity" depending on the nature of the dice resolution system and the fact that so much of this rests on the whims of the GM, particularly when in conjunction with the underlying play principle that the minimalist design is being done to "increase realism." So the "tactical infinity" seems bound to the GM's idiomatic sense of reality.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 9, 2021)

Let's say I want to run an game where I'm going to create the illusion of agency for the players. Let's say I'm going to create a game where all the important decisions have been scripted by me the GM and that what the players are asked to do is provide some cosplay, a bit of witty dialogue and some combat tactics and dice rolls. however, I'm going to fudge it and stitch it all together to present the game to them as one where their decisions really mattered and impacted the outcomes.

To be functional, that game also requires 'High Trust'.

In this (and the FKR) usage 'trust' is a one-way street deployed as a demand by the GM of the players. It's not a mutual currency shared around the table equally by all the participants. It's an authoritarian construct rather than a collaborative one.

My games require high trust too, but it's a shared trust. A trust from me that everyone is going to bring it, to play with heart and integrity and passion, not to turtle and stonewall and play Mary Sue, to create characters with flaws and responsibilities and vulnerabilities and failings as well as strengths and brilliance, and a shared trust that everyone is in a friendly, happy-go-lucky environment and is comfortable for the game to go where the players collectively take it.

I would also note that earlier on I offered to GM in this thread using the FKR playloop for a poster claiming it provided them agency. Obviously, they declined and then stopped responding. However, in one reply they said they were declining because of the 'difference in high trust to low trust playstyle'.

Nowhere was there a suggestion that I wouldn't adjudicate their action declarations in accordance with the play loop under discussion.

What I wasn't trusted to do was provide the illusion of agency.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 9, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Let's say I want to run an game where there's I'm going to create the illusion of agency for the players. Let's say I'm going to create a game where all the important decisions have been scripted by me the GM and that what the players are asked to do is provide some cosplay, a bit of witty dialogue and some combat tactics and dice rolls. however, I'm going to fudge it and stitch it all together to present the game to them as one where their decisions really mattered and impacted the outcomes.
> 
> To be functional, that game also requires 'High Trust'.
> 
> In this usage 'trust' is a one-way street deployed as a demand by the GM of the players. It's not a mutual currency shared around the table equally by all the participants. It's an authoritarian construct rather than a collaborative one.




Sounds like you’re depicting “Illusionism Infinity (and beyond!)” rather than “Tactical Infinity!”


----------



## S'mon (Oct 9, 2021)

When I'm GMing I want the players to trust they have agency; ie the actions of their PCs affects what happens. This trust can be inculcated by objective transparent adjudication of mechanical systems - eg no fudging hit point tallies. It can be inculcated by transparency in making free judgements, too. 

I always roll my wandering monster checks in the open, so everyone can see that if eg the die comes up a 6, that means an encounter.

The players need to trust the GM, the GM needs to strive to be worthy of that trust. For me it feels lot like leading a tutorial group in my day job. I'm the guy at the front of the room, I'm the one with the authority. The students in the tutorial need to be confident that their participation is meaningful, eg that I will really engage with what they say, and react based on what I think of their arguments, not (eg) their dress sense. All of them, not just my favourites.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> On the topic of _trusting the GM_, this is from DitV (p 89), under the heading Ambush:
> 
> What’s at stake: do you get murdered in your bed?
> 
> ...



My goal, reached running a realistic Cthulhian campaign, but still work in progress in my OSR, is to have exactly the above kind of exchange at the table, without any rule or dice roll (ok, maybe one at the end sometimes). 

Disclaimer: I own a copy of DitV and ran it. I'm also proud of having run a Vampire adventure using Dogs' resolution and escalation of conflicts with mostly D10 pools.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> My goal, reached running a realistic Cthulhian campaign, but still work in progress in my OSR, is to have exactly the above kind of exchange at the table, without any rule or dice roll (ok, maybe one at the end sometimes).



How does that possibly work without the GM pulling punches or filtering for desired outcomes (ie, Force)?  I mean, walk through that with what you're thinking and how you're adjudicating the axe-wielding sinner catching the paladin asleep as to how it works out without you pulling a punch or pushing an outcome?

ETA:  I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I don't see how you get there.  I'm very interested in hearing, though, because relatively recently a style of play I didn't think was possible turned out to be possible and now I love it, so maybe there's a leap here I'm not seeing.


Numidius said:


> Disclaimer: I own a copy of DitV and ran it. I'm also proud of having run a Vampire adventure using Dogs' resolution and escalation of conflicts with mostly D10 pools.



I don't see how that works, but okay.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Let's say I want to run an game where I'm going to create the illusion of agency for the players. Let's say I'm going to create a game where all the important decisions have been scripted by me the GM and that what the players are asked to do is provide some cosplay, a bit of witty dialogue and some combat tactics and dice rolls. however, I'm going to fudge it and stitch it all together to present the game to them as one where their decisions really mattered and impacted the outcomes.
> 
> To be functional, that game also requires 'High Trust'.
> 
> ...



Let's say I'd like to partecipate in a game of shared trust of yours, and you run it tonight for me and some new folk. 
You don't have time to prep before, nor to explain rulesets at the table. 
Would you run it extemporarily, freeform, free kriegsspiel, Gm-decides, whatever rule you see fit in the moment, aware of your experience and sensibility?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Let's say I'd like to partecipate in a game of shared trust of yours, and you run it tonight for me and some new folk.
> You don't have time to prep before, nor to explain rulesets at the table.
> Would you run it extemporarily, freeform, free kriegsspiel, Gm-decides, whatever rule you see fit in the moment, aware of your experience and sensibility?



This is trying to create an implausible set of circumstances to show that there's only your answer that could work here.  Firstly, this fails your answer as well because character creation and the playloop of describe/declare/resolve are still actually rules that you cannot impart (I assume this must be exempt, though, so your thought experiment is aligned).  But, primarily, if you have to concoct such an extreme and implausible scenario to show where the suggested play shines doesn't that cut against rather than for?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> My goal, reached running a realistic Cthulhian campaign, but still work in progress in my OSR, is to have exactly the above kind of exchange at the table, without any rule or dice roll (ok, maybe one at the end sometimes).
> 
> Disclaimer: I own a copy of DitV and ran it. I'm also proud of having run a Vampire adventure using Dogs' resolution and escalation of conflicts with mostly D10 pools.



In what sense are you using "realistic" in this context?



Numidius said:


> Let's say I'd like to partecipate in a game of shared trust of yours, and you run it tonight for me and some new folk.
> You don't have time to prep before, *nor to explain rulesets at the table.*
> Would you run it extemporarily, freeform, free kriegsspiel, Gm-decides, whatever rule you see fit in the moment, aware of your experience and sensibility?



The idea that I don't have time to explain the rules at the table feels detached from any reality or experience in which I have played TTRPGs, board games, or any sort of games.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is trying to create an implausible set of circumstances to show that there's only your answer that could work here. Firstly, this fails your answer as well because character creation and the playloop of describe/declare/resolve are still actually rules that you cannot impart (I assume this must be exempt, though, so your thought experiment is aligned). But, primarily, if you have to concoct such an extreme and implausible scenario to show where the suggested play shines doesn't that cut against rather than for?



Byzantine  No, I just meant that sometimes things are just easier done than discussed. 

I'm pretty confident that anyone of you folks could Gm such a game easily, in a principled manner with satisfactory results.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> In what sense are you using "realistic" in this context?
> 
> 
> The idea that I don't have time to explain the rules at the table feels detached from any reality or experience in which I have played TTRPGs, board games, or any sort of games.



Realistic as in Not Pulpy. 

Ok, then Don't have time is implausible, maybe Don't want to explain them for whatever reason? 

See above


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Realistic as in Not Pulpy.



I'm not sure if that really helps clarify matters. Also, I don't necessarily why "realism" is something that one would want out of a Cthulhu story. I may as well not be playing a Cthulhu Mythos story at all. If you're playing "worlds not rules," then wouldn't the "world" be the one of the Cthulhu genre? 



Numidius said:


> Ok, then Don't have time is implausible, maybe Don't want to explain them for whatever reason?
> 
> See above



Imagine if there was a scenario with a bunch of leading questions where the only plausible answer points to FKR.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Byzantine  No, I just meant that sometimes things are just easier done than discussed.
> 
> I'm pretty confident that anyone of you folks could Gm such a game easily, in a principled manner with satisfactory results.



I would not, because I do not believe I can do this in a principled manner that provides actual agency for the players.  If I wanted to tell them my story, and have them cosplay in it, then, yes, I can do this.  I don't find this interesting, though, as there's no game.

I find it very interesting that FKR has managed to wrap around to nearly pure storygame play, just with a single authority rather than conch-passing or roll-for-authority mechanics.


----------



## chaochou (Oct 9, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Let's say I'd like to partecipate in a game of shared trust of yours, and you run it tonight for me and some new folk.
> You don't have time to prep before, nor to explain rulesets at the table.
> Would you run it extemporarily, freeform, free kriegsspiel, Gm-decides, whatever rule you see fit in the moment, aware of your experience and sensibility?




I've run Apocalypse World like this, at a gaming club, with a group I didn't know well and who had never played it (or anything like it - this was in 2010-11, when AW was newly published so before PbtA was a thing).

And we did it how the book says to do it, except we started with joint setting creation. So I encouraged everyone to come up with a vision of post-Apocalyptic life, and then we all talked about what it might look like and where might be good to base our game, and they decided on a sort of gas station, truck stop, service station on a freeway in a generic USA.

So then we added things to a map, everyone getting two or three chances to create stuff in the area around the hardhold and I prompted with questions like 'That's cool, so do you know what's out there at Twisted Pipe?' and then I gave a rundown of the playbook archetypes we did character creation for an Operator, Battlebabe and Savvyhead, did Hx and started following the characters around just like in the book.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I find it very interesting that FKR has managed to wrap around to nearly pure storygame play, just with a single authority rather than conch-passing or roll-for-authority mechanics.



There may be FKR games with conch-passing and roll-for-authority mechanics. I suspect one issue is that a lot of the FKR is primarily OSR-flavored in its present trajectory. It's presented as a fork in the OSR, and with the OP article, for example, that was FKR as presented and framed by Ben Milton. But when one looks at some of the games or game creators that the FKR movement are inspired by (e.g., John Ross of Risus RPG), it's hard to imagine that these would be labeled as OSR games.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> There may be FKR games with conch-passing and roll-for-authority mechanics. I suspect one issue is that a lot of the FKR is primarily OSR-flavored in its present trajectory. It's presented as a fork in the OSR, and with the OP article, for example, that was FKR as presented and framed by Ben Milton. But when one looks at some of the games or game creators that the FKR movement are inspired by (e.g., John Ross of Risus RPG), it's hard to imagine that these would be labeled as OSR games.



To be blunt, it seems like it's a movement to formalize the idea that the GM should just do whatever they want and feel they need to create a 'game,' which has been around for ages, although usually not in positive contexts.  The "high trust" moniker especially seems to be claiming that rules known to players and expected to be used is a trust issue (it's not) and that better play can occur if you have more trust.  This last is likely true, but the way to do that isn't obviously to get rid of rules and insist on faith in the GM.  That doesn't seem "high trust" to me, it seems a leap of faith.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I will admit that I am skeptical with the claim that "FKR uses table-centric design" when it also claims "FKR prioritizes invisible rulebooks over visible rulebooks," especially  when in conjunction with the holistic perspective of the GM or players' role in the game. As such, "FKR uses table-centric design" may as well mean that it uses "GM-centric design." They may as well call FKR "the ultimate expression of the Cult of Rule 0 design."
> 
> Plus what is really meant by "The rules are the servant, not the master of the game"? From what I can tell, the players are switching one master for another: i.e., the rules for the GM.
> 
> ...



It's interesting how this language of _government_ vs _individuality _keeps finding its way into our discussions of RPGing: authoritarianism, autocracy, democracy, agency, entitlement, etc.(And not just in your post: just upthread in @chaochou's; and many many other posts and threads over the years.) One the one hand, I think there is a big difference between the two contexts; on the other hand, in RPGing we are talking about a (small) group of people trying to create and achieve something collectively, and so I guess this convergence of words and ideas is no surprise. And it marks a difference from, eg, boardgames, which involve collective activity but not that element of collectively agreeing on something to be created (ie the shared fiction). Once we decide which boardgame to play, we're back in a realm of individual decision-making in accordance with the agreed framework - or if some move in the game requires a vote or a consensus, then we would expect the game rules to specify a procedure. Whereas in RPGing the need to establish and maintain and develop the shared conception of the fiction is there at every moment. (Cue pointing to Vincent Baker on RPGing as _negotiated imagination_.)

Having got that of my chest: that language of rules as "servant, not master" has been around for a long time, and my impression of it is as a reaction to 3E D&D. (I don't ever recall seeing it said about RQ or RM, for instance.) It seems in particular to be a reaction to the fact that, in 3E D&D, fictional positioning frequently plays little or even no role in action resolution, at least once the most basic of framing has taken place, be that overt framing - _You meet an angry Orc_; cue Diplomancy - or covert framing - _The GM's secret notes record the presence of a trap in the place they've just described; the players declare they check for a trap_; cue find trap check followed by a check to disable it.

The unexpressed premise of much of the FKR advocacy I've read appears to be that the only way to recover fictional positioning is to hand most or all resolution authority to the GM. If that premise was revised to _one way _rather than _the only way_, then I think the rest of it might make a bit more sense.



Aldarc said:


> It's the causal assumption regarding (1) the interaction between realism and rules, (2) that realism should be the "ultimate good" of roleplaying, and (3) giving the DM a lot of authority _as the rules_ is the best way to achieve that. This is again not to mention the final assumption that "a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset" or the implication that faster is better.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am curious whether there are two principles that are potentially at odds in this as well: the goal to "increase realism" with "play worlds not rules." Realism and world/genre simulation are not necessarily equivalent. How does one "increase realism" if one were playing the world of Marvel Superheroes?



I find the "worlds not rules" a bit frustrating in the way that it seems to toggle between "genre" and "realism" depending on the current focus of discussion. I think both create easily identifiable risks to "trust": with genre, it's often not clear what the apt outcome is - eg Greg Stafford tells us that character death is typically not important in Prince Valiant play, but he also says that a fall from the highest towers of Camelot will kill anyone. He further treats that outcome as a matter of GM fiat - in Prince Valiant all injury, recovery and death is a matter of GM decision-making, which I guess makes me an ur-FKR!. But his rulebook is full of advice (some better than others) on how to manage conflicts of expectation between players and GM. It does not have the same stridency as the FKR material seems to.

As far as _realism _is concerned, I reiterate what I said upthread; the relevant principle, then, should not be player-directed - _trust that your GM is knowledgeable and fair_ - but rather GM-directed - _be knowledgeable and fair! _I like @Manbearcat's suggestions about how to frame advice for the pooling of table expertise. And I think it may have been earlier in this thread that I talked about pulling out an old copy of the Flash, if that would be necessary to adjudicate super-speed in a DC Heroes game.



Aldarc said:


> I don't think that less rules or more rules necessarily says anything about how much players can do. That seems like a somewhat shallow understanding of rules. It says nothing about the content of the rules, what the rules that are present achieve, or how they go about doing that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm also skeptical of the claims of "tactical infinity" depending on the nature of the dice resolution system and the fact that so much of this rests on the whims of the GM, particularly when in conjunction with the underlying play principle that the minimalist design is being done to "increase realism." So the "tactical infinity" seems bound to the GM's idiomatic sense of reality.



Yes on both points. As I said above, I think the FKR critique of rules appears to be directed at one particular ruleset, namely, 3E D&D. There are criticism to be made of (eg) Rolemaster's rules, but a lack of tactical infinity is not one of them. And my question upthread about how to adjudicate a prayer for divine intervention was intended to illustrate that realism (as mediated through the GM's sense of it) does not necessarily provide easy answers to all adjudication questions.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 10, 2021)

I do love me some @pemerton when he's on a roll. Preach it brother.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2021)

Numidius said:


> My goal, reached running a realistic Cthulhian campaign, but still work in progress in my OSR, is to have exactly the above kind of exchange at the table, without any rule or dice roll (ok, maybe one at the end sometimes).



I guess I wonder how you, as GM, decide whether or not the first blow from the axe kills the sleeping PC.



Numidius said:


> Let's say I'd like to partecipate in a game of shared trust of yours, and you run it tonight for me and some new folk.
> You don't have time to prep before, nor to explain rulesets at the table.
> Would you run it extemporarily, freeform, free kriegsspiel, Gm-decides, whatever rule you see fit in the moment, aware of your experience and sensibility?



Well, in real life when this has happened I've used the rules and explained or just applied them as we go along: I'm thinking of Cthulhu Dark, Wuthering Heights, The Green Knight, Agon 2nd ed and Classic Traveller.

I also thought of, in principle, AW as a possibility - and then read @chaochou's post above which confirmed that.

Cthulhu Dark, The Green Knight, Agon and Wuthering Heights are so simple that it doesn't take experienced RPGers long to work out the rules and adapt to them. Classic Traveller less so, however - my self-copied/edited version (which incorporates basically all of Books 1 through 7, plus Supplement 4, with the exception of a few skills that I think are redundant ant the complex PC gen systems of Books 4 through 7, plus a few rules of my own adapted from White Dwarf, MegaTraveller, or my own crazed imagination) runs to 98 two-column pages. When I call for checks, I generally explain how I am arriving at the throw required, but at least one player regularly says that he never understands why the target number is what it is - but he throws nevertheless and the fiction proceeds as a result.

For my part, I feel that my ruleset does what Marc Miller says is an important part of its job (and in this respect I think he anticipates by over 30 years what Luke Crane says in his Adventure Burner about the setting of obstacles): it creates the consistent feel of the imagined world by establishing a consistent set of obstacles - both when checks are called for, and what the difficulties are. If this is a manifestation of FKR ethos, then I have to say I think Miller and Crane have articulated it more clearly.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What sort of game are you playing? Exploration/puzzle-oriented? Is there much conflict resolution?
> 
> In his blog, Christopher Kubasik points to some "free kriegssspiel" aspects of Classic Traveller combat resolution:
> 
> Following up on Omer Joel’s excellent post about Complexity Creep, Modifier Creep, and Scale Creep, I had some thoughts about Classic Traveller’s very (very) abstract personal combat system and its place in roleplaying game design at the time of its release in 1977. . . .​​As with the 1981 edition, it has range bands. What you might not know  is in the 1977 edition doesn’t translate the range bands into meters. That is, it’s really abstract.​​​



And Kubasik is wrong on that point. Which tends to drop his credibility severely.

CT 77 Bk 1 p 28 has...


			
				CT Bk-1-1977 said:
			
		

> For reference purposes, the distance equivalents of the ranges given are:
> 
> Close— in physical contact; touching.
> Short— at sword or polearm point, 1 to 5 meters.
> ...



Note that, like FFG Star Wars, the movement rules are in fact more abstract, as the band width does NOT correlate well to the ranges listed. But Kubasik ignores one in
favor of the other, rather than being intellectually honest and pointing out the discontinuity. And people have pointed it out to him in the past.

The range bands used in movement are...
Close: same movement band (range 0)
Short: adjacent movement band (range 1)
Medium 2-5 bands
Long 6-9 bands
VLong 10-14
Distant 15+
Walking gets 1 movement band/turn, running 2. (Some animals up to 4)

Note that the proportions are not the same. This leads the literal minded to reject the game as broken, not see it as an opportunity,  If I'd been confronted with CT-77, instead of CT-81, I'd have quit Traveller within the year... 

Marc rationalized it to 25m movement bands in 2E... but the CT character-scale games with grids (AHL and Snapshot) use 1.5m grids...


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2021)

Re: Axes in the Night, how comes the PC is not killed in that example? because the player says it... 

Imagine a back and forth conversational combat/conflict like Dogs, but without dice. Simple as that. 
Genre enforcing/situation clarifying discussions instead of mechanics, and if a partecipant at the table raises a brow, revise a bit the declaration. 

Gm still has tools to adjudicate, like basic Gumshoe resolution of D6 roll high and skill points expenditure, but after some time them were needed less and less. 

So I fostered point spending towards players content introduction. 
Not to change the backstory, the whoddunnit, anyway.

Realistic like: This is not Indiana Jones, if you fire a gun and start a firefight consequences will ensue, not only combat related, but political in town (because Premise of scenario)


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> It's interesting how this language of _government_ vs _individuality _keeps finding its way into our discussions of RPGing: authoritarianism, autocracy, democracy, agency, entitlement, etc.(And not just in your post: just upthread in @chaochou's; and many many other posts and threads over the years.) One the one hand, I think there is a big difference between the two contexts; on the other hand, in RPGing we are talking about a (small) group of people trying to create and achieve something collectively, and so I guess this convergence of words and ideas is no surprise. And it marks a difference from, eg, boardgames, which involve collective activity but not that element of collectively agreeing on something to be created (ie the shared fiction). Once we decide which boardgame to play, we're back in a realm of individual decision-making in accordance with the agreed framework - or if some move in the game requires a vote or a consensus, then we would expect the game rules to specify a procedure. Whereas in RPGing the need to establish and maintain and develop the shared conception of the fiction is there at every moment. (Cue pointing to Vincent Baker on RPGing as _negotiated imagination_.)



I will send my own thoughts about this more directly to you in a PM. I'm a bit worried that a further thought I have is likely too political. But on your other point below... 



pemerton said:


> Having got that of my chest: that language of rules as "servant, not master" has been around for a long time, and my impression of it is as a reaction to 3E D&D. (I don't ever recall seeing it said about RQ or RM, for instance.) It seems in particular to be a reaction to the fact that, in 3E D&D, fictional positioning frequently plays little or even no role in action resolution, at least once the most basic of framing has taken place, be that overt framing - _You meet an angry Orc_; cue Diplomancy - or covert framing - _The GM's secret notes record the presence of a trap in the place they've just described; the players declare they check for a trap_; cue find trap check followed by a check to disable it.



IMHO, it's a striking use of language in how this FKR post frames rules in terms of 'servant' or 'master.' Compare, for example, this servant/master language with the language that Fate uses to describe its Silver Rule: 


> The Silver Rule​The corollary to the Golden Rule is as follows: Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense. If you or the players narrate something in the game and it makes sense to apply a certain rule outside of the normal circumstances where you would do so, go ahead and do it.
> 
> The most common example of this has to do with consequences. The rules say that by default, a consequence is something a player chooses to take after getting hit by an attack in a conflict.
> 
> ...



Where is the GM in this process? Notice how much of this entails player consent and agreement without any sort of the harsh master/slave framed language. The rules are not villainized as adversarial to the game or depicted as some sort of tyrant. It's primarily framed in terms of basic fiction-first principles. 



pemerton said:


> The unexpressed premise of much of the FKR advocacy I've read appears to be that the only way to recover fictional positioning is to hand most or all resolution authority to the GM. If that premise was revised to _one way _rather than _the only way_, then I think the rest of it might make a bit more sense.



I would likely find FKR more compelling if it was a bit more transparent about its assumptions, approaches, and ends. But as you say, a lot of how FKR is framed seems to be about giving the GM more authority. 



pemerton said:


> *I find the "worlds not rules" a bit frustrating in the way that it seems to toggle between "genre" and "realism" depending on the current focus of discussion. *I think both create easily identifiable risks to "trust": with genre, it's often not clear what the apt outcome is - eg Greg Stafford tells us that character death is typically not important in Prince Valiant play, but he also says that a fall from the highest towers of Camelot will kill anyone. He further treats that outcome as a matter of GM fiat - in Prince Valiant all injury, recovery and death is a matter of GM decision-making, which I guess makes me an ur-FKR!. But his rulebook is full of advice (some better than others) on how to manage conflicts of expectation between players and GM. It does not have the same stridency as the FKR material seems to.



I suspect that the FKR movement may regard the toggling of "realism" and "genre" as a feature and not a flaw. 

I suppose my issue is that it would be more difficult for me to "play the world" as a player if I didn't know which aesthetic the GM would prioritize simulating in a given moment: realism or genre. This would be a case where I normally would consult the rules of the game to temper my expectations about the game's tone or sense of aesthetics. 



pemerton said:


> Yes on both points. As I said above, I think the FKR critique of rules appears to be directed at one particular ruleset, namely, 3E D&D. There are criticism to be made of (eg) Rolemaster's rules, but a lack of tactical infinity is not one of them. And my question upthread about how to adjudicate a prayer for divine intervention was intended to illustrate that realism (as mediated through the GM's sense of it) does not necessarily provide easy answers to all adjudication questions.



I'm not sure if it's just 3e D&D. I suspect, much like with the OSR community, it's somewhat directed at the shift in approaches and philosophy that is generally marked by WotC-Era D&D. Also, @Campbell, noted how a lot of the criticisms and assumptions of FKR kind of threw the vast bulk of TTRPGs, mainstream and indie games alike, under the bus. 

At this point in the thread, I can't remember everything that has been already discussed. But is there a reason why people in the OSR community are finding OSR dissatisfying in a way that FKR is appealing? What was lacking about OSR? Or is this like a subset of the OSR community trying to out-OSR OSR by trying to go back to the genesis of TTRPGs as inspiration?


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> So far, what I'm taking that the guiding principles of the FKR movement are simply to give the GM complete authority.  Everything else is negotiable, it seems, as there's hide stuff from the players alongside seek consensus and be consistent and trustworthy in adjudication alongside try not to use the same adjudication method too often and consistency is not a goal.  At the end of all of this, I still don't know what distinguishes FKR except that it's all about maximizing GM authority.



From many of the proponents, it sure comes across that way.
The reality is that the proponents posting most obviously are typically going to be at the extremes


overgeeked said:


> The Referee in FKR games has the same instructions.



That neutrality is in the instructions is irrelevant to the question of agency and autonomy.

A biased as hell confrontational GM who methodologically always produces "balanced encounters"  and follows the procedures of the game presents a strong amount of player agency, since they can know the odds, and can make informed decisions.

A totally neutral GM who is capricious with results prevents agency every bit as much as the Rules Lawyer GM enables it; the capricious GM, making neutral but unpredictable decisions means no choice of action is an informed one.

A totally neutral GM who follows a routine protocol for resolution is the best case for agency: the action will be reacted to by procedure, and players will learn the procedure over time, growing allowed autonomy into true collaborative agency


pemerton said:


> What you describe here is not true even of all versions of D&D. A GM in 4e D&D has no general power to declare genre-credible actions automatic failures. A GM in Moldvay Basic has no power to declare an attempt to open an ordinary door an automatic failure.
> 
> And it's certainly not true of every RPG!



It's becoming less and less common to have rule 0 be GM authority to change anything...]
In some, the authority shifts to the group as a whole.
In others, the rule 0 is "Don't be a dick" or equivalent.
A few are written from a "the rules are the rules, and if you're not following them, you're playing somethign other than (name of game)"


overgeeked said:


> What a weird thread.



Yup.


Manbearcat said:


> Sounds like you’re depicting “Illusionism Infinity (and beyond!)” rather than “Tactical Infinity!”



FKR is, as far as I can tell, *the illusion of rules*. 
Several of the discussions linked to by @pemerton are ones I've been involved in. They're not a cogent presentation any... and in fact are different aspects of FKR proponents.

Jim Parson on RPGG is one such - he's a a rules-super-light, roll-seldom, encourage player contribution type. He's one corner of the FKR plateau. (He recently mentioned that he uses D&D magic because it's easier than freeforming it.)
One of the guys on odd74.proboards.com is of the "rules are a framework for when the GM doesn't have a ready decision" type, and a different person advocates similar on RPGG.
There are those using rules more consistently such as dropping everything in D&D 5E except the basic rolling mechanic and character generation (including ignoring the mechanical class abilities)
There are guys who go roll-heavy, almost never using "yes", and GM ultra-authority mode. 
There are guys doing roll-heavy, rules light, high player narrative authority play. (Mario Silva on RPGG, for example.)

Watching Mario and Jim go round each other is amusing to me in an academic sense. And while I do respect both, I'd never want to play under either of them; I'm not capable of the trust needed for Jim's table, and have a hard enough time understanding Mario when I've time to parse and reparse his text.... Because I see rules as a social contract.

THe play cycle is more nuanced than the 3-line version which has been a macguffin in the discussion above... 
The play cycle I've seen advocated hasn't been cogently presented, but I'll try to present it:

GM describes situation
Player decides to and describes action prior to success.
GM makes decision on saying yes.
if GM does not say yes, GM decides which rule to use, if any
If the rule doesn't prescribe a roll, or no rule is appropriate, the GM invents one.

The GM narrates the conclusion of the action, and results.
Return to 1
The successful GMs posting about such style play all seem to require a trust-heavy environment. Jim himself notes that he runs a high trust table - and that trust is two way - he has to trust his players to stay in genre and setting, and they have to trust him to not be a jerk and to be fair and consistent.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> From many of the proponents, it sure comes across that way.
> The reality is that the proponents posting most obviously are typically going to be at the extremes
> 
> That neutrality is in the instructions is irrelevant to the question of agency and autonomy.
> ...



3 just sums up to "the GM decides" which can be rolled into 4 "the GM decides and narrates the outcome" which gets right back to the playloop being challenged here.

In other words, there's nothing in 3 that establishes anything other than "GM says" play.  It's borrowing "say yes" from "say yes or roll the dice" but it doesn't requite "say yes" as a default position, rather just as words because 3.1 and 3.2 both work against say yes and just let the GM say no.  It's "say yes, or say no, or say roll something but I'll pick what and than say yes or no -- your roll may or may not matter."


----------



## Campbell (Oct 10, 2021)

Side note - This is not criticism leveled against any one argument. It's just something that keeps coming up that drives me a little crazy.

One of the things I personally have an immense amount of trouble understanding is the constant insistence of experienced practitioners of highly technical skills to act as if the endeavors they undertake are natural or instinctual. That obviously we do not need a mental framework to do these complex tasks we have been doing for 10,000+ hours. It's totally not that we have internalized a highly technical process so deeply we barely realize we are doing it. You see the same thing in strength sports where people will insist that highly technical movements like the barbell back squat, dead lift, bench press, and overhead press are simple to perform. They are simple to perform for those practitioners because they have done so 1000s of times. Same goes for any form of running a roleplaying game.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Side note - This is not criticism leveled against any one argument. It's just something that keeps coming up that drives me a little crazy.
> 
> One of the things I personally have an immense amount of trouble understanding is the constant insistence of experienced practitioners of highly technical skills to act as if the endeavors they undertake are natural or instinctual. That obviously we do not need a mental framework to do these complex tasks we have been doing for 10,000+ hours. It's totally not that we have internalized a highly technical process so deeply we barely realize we are doing it. You see the same thing in strength sports where people will insist that highly technical movements like the barbell back squat, dead lift, bench press, and overhead press are simple to perform. They are simple to perform for those practitioners because they have done so 1000s of times. Same goes for any form of running a roleplaying game.



As a corollary, people with lots of experience in a thing generally tend to have trouble with anything that diverges from their experience, especially if it's a valid alternative.  I see this all the time with my fellow engineers, and also all over ENW.  The statements are usually "I've been doing this for X years and you can't tell me I don't know how it works!"


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> FKR is, as far as I can tell, *the illusion of rules*.




They pretend there are rules?

Free Kriegsspiel does not pretend there are rules, only some aids to GM adjudication. 

In the original Prussian Free Kriegsspiel, and many others, the GM is bound to apply the 'rules' of the real world, as he understands them. In a fantasy setting it's the 'rules' (physics) of the fantasy world, which likely include genre conventions, a particular magic level/power, etc. Of course if the players don't agree on those conventions there will be problems. I think FK is therefore best suited to real world, realistic, and hard SF type settings. I can see Game of Thrones working well in FK. Remembering always that the default FK resolution mechanic is NOT "GM decides", it is "GM declares probability, then rolls". If the FKR advocates don't do that, then it becomes something like the "Mother May I" bete noire so often invoked on RPGnet.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> They pretend there are rules?
> 
> Free Kriegsspiel does not pretend there are rules, only some aids to GM adjudication.
> 
> In the original Prussian Free Kriegsspiel, and many others, the GM is bound to apply the 'rules' of the real world, as he understands them. In a fantasy setting it's the 'rules' (physics) of the fantasy world, which likely include genre conventions, a particular magic level/power, etc. Of course if the players don't agree on those conventions there will be problems. I think FK is therefore best suited to real world, realistic, and hard SF type settings. I can see Game of Thrones working well in FK. Remembering always that the default FK resolution mechanic is NOT "GM decides", it is "GM declares probability, then rolls". If the FKR advocates don't do that, then it becomes something like the "Mother May I" bete noire so often invoked on RPGnet.



I haven't seen this asserted -- that in any situation the GM declares a probability and then assigns a roll.  This seems to skip the bit where the GM can assign 100 and 0 as probabilities.  Or that after the roll the GM is still free to interpret the result.  Or that there's no hard direction to "let it ride" or that a success should not be countered unless the player stakes it.

As an aside, hard SF seems a terrible place for FKR, because most people aren't highly literate in how things work.  So, if you have a player that's done something as silly as play Kerbil Space Program and a GM that's operating on the ideas of space flight in movies and most literature, you're going to rapidly create issues with understanding.  Or even comms gear.  I'm an engineer that does RF stuff and I have to turn that off almost every time there's anything to do with radios or comm gear in movies and just go with "this is magic."


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> *(2)* I haven't seen this asserted -- that in any situation the GM declares a probability and then assigns a roll.  This seems to skip the bit where the GM can assign 100 and 0 as probabilities. * (3)* Or that after the roll the GM is still free to interpret the result.   *(1)* Or that there's no hard direction to "let it ride" or that a success should not be countered unless the player stakes it.




1. Your last sentence certainly would make no sense in FK.

2. The GM can assign 0 and 100 as probabilities, but he needs to be able to explain why (post-game, if it's a secret in-game, but normally done right away). "OK you send your infantry forward against the machine gun emplacements. They have overlapping fields of fire, artillery support, and barbed wire... your attack fails". But even then I find it's best practice to set a _range_ of failure, eg "Most of your force is cut down in the open or stalls, seeking cover in the shell craters, but on a 6 some of your men do penetrate the enemy dugouts... _roll_". The FK GM needs to imaginatively consider the range of possible outcomes. It is (very) bad FK practice to decide on just one 'likely' outcome and declare that the result.

3. The GM should not be interpreting the result post-roll. The FK GM has to set the stakes first, _then_ roll.

If your description is accurate, it sounds like these people may be _doing it wrong_. :-O


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> 1. Your last sentence certainly would make no sense in FK.
> 
> 2. The GM can assign 0 and 100 as probabilities, but he needs to be able to explain why (post-game, if it's a secret in-game, but normally done right away). "OK you send your infantry forward against the machine gun emplacements. They have overlapping fields of fire, artillery support, and barbed wire... your attack fails". But even then I find it's best practice to set a _range_ of failure, eg "Most of your force is cut down in the open or stalls, seeking cover in the shell craters, but on a 6 some of your men do penetrate the enemy dugouts... _roll_". The FK GM needs to imaginatively consider the range of possible outcomes. It is (very) bad FK practice to decide on just one 'likely' outcome and declare that the result.
> 
> ...



Sorry, was there a shift to Free Kriegsspiel as practiced by the Prussian Army and not anything to do with the FKR movement in RPGs?  Because your response here seems to call back to that rather than addressing how FKR is presenting gameplay.

In FKR, 1 is most certainly sensical.  There's already quite a lot of walking back or soft peddling success in RPGs, and nothing I've seen in FKR strongly decries this like some other games do.  For instance, I read Dark Empires and I get no sense on this matter whatsoever.  Perhaps this is because it's incomplete.  As for the rest, the drive to "realism" is usually paired with soft-reversals of successes in the name of "how it should be."

As for 2, I see nothing in FKR that requires a GM to conduct a post-mortem where they need reveal reasonings.  In fact, the references and posts about "invisible rulebooks" directly cuts against this.  The same goes for 3 -- there's nothing to indicate this as even prevalent, and posts have been made that undercut it -- again, 'invisible rulebooks" does work here.

So, for "doing it wrong," I don't even seen a coherent set of principles within the movement (as judged by linked blogs and posts here) that establish how to do it right!  We've had, just as 1 example, some claiming that decisions should be reached by table consensus with the GM as tiebreaker competing directly against the idea that the single authority to decide vested in the GM creates faster and better play.  It would appear that it's you that has to do some more work to show the 'right way' rather than claim others are doing it 'wrong.'


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, was there a shift to Free Kriegsspiel as practiced by the Prussian Army and not anything to do with the FKR movement in RPGs?  Because your response here seems to call back to that rather than addressing how FKR is presenting gameplay.




I'm trying to understand this FKR movement you are talking about, in the context of actual FK I have seen played, and actual FK techniques I use. If FKR is just borrowing the term Free Kriegsspiel (for prestige value?) but actually doing something different (eg "Mother May I"?) that has nothing to do with FK, that seems a fact worth knowing.

Can anyone else with experience/knowledge of the FKR movement chip in on whether Ovinomancer's impression of FKR is accurate?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> As for 2, I see nothing in FKR that requires a GM to conduct a post-mortem where they need reveal reasonings.  In fact, the references and posts about "invisible rulebooks" directly cuts against this.  The same goes for 3 -- there's nothing to indicate this as even prevalent, and posts have been made that undercut it -- again, 'invisible rulebooks" does work here.




What do* reasons* have to do with *rules*? (Original) FK emerged because the rulebooks were getting in the way of realistic/good/sensible action resolution.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I'm trying to understand this FKR movement you are talking about, in the context of actual FK I have seen played, and actual FK techniques I use. If FKR is just borrowing the term Free Kriegsspiel (for prestige value?) but actually doing something different (eg "Mother May I"?) that has nothing to do with FK, that seems a fact worth knowing.
> 
> Can anyone else with experience/knowledge of the FKR movement chip in on whether Ovinomancer's impression of FKR is accurate?



There's a whole thread here, with links.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> What do* reasons* have to do with *rules*? (Original) FK emerged because the rulebooks were getting in the way of realistic/good/sensible action resolution.



No, that's not why at all.  FK arose because no one wanted to learn the complicated rules and master them enough to be an umpire, which was a regulated position in the Prussian army, not because the rules weren't working.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I'm trying to understand this FKR movement you are talking about, in the context of actual FK I have seen played, and actual FK techniques I use. If FKR is just borrowing the term Free Kriegsspiel (for prestige value?) but actually doing something different (eg "Mother May I"?) that has nothing to do with FK, that seems a fact worth knowing.
> 
> Can anyone else with experience/knowledge of the FKR movement chip in on whether Ovinomancer's impression of FKR is accurate?



No, the folks here who haven't read or played FKR games are mostly just attacking something they don't understand and wildly misrepresenting it. Or reading it badly.

The FKR is trying to do much the same as the FK back in the day. Take the massively overly complicated rules and bin them in favor of some other benchmark instead. In FK it's the Referee being a trained, experienced military officer and drawing on their experience to adjudicate the probabilities or outcomes. In FKR the Referee defaults to either a) a table-shared sense of genre tropes or realism, or b) the Referee's greater knowledge of genre tropes. Much like Wesley's Braunsteins and Arneson's character getting into a duel.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> There's a whole thread here, with links.




I've read the thread. Other people like Pemerton seem to be describing actual FK (more or less sympathetically), while you are describing something that appears to be nothing like FK. Hence my confusion.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, the folks here who haven't read or played FKR games are mostly just attacking something they don't understand and wildly misrepresenting it. Or reading it badly.
> 
> The FKR is trying to do much the same as the FK back in the day. Take the massively overly complicated rules and bin them in favor of some other benchmark instead. In FK it's the Referee being a trained, experienced military officer and drawing on their experience to adjudicate the probabilities or outcomes. In FKR the Referee defaults to either a) a table-shared sense of genre tropes or realism, or b) the Referee's greater knowledge of genre tropes. Much like Wesley's Braunsteins and Arneson's character getting into a duel.



OK, thanks. So my descriptions of FK play wouldn't be completely alien to an FKR GM? I had the impression Ovinomancer maybe didn't understand what he was talking about, but not knowing 'FKR' myself (beyond this thread) it's hard to tell.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I've read the thread. Other people like Pemerton seem to be describing actual FK, while you are describing something that appears to be nothing like FK. Hence my confusion.



No, I'm talking about the people in the thread that are proposing FKR, not examining it.  You seem to have missed have the conversation -- including all the bits I'm referring to that you're confused about.  I'm not making it up, I'm going with the arguments made by other posters in favor of FKR and following with the links they provided _in this thread_.  As I didn't say anything funny above, I assume your laugh was mocking?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> OK, thanks. So my descriptions of FK play wouldn't be completely alien to an FKR GM? I had the impression Ovinomancer maybe didn't understand what he was talking about, but not knowing 'FKR' myself (beyond this thread) it's hard to tell.



No, you should read that more carefully -- it allows for exactly what I've said.  This is the issue under examination -- what does FKR mean?  The posters championing will not be specific and want to have both consensus seeking and GM knowing best.  @overgeeked has posted that the players need protection from themselves because having rules known mean that those rules will be gamed to the detriment of the players' own fun and they are unable to help themselves.  He's linked blogs saying the same.  The solution is hidden adjudication, "invisible rulebooks", and the GM adjudicating play while hiding the adjudication from the players.  There's a callout to genre logic, but then also realism, and no way to tell the difference between the two.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I assume your laugh was mocking?




I didn't initially realise you were being serious. I'll delete the laugh.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> @overgeeked has posted that the players need protection from themselves because having rules known mean that those rules will be gamed to the detriment of the players' own fun and they are unable to help themselves.




I suspect this was him making the reasonable point that in FK you want the players 'playing the world' not 'playing the rules', just as they shouldn't be 'playing the man'. The problem with original Kriegsspiel as a training aid was that the comprehensive rules encouraged the trainees to get good at playing the game, when they were supposed to be getting good at fighting actual battles. And the senior staff officers running the exercises did feel annoyed that they were being reduced to just paper pushers implementing player orders. FK was an attempt to harness the trainers' expertise. There was also Semi-Free Kriegsspiel a bit later, which tried to get a 'best of both' and I'd say is the approach of OD&D.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I suspect this was him making the reasonable point that in FK you want the players 'playing the world' not 'playing the rules', just as they shouldn't be 'playing the man'. The problem with original Kriegsspiel as a training aid was that the comprehensive rules encouraged the trainees to get good at playing the game, when they were supposed to be getting good at fighting actual battles. And the senior staff officers running the exercises did feel annoyed that they were being reduced to just paper pushers implementing player orders. FK was an attempt to harness the trainers' expertise. There was also Semi-Free Kriegsspiel a bit later, which tried to get a 'best of both' and I'd say is the approach of OD&D.



I guess you can decide that when someone tells you that their goal is to save the players from themselves and that it's preferable to hide the resolution of things via "invisible rulebooks" that what they really mean it that things should be reached via transparent resolutions (at least after the session) and that the game should be to empower the players.  I mean, that's a take, I guess.

And, as for Kriegsspiel, I haven't seen that at all in any reconstruction of the history of the game.  I would like your source for this.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> And, as for Kriegsspiel, I haven't seen that at all in any reconstruction of the history of the game.  I would like your source for this.



You tell me your source for "the referees were too lazy to learn the rules, hence FK" and I'll give it a google.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> the game should be to empower the players.  I mean, that's a take, I guess.



I've never heard anyone talk about FK as "should be to empower the players". This is an alien language from an alien worldview. 

I would say that good FK refereeing helps the players to get good at the game, by giving them the chance to see why they succeeded or failed. Then if they pay attention they become better players, and hopefully do better next time. This is what eg Lew Pulsipher calls "skilled play" - he's talking more about semi-free kriegsspiel as in OD&D, but still the emphasis is on players getting good at engaging with the world, not good at the rules (unlike eg 4e D&D, where most skill is in the rules-play). Whether the players feel 'empowered' by this or not isn't really a concern.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> You tell me your source for "the referees were too lazy to learn the rules, hence FK" and I'll give it a google.



Try wikipedia, to start, it's very easy to find.  I'll help a bit more:



> Lieutenant Wilhelm Jacob Meckel published a treatise in 1873[d] and another in 1875[e] in which he expressed four complaints about the overcomplicated rules of _Kriegsspiel_: 1) the rules constrain the umpire, preventing him from applying his expertise; 2) the rules are too rigid to realistically model all possible outcomes in a battle, because the real world is complex and ever-changing; 3) the computations for casualties slow down the game and have a minor impact on a player's decisions anyway; *4) few officers are willing to make the effort to learn the rules.[13] The fourth issue was the most serious, as the Prussian military struggled to meet the growing demand for umpires.*[14] Meckel proposed dispensing with some of the rules and giving the umpire more discretion to arbitrate events as he saw fit. The only things he kept were the dice and the losses tables for assessing casualties.[15]




Emphasis added.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I've never heard anyone talk about FK as "should be to empower the players". This is an alien language from an alien worldview.



What other reason are you saving the players from themselves if not to empower them to achieve a better experience?


S'mon said:


> I would say that good FK refereeing helps the players to get good at the game, by giving them the chance to see why they succeeded or failed. Then if they pay attention they become better players, and hopefully do better next time. This is what eg Lew Pulsipher calls "skilled play" - he's talking more about semi-free kriegsspiel as in OD&D, but still the emphasis is on players getting good at engaging with the world, not good at the rules (unlike eg 4e D&D, where most skill is in the rules-play). Whether the players feel 'empowered' by this or not isn't really a concern.



I don't see how you can get good at the game if the arbitration is both hidden and arbitrary.  The only way to get good here is to learn how to play the GM.  This is, in fact, required.  I have to discern, from repeated play, how this GM will rule on common things so that I can better anticipate how things work in this world.  This is the exact complaint made about rules, and there's a reason -- the world is fictional and at least somewhat arbitrary, so you have to engage that to operate with effectiveness.  This means learning the rules, even if the rules are "Bob says."


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Try wikipedia, to start, it's very easy to find.  I'll help a bit more:
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis added.



OK, you'll note that (1) and (2) are what I said to you.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't see how you can get good at the game if the arbitration is both hidden and arbitrary.




I agree with that. This is why the arbitrator needs to act like a Common Law judge, and explain his reasoning, not hide it. Then even if I disagree with the specific decision, I've learned something.

As I've said, no referee is perfect, certainly no referee has perfect information, and for FK play it's important for the referee/GM to set a range of possibilities and roll the dice. This takes off a huge burden, and over time a lot of dice rolls, even if each individual one has skewed probabilities, tends to lead to better & more realistic results than the referee deciding what happens each time. A good referee knows his Clausewitz  - knows that sometimes, unlikely things happen - and expecting conflict to resolve predictably is a huge mistake.

TLDR: arbitration should not be hidden and should not be arbitrary. If it's a modern or SF game with comms as a play focus, the referee better be a guy like you who knows a lot about comms.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> OK, you'll note that (1) and (2) are what I said to you.



No, they are not.  You said that the players were gaming the rules.  1 and 2 say that the rules were too restrictive and constrained the umpire -- nothing at all at _the players getting too good at the rules and gaming the system. _

I'll wait on that source, then?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I agree with that. This is why the arbitrator needs to act like a Common Law judge, and explain his reasoning, not hide it. Then even if I disagree with the specific decision, I've learned something.
> 
> As I've said, no referee is perfect, certainly no referee has perfect information, and for FK play it's important for the referee/GM to set a range of possibilities and roll the dice. This takes off a huge burden, and over time a lot of dice rolls, even if each individual one has skewed probabilities, tends to lead to better & more realistic results than the referee deciding what happens each time. A good referee knows his Clausewitz  - knows that sometimes, unlikely things happen - and expecting conflict to resolve predictably is a huge mistake.
> 
> TLDR: arbitration should not be hidden and should not be arbitrary. If it's a modern or SF game with comms as a play focus, the referee better be a guy like you who knows a lot about comms.



Why did you rep this post @overgeeked?  You were pushing the invisible rulebooks and not revealing why the GM is adjudicating to prevent the players from being able to game the GM.

@S'mon if transparent adjudication at all times was something that was being actually pushed by the proponents of FKR, most of this thread wouldn't exist.  The rulings MUST be arbitrary, though, as even your formulation of setting a probability and roll method are both nothing but arbitrary.  The _point_ is to be arbitrary, with the idea that the GM's unique and arbitrary rules will engender a better experience.  ANY explanation can fit the facts, because it's fiction, so the choice by the GM is always just going to be their opinion on it.  There is no reality or actual physical system to appeal to.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 10, 2021)

Oops.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

(changed my mind on reflection)


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 10, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, the folks here who haven't read or played FKR games are mostly just attacking something they don't understand and wildly misrepresenting it. Or reading it badly.
> 
> The FKR is trying to do much the same as the FK back in the day. Take the massively overly complicated rules and bin them in favor of some other benchmark instead. In FK it's the Referee being a trained, experienced military officer and drawing on their experience to adjudicate the probabilities or outcomes. In FKR the Referee defaults to either a) a table-shared sense of genre tropes or realism, or b) the Referee's greater knowledge of genre tropes. Much like Wesley's Braunsteins and Arneson's character getting into a duel.



So what are the overly complicated rule systems that FKR is reacting against?

It’s a bit odd to me. I feel like game design in the TTRPG space has improved drastically over the past few decades. There is a lot of elegant and intentional design. Attention to Lay-out and presentation has also improved.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Given that there are, in fact, numerous other sources that discuss the specific issue of Free Kriegsspiel both in history (and the application to early TTRPGs) and its more recent application in indie games (usually referred to as FKR), it would probably be best to use the actual sources and definitions that the people themselves use. You could google it, or use one of any number of sources such as this one-
> 
> 
> I think people that are making and playing FKR games would prefer that you read their games and play them than just idly speculate as to what the games might be like using terminology many of them don't use.
> ...




So, having now read The Invisible Rulebooks it's clear that by 'invisible rulebook' she does not mean a rulebook, it's more like a guide book (guideline book? ) - "Rough Guide to Comedy Westerns" in her example.  The idea is that we each hold in our head ideas about how the world works, and how genre norms operate. For FK to be functional, either the players are happy to follow the GM's lead (which IME IRL is true 98% of the time) or else everyone is already on the same page.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> View attachment 145076
> 
> 
> I will send my own thoughts about this more directly to you in a PM. I'm a bit worried that a further thought I have is likely too political. But on your other point below...
> ...




Just for your information, there is an explicitly leftist/inclusive FKR Discord server. 

Play worlds, not rules... doesn't dismiss all published games. Quite the opposite: take those manuals and use them as setting. Play them.
Use the fluff, of course, maybe even the crunch (as you say) to understand tone, genre, setting "realism", but don't use it as mechanics related to the characters' sheets. 
That's the point. 
Fiction first and only. Even while writing char sheets, noting important stuff in plain language, not numbers (this is big feature of PbtA IMO) 
Mechanics in FKR idea are all Gm-facing, though, and Gm decides when to use'em and eventually tell the player roll this, or that. 

Discussions in order to be on the same page, about possible outcomes, consequences, risk... I guess that depends on table, playstyles, expectations. 

More authority to the Gm? Yes, seems true to me. But also more responsability in some ways, rules are not there to take part of that "burden".
Would I be comfortable with that as a player? Not sure, actually. My previous experience tells me a big No. 
But for me as a Gm is an inspiring drive to dust off the shelves classic rpgs, or buy new ones, and run them light hearted. 

If players invest effort in setting knowledge, all the better. 

For my style, strict FKR is still a bit too rigid, by the way. 
My fixation is Players' Agency & Content Introduction; under this light, the term Referee assumes a broader meaning than just Gm decides outcomes, they even arbitrate, discuss, refine, introduction of new content.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 10, 2021)

_Play worlds, not rules _certainly feels like it is throwing shade at the value of game design to me. It also seems to be saying that if you are playing games that have rules that affect play or enjoy mechanical engagement you are not interested in the fiction. At least that's what I take away from it, like rules pervert something true and good. It feels disrespectful to the entire field of play that is not FKR to me. It's saying _can't you see what a waste all this energy and effort you are putting in is_.

This is a genuine reaction to this. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or arguing some point here.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 10, 2021)

Campbell said:


> _Play worlds, not rules _certainly feels like it is throwing shade at the value of game design to me. It also seems to be saying that if you are playing games that have rules that affect play or enjoy mechanical engagement you are not interested in the fiction. At least that's what I take away from it, like rules pervert something true and good. It feels disrespectful to the entire field of play that is not FKR to me. It's saying _can't you see what a waste all this energy and effort you are putting in is_.



Other people playing differently and expressing their preferences is not an attack on you or your preferences.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

S'mon said:


> What do* reasons* have to do with *rules*?



Hegel and Kant want to know where you live.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, the folks here who haven't read or played FKR games are mostly just attacking something they don't understand and wildly misrepresenting it. Or reading it badly.



Is Cthuhu Dark a FKR game?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 11, 2021)

S'mon said:


> So, having now read The Invisible Rulebooks it's clear that by 'invisible rulebook' she does not mean a rulebook, it's more like a guide book (guideline book? ) - "Rough Guide to Comedy Westerns" in her example.  The idea is that we each hold in our head ideas about how the world works, and how genre norms operate. For FK to be functional, either the players are happy to follow the GM's lead (which IME IRL is true 98% of the time) or else everyone is already on the same page.



You should read other articles on that site, maybe start with the glossary, to see the context that's set in.

ETA:  That's the best take you can get from that article.  Even in your explanation of it you're missing the actual conflict -- if my idea of the world is one thing and yours is another, what does this mean?  According to invisible rulebooks, it's the GM's take that matters.  If we distill that down, then the only invisible rulebook is the GM's, and it's not shared.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

S'mon said:


> in FK you want the players 'playing the world' not 'playing the rules', just as they shouldn't be 'playing the man'.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> FK was an attempt to harness the trainers' expertise. There was also Semi-Free Kriegsspiel a bit later, which tried to get a 'best of both' and I'd say is the approach of OD&D.





S'mon said:


> I think FK is therefore best suited to real world, realistic, and hard SF type settings.





S'mon said:


> no referee is perfect, certainly no referee has perfect information, and for FK play it's important for the referee/GM to set a range of possibilities and roll the dice. This takes off a huge burden, and over time a lot of dice rolls, even if each individual one has skewed probabilities, tends to lead to better & more realistic results than the referee deciding what happens each time. A good referee knows his Clausewitz





S'mon said:


> The GM can assign 0 and 100 as probabilities, but he needs to be able to explain why (post-game, if it's a secret in-game, but normally done right away). "OK you send your infantry forward against the machine gun emplacements. They have overlapping fields of fire, artillery support, and barbed wire... your attack fails". But even then I find it's best practice to set a _range_ of failure, eg "Most of your force is cut down in the open or stalls, seeking cover in the shell craters, but on a 6 some of your men do penetrate the enemy dugouts... _roll_". The FK GM needs to imaginatively consider the range of possible outcomes. It is (very) bad FK practice to decide on just one 'likely' outcome and declare that the result.



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 @S'mon'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.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 11, 2021)

Yes, @S'mon, the ideal you've put forward of a transparent resolution that seeks consensus with the GM as tiebreaker is a valid approach.  I do not think it aligns at all with the presentation of FKR in this thread by it's proponents or of the blogs linked.  I think you're looking at those with an intent to only see the good and this approach and ignoring the bits that cut hard against it.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> And Kubasik is wrong on that point.



Yes, I pointed that out in my post that you quoted.



aramis erak said:


> The range bands used in movement are...
> Close: same movement band (range 0)
> Short: adjacent movement band (range 1)
> Medium 2-5 bands
> ...



In my self-produced version of the rules (as noted upthread) I have turns of movement between bands that are the same as Book 1 (1977, p 28):

1 round of movement to open from Close to Short;
1 round to open from Short to Medium;
3 rounds to open from Medium to Long;
4 rounds to open from Long to Very Long;
5 round to open from Very Long to out of range.​
This is not consistent with the same version of Book 1, p 29, which is what you've cited and which sets 4 rounds rather than 3 to open from Medium to Long (because you need to move from band 2 to band 6). And obviously both pages are different from the 1981/Traveller Book versions. 

I correlate the bands that I use to movement rates that are slower when in close proximity than when more distant: 5 metres per round if opening to band 2 or closing to band 1 or 0; 20 metres per round if opening to band 4 or closing to band 3 or 2; and 50 metres per round beyond that. (I think of this as a correlate of the absence of an OA-type rule: movement up close has to be more cautious (if opening) or is slowed down by advancing into fire (if closing).)

How practical would this be - particularly the visual representation of bands - if one opponent is close and another far away? We have so little combat in our game that it hasn't come up! For instance, all the most recent combats have been between PCs and Aliens (TM) which have either been down corridors - so the question is, how many rounds can be discharged before the Alien is up in the shooter's face? - or at either close or short, in which case all the action is about who maintains what distance so as to optimise their attack bonus (given that some melee attacks prefer Close and some Short).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I would likely find FKR more compelling if it was a bit more transparent about its assumptions, approaches, and ends. But as you say, a lot of how FKR is framed seems to be about giving the GM more authority.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I suppose my issue is that it would be more difficult for me to "play the world" as a player if I didn't know which aesthetic the GM would prioritize simulating in a given moment: realism or genre. This would be a case where I normally would consult the rules of the game to temper my expectations about the game's tone or sense of aesthetics.



Some of the discussion also makes me think about this from Vincent Baker:

Imagine Thatcher's London. Imagine a person in Thatcher's London who has everything to lose.​​_That's_ a character. That's a whole, playable, complete character. If I ask you to speak in that character's voice, you can; if I present some threat or challenge, you can tell me easily how that character will react; if I describe a morning and ask you what that character will do in it, you'll know. Take ten minutes to think and that character's as real as can be.​​Character sheets are _useless_ when it comes to creating, describing, defining, realizing characters. Totally pointless, valueless, toss 'em in the recycling. A notebook is helpful for remembering things, or 3x5 cards or post-it notes, let's use those instead. Or let's use nothing at all, if we can remember what we need to remember! Probably we can.​​This isn't (just) to Collin but to everybody: *I can't teach you anything useful about RPG design if you persist in thinking that mechanical character creation or the character sheet have anything to do with the character at all.* It's a misleading historical mistake to call the process and the paper "character-" anything. If you want to get anywhere, if you want to understand, if you want to create anything at all, you have to let that old error go.​​So we start right here at this point: the character exists only in our minds. If we write something down about the character, it's only to remind us, to help us keep the character in our minds. The character cannot be touched by rules or game mechanics at all, under any circumstances, no exceptions. The character is pure inviolate fiction. This is fundamental and inescapable.​​And from _there_ we build.​​I say, "my character, this guy in Thatcher's london, who has everything to lose, he goes to his lover's flat and convinces him to keep their affair private." You say, "y'know, I don't think that his lover is inclined to keep their affair private, do you?" And I say, "no, I suppose not, but my character is desperate to convince him anyway. In fact, he brings an antique revolver with him in his jacket pocket, in case he can't."​​(Look, just look: the character has no "character sheet," but he's a whole character, fully realized. I can play him effortlessly.)​​How do we decide what comes true?​​We can simply agree. That works great, as long as we really do just simply agree.​​We could flip a coin for it. Let's do that: heads my character convinces yours to keep their secret, tails he murders him instead.​​Or y'know, that's a lot to deal with. Let's have a rule: whenever a character's life is at stake, that character's player gets to call for one re-flip of the coin.​​On the other hand, isn't my character's life at stake too? His wife, his kids, his position, his money, his everything? Which should have more weight between us, your character's life or my character's "life"? Shall we go best two of three, or is that setting life and "life" too equal?​​How about this: we'll roll a die. If it comes up 1 or 2, your character will refuse and mine will kill him; if it comes up 3-6, your character will agree to keep the secret and (unknowingly) thereby save his life. It's unequal because my character killing yours is less to your liking than your character ruining mine's life is to mine. It's unequal to be fair to us, the _players_.​​Notice that we haven't considered which is more likely at all. We probably agree that it's more likely, in fact, that your character will refuse, so my character will shoot him. But that doesn't matter - either could happen, so we roll according to what's at stake.​​Also, notice that we aren't rolling to see whether your character values his life in the face of my character's gun in any way. We're rolling to see if your character agrees to keep the secret without ever knowing about the gun, or if he refuses without knowing about the gun and my character shoots and kills him.​​What we have here is a resolution mechanism with no character sheet. It treats all outcomes as equal, except in cases where it's "a character dies" vs. "a character's life is radically and permanently changed." In those cases, it biases toward the latter.​​See?​​Let's add a wrinkle. Let's say that over the course of the whole game, each of us is allowed 10 rerolls, no questions asked. Just in case we want another shot at our preferred outcome. _Now_ we need a "character sheet," except that of course it's really a player sheet. We need to keep track of how many of our rerolls we've spent.​​Let's add another wrinkle. Let's say that at the beginning of the game, we each choose a sure thing, a limited circumstance where we don't roll, but instead one or the other of us just chooses what happens. I choose "my character's children are in the scene." You choose "once per session, at my whim."​​Here, this late, I've finally made a mechanical reference to the fiction of the game. I still haven't considered probabilities at all, and do you see how "my character's children are in the scene" and "once per session" are the same? They're resources for us to use, us the players, to have more control over what becomes true.​​Maybe we should write them down on our player sheets too, so that if we forget or get sloppy we can call one another on it.​​But so okay, that's pretty good, but how do we come to agreement about the two possible outcomes in the first place? Here's a rule: neither outcome can overreach the present capabilities of the characters involved. That makes sense; if my character didn't bring the revolver, I shouldn't be insisting upon "shoot and kill" as a possible outcome, right? Same with my character's skills and foibles as with his belongings. Like, if I establish that my character has a weak heart, that opens up some possible outcomes for us to propose; if I establish that my character is an excellent driver, that opens and closes some others.​​Come to think of it, when do I get to decide if my character has access to an antique revolver, has a weak heart, is an excellent driver? Do I get to decide on the fly or do I have to declare it up front?​​Either way, I should write all this stuff down on my player sheet, as I establish it. That way I know what I'm allowed to propose as possible outcomes.​​See how this goes? The "character sheet" isn't about the character. Maybe - maybe - it refers to details of the character, if that's what our resolution rules care about. But either way, even if so, the "character sheet" is really a record of the _player's_ resources. "Character creation" similarly isn't how you create a character, but rather how you _the player_ establish your resources to start.​​If you like, you can design your game so that the player's resources depend wholly on details of the character.​​Or you can just as easily design your game so that the player's resources don't refer to details of the character at all.​​Or a mix, that's easiest of all.​​Whichever way, you need to establish what resources the player has to begin with, and you'll probably want to write 'em down. _That's_ what's really going on.​
I think there is some obvious overlap, here, with some FKR ideas (and ideals), but I find Baker's presentation is far more clearly expressed. Of particular relevance to the current discussion, he is able to distinguish discussions of _fiction_, _fictional positioning_, _stakes_, _consequences_, etc from a discussion of _who gets to decide/adjudicate those things_. Or to be more pithy: the fact that the character is inviolable fiction does not tell us anything about the role of any game participants!



Aldarc said:


> is there a reason why people in the OSR community are finding OSR dissatisfying in a way that FKR is appealing? What was lacking about OSR? Or is this like a subset of the OSR community trying to out-OSR OSR by trying to go back to the genesis of TTRPGs as inspiration?



Well, in the forum thread I quoted not far upthread, the OP said that they weren't OSR because they had never stopped playing classic D&D (hence they were not part of a renaissance). But - with a modest degree of internal tension - they then went on to proclaim the need for a Free Kriegsspiel renaissance.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Yes, I pointed that out in my post that you quoted.
> 
> In my self-produced version of the rules (as noted upthread) I have turns of movement between bands that are the same as Book 1 (1977, p 28):
> 
> ...



I suspect it's an issue of Loren editing/typesetting for the disconnect.
Also note: 50m/round is 3.33 m/s, well under the human record of about 10.44 m/s (Usain Bolt - a fitting name). And about half the record in '77


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I suspect it's an issue of Loren editing/typesetting for the disconnect.
> Also note: 50m/round is 3.33 m/s, well under the human record of about 10.44 m/s (Usain Bolt - a fitting name). And about half the record in '77



50 metres per round is 200 metres per minute or 12 km per hour. That's not a bad clip for someone doing other stuff (eg shooting or fighting).

Double that is 400 metres per minute which is faster than I can sprint! (I guess I can do 100 m in less than 15 seconds, but I can't keep that up for my END worth of rounds.)


----------



## S'mon (Oct 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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).




I don't disagree, but the less they are the focus of play, the more they can be adequately resolved by declaring some odds and rolling a d6. Eg from Churchill's point of view in Downing Street, what happens in 1940s France often seems essentially random, so the GM can adequately resolve it with a d6.

I'm not sure this is relevant, but I did once see (in my 4e/5e Wilderlands) a PC unite a confederation of disparate tribal & settled elements (in a sort of post-Roman Dark Ages; in-game post Nerath) into an alliance that formed the foundation of a powerful empire. There were not rules for this, as such. There were a lot of NPCs with their own hopes and dreams and fears. I tend to identify strongly with my NPCs, and have a very good sense of their internal aspect - in the moment, they feel like real people. We played through a *lot* of social interaction, a lot of combat, and saw things take shape over months & years of play. I felt I learned a lot from that about how early feudalism and rule through personal allegiance actually works,  which I would not have done if there had been rules to resolve it mechanically.

Edit: The player & PC did a brilliant job forging his empire, defeating his enemies and becoming emperor. As soon as he was officially in charge he seemed to forget everything he knew and started giving commands with the expectation they'd be obeyed, as if he was in charge of a modern (or Roman) State bureaucracy, not a bunch of warlords with their own agendas. He then got increasingly angry. In the end he was as big a failure as emperor as he had been a success at empire-building.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 11, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, @S'mon, the ideal you've put forward of a transparent resolution that *seeks consensus* with the GM as tiebreaker is a valid approach.  I do not think it aligns at all with the presentation of FKR in this thread by it's proponents or of the blogs linked.  I think you're looking at those with an intent to only see the good and this approach and ignoring the bits that cut hard against it.




But it's not about seeking consensus. The referee in FK is a judge, not a mediator. They make their ruling - but they explain their reasons. The player who loses does not have to agree, for FK to work. They only have to accept that the process was valid.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Well, in the forum thread I quoted not far upthread, the OP said that they weren't OSR because they had never stopped playing classic D&D (hence they were not part of a renaissance). But - with a modest degree of internal tension - they then went on to proclaim the need for a Free Kriegsspiel renaissance.



Sure, I think that works for the OP, but less so for Ben Milton (aka Questing Beast) - the person who wrote the FKR list both you and the OP list - who frames this as a movement within OSR as well.

This comic was even posted in one of the threads about FKR.


>







overgeeked said:


> Other people playing differently and expressing their preferences is not an attack on you or your preferences.



It's likely less an issue of simply expessing different play preferences, but, rather, _how_ it is done.

So what are those massively over-complicated rule systems that you claim FKR is reacting against?



Numidius said:


> Just for your information, there is an explicitly leftist/inclusive FKR Discord server.



While that is good to know, that's not really what I had in mind with my criticism.



Numidius said:


> Play worlds, not rules... doesn't dismiss all published games. Quite the opposite: take those manuals and use them as setting. Play them.
> Use the fluff, of course, maybe even the crunch (as you say) to understand tone, genre, setting "realism", but don't use it as mechanics related to the characters' sheets.
> That's the point.



(1) Could we please stop equivocating on what is meant by "realism" in this discussion? (2) See Campbell's point here.



Numidius said:


> Fiction first and only. Even while writing char sheets, noting important stuff in plain language, not numbers (this is big feature of PbtA IMO)
> *Mechanics in FKR idea are all Gm-facing, though, and Gm decides when to use'em and eventually tell the player roll this, or that.*



This right here is one big reason why I don't think that I could get behind FKR. I like fiction-first games, but the idea that I should abdicate my knowledge of rules as a player in favor of GM Decides under the guise "invisible rules" is way too much of a stretch for me. Again, I think that the precarious house of assumptions that FKR built its house with (at least as outlined by Ben Milton*) is a little too incredulous for my personal tastes.

MC Moves in PbtA may not be player-facing rules, but at least I know that (a) they aren't invisible, (b) they exist should I also take the role of the MC, and (c) the game principles are such that my actions in the fiction and the dice resolution mechanics are meant to trigger moves. There is a framework of rules and principles that exist for the MC and players.

I played a session of D&D without the rule books once in my high school gaming club. The GM was absent. A prior member came to visit and filled in as the GM, and we played D&D without rule books and using paper/rocks/scissors for resolution. It was entertaining, but I think that more had to do with the knowledge of how it was ad hoc improv. We certainly didn't decree that it was worthy of its own movement or represented some Ur-style of roleplaying.

* Much as I said earlier, based on my own familiarity with Ben Milton's channel and work, I do suspect that some of Ben Milton's own personal (and OSR) game prejudices and biases made their way into that listing.



Numidius said:


> More authority to the Gm? Yes, seems true to me. But also more responsability in some ways, rules are not there to take part of that "burden".
> Would I be comfortable with that as a player? Not sure, actually. My previous experience tells me a big No.



I'm personally not a fan of language that glorifies GM autocracy, GM as God, or "the GM's Burden." Ben Milton's FKR post leans into it pretty heavily too, including its whole "high trust" spiel. It's too much of a red flag for me. It's not just about how I feel about that as a player, but also as a GM and someone who is asking other people to play in such a framework.



Numidius said:


> But for me as a Gm is an inspiring drive to dust off the shelves classic rpgs, or buy new ones, and run them light hearted.



I see nothing wrong with a new game system inspiring you to reuse old game books. I just don't think one needs FKR and its ideological framework for that.



Numidius said:


> If players invest effort in setting knowledge, all the better.



Sure, which is the case for nearly all TTRPGs.



Numidius said:


> My fixation is Players' Agency & Content Introduction; under this light, the term Referee assumes a broader meaning than just Gm decides outcomes, they even arbitrate, discuss, refine, introduction of new content.



Cortex Prime uses the term "Game Moderator."


----------



## Numidius (Oct 11, 2021)

@Aldarc Fair criticism. I understand your points. I just happened to read about FKR when I was already going in that direction in my personal cycle of development as a Gm, looking on the net for ideas to support that. So I'm just sharing my point of view.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 11, 2021)

S'mon said:


> But it's not about seeking consensus. The referee in FK is a judge, not a mediator. They make their ruling - but they explain their reasons. The player who loses does not have to agree, for FK to work. They only have to accept that the process was valid.



I'm confused why I've received pushback, then.  If the GM's call is the only one that matters, this definitely changes the nature of the invisible rulebook and why it's invisible.  Now, the only invisible rulebook that matters is the GM's, and since it's invisible this is hidden from the players.  Yet you say that the GM must be able to explain their reasoning, which cuts against the invisible rulebook because it makes it visible.  We're back to the competing ideas of transparent play vs hidden play and why you'd even use an invisible rulebook at all.

Further, this entire set of play goes back to the GM making arbitrary rulings.  To use your example of your game above, this highlights the kind of arbitrary rulings that are being made -- you, as GM, picked one way of many for an NPC to react and that's how the NPC reacted.  The inputs where how you felt about what the player tried to do.  There were other valid options, but you picked yours.  I have no doubt this created an interesting game, but the process here is very much one that is arbitrary based only on what the GM thinks and not the total number of "realistic" or "genre" options available.  For instance, at the end when the player shifted form coalition building to autocrat, you determined this wasn't going to go well with the vassals and the play showed the PC losing what they had built.  However, that story has played out multiple times in history with a different result, and it could play out differently in fiction (and has).  The choice for the direction of play at that point was up to you as the GM, based on whatever you liked at that moment, and the only nod to realism or genre was that these were possible answers.  The choice of the GM to select here, based only on what they want here, is why I say these choices are arbitrary.  

Gaming is full of arbitrary, though, it's not like any number of other things in other systems aren't arbitrary as well.  The issue, I think, is the claim that the GM creates a better set of arbitrary outcomes when they have full authority to enforce them rather than having the player have some control via mechanical systems they can predict or through consensus building, conch passing, or direct control of the fiction.  The GM is not a _better _source of "realism" or genre emulation than anyone else at the table.

"Realism" is in quotes throughout because I'm using is as "trying to model the real world or real world influenced expectations of fantasy events."  I also have the feeling it just means "the GM thinks this is what should happen."  Given how it's used, I'm not sure when someone else deploys this term what it's supposed to mean, so I've made sure to be clear here.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 11, 2021)

Numidius said:


> @Aldarc Fair criticism. I understand your points. I just happened to read about FKR when I was already going in that direction in my personal cycle of development as a Gm, looking on the net for ideas to support that. So I'm just sharing my point of view.



I think that you've been a good sport throughout this conversation.

Again, part of my issue with FKR has to do with the loaded language and presentation of its ideas. And when overgeeked talks about FKR reacting against massively over-complicated rule systems, it makes me scratch my head. That idea becomes even more perplexing when some of this FKR movement is coming out of the OSR movement, where one wouldn't expect to find such systems in the first place. In the wider context of game design in the hobby, FKR feels like it's presenting itself as the solution to a problem that it has invented about the hobby. Some people on Twitter and Reddit almost talk about it as a miracle cure for a mystery ailment that it informs me that I have. Or like an infomercial trying to sell me a novelty product based on a grossly exaggerated hypothetical problem as seen enacted by its actors with day-ruining levels of frustration. Or you know what? That entire conversation in _There's Something About Mary_ about 7 Minute Abs.

That said, I get what you are saying in terms of one's direction and personal cycle of gaming. Though when I was at a similar point, I stumbled onto Fate. Again, a lot of its "tactical infinity," for example, is codified in the Create an Advantage action. Aspects are fictional tags that are significant enough to warrant mechanical interaction by the players or GM. It was also more "democratic" in how it distributed authority over authoring fiction.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think there is some obvious overlap, here, with some FKR ideas (and ideals), but I find Baker's presentation is far more clearly expressed.




Way back when I was toying with the idea (at the point, poorly expressed) that the FKR movement in terms of outcomes was really not that different from the ideas of Vincent Baker (and/or other proponents of "system matters" or "story now" or similar ideas) ... but just very different in terms of approach. Again, a global statement like that hardly does justice to the nuances involved, but I think that there is a kernel of truth there. Because there _is_ an obvious overlap.

As a rallying cry, "Play worlds, not rules" might seem diametrically opposed to the idea that the rules matter greatly to the expression of the game. And yet, I think that they both manage to have the same concerns; that the table engage with the fiction.

Which is why I keep coming back to the critiques I see; while I think that some of them are well-thought out, I also think that many of them miss the point. Take, for example, @Manbearcat and his excellent provision of  best practices in this post-









						System matters and free kriegsspiel
					

I actually had in mind an ultralight Star Wars game with a dynamic similar to the Doom pool from Cortex to represent light and dark sides of the Force.On my to-do list is to write a Star Wars scenario for The Green Knight. I don't think much change to the special abilities or skills is needed -...




					www.enworld.org
				




Those are a lot better than "high trust"!  But for all of the arguments over high trust, I think that a lot of us (including me, at times) misunderstand the purpose of it. It's not really an articulable principle or best practice- it's advertising. It's an explanation.

In the prior thread on this subject that I started, a great deal of the pushback wasn't from those familiar with PbtA or Story Now games- it was by D&D players, who liked having those rules. Lots of rules. When we get into insular conversations over best practices, I think that we often overlook that the target audience for this isn't someone playing a lot of games; it's someone who is probably a D&D or PF or CoC player. Because that's the majority of the market. _Those are the people that have to understand what this is, and how it can work. _

It was ages ago, but I still remember the first time I encountered a diceless roleplaying game. And it took me nearly a year to be able to run it! I just ... couldn't grasp it. As simple as the concepts seem now, I just didn't know what to do. And I think that the issue FKR proponents have (from their perspective) is that- how do you explain to someone who is used to rolling abilities, that they don't need to? How do you explain to someone who is used to checking their skills, that they don't need to? Fundamentally, they aren't trying to persuade you- they're trying to persuade the people that find these concepts completely foreign.

And that's why we see this as a relatively formless and amorphous thing. What is FKR? What are the real and salient features? The real reason I think it's hard to pin down is because it's not based in a working theory, so much as aspiration. Tracking down that 2015 post was pretty cool, but you also note the gap until 2020! And I can't help but note that while there are people that discuss a return to a neo-Arnesonian time for _D&D_, the majority of case-uses of it seem to be for genre-games that have nothing to do with D&D or even fantasy.

So to go back to the subject of "high trust" (and/or provide fodder for disagreement) I think that the following can and should be noted:

A. In the games I have run recently using this model, there is significant player authorship of narrative. I would go so far as to say that for a successful game, it's practically required. Even when the ultimate result for authority of the fiction is with the GM, you just can't run the game if the GM isn't trusting the players to author a good deal of the fiction. Otherwise, it's just a game of players asking if they can do something (which doesn't work, and isn't fun).

B. Moreover, I think that the "high trust" while originally conceived as a method to explain the game to people used to rules-heavy systems, doesn't _require _it to be beholden to the GM. We already see that FKR games allow for the explicit rules-based division of authority, either with players controlling narrative by resisting the GM's narrative, or players in control of scenes (pausing, rewinding, etc.).

In the end, I think that FKR is two things- first, a movement of people. As such, there will be those who hype it, those who over-describe it, and those who advocate for it.

But more fundamentally, it's about the reduction of rules. It's about reducing the rules to the absolute minimum, and then reducing them even more. The assumption is that if you reduced it too much, you can always add a rule back in. At least, that's my take so far. But there's nothing necessarily opposed to the idea that the rules you have, should be good rules. There's nothing that requires good rules (or good allocations of authority) to be discarded.


PS- I pulled and read Wuthering Heights RPG over the weekend when I had some spare time. It looks fascinating and I would love to try it out; unfortunately, I don't have a group that I would be able to play that with given the subject matter. But that's a different issue entirely.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But more fundamentally, it's about the reduction of rules. It's about reducing the rules to the absolute minimum, and then reducing them even more.



My general sense of the FKR stuff I've read, and of what you're mentioning here - which obviously is not disconnected from their stuff - is that by _rules_ is meant something like _mechanics for action resolution, including action resolution subsystems_.

The contrast would be with rules that aren't expressed mechanically (eg most of what is GM-side in Apocalypse World) or with systems for generating content - like most of Book 3 in Classic Traveller.

Do you agree with this?



Snarf Zagyg said:


> In the prior thread on this subject that I started, a great deal of the pushback wasn't from those familiar with PbtA or Story Now games- it was by D&D players



To me, this seems consistent with my suggestion upthread that the paradigm target of FKR criticisms of rules is D&D 3E. 5e D&D has a degree of overlap, including (but not limited to) elements of PC build which are definitely _not_ descriptors (eg the rogue's cunning action; the fighter's action surge; etc).

Here is a controversial assertion: a good chunk of RPGers don't really want fiction-first RPGing in the Apocalypse World or Cthulhu Dark sense. They prefer a more boardgame-like experience for their combat resolution, with unstructured but relatively low-stakes free roleplay in between combats. Up those stakes too much and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of ToH (too much "gotcha"; why does the PC's Perception and Engineering skill not factor into things; etc). Put too much structure on it and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of 4e skill challenges (a "dice rolling exercise"; why do we _have_ to get N successes even if our plan is brilliant; etc). And zooming out a bit, there seems to be a widespread expectation/aspiration that _GM curation_ of the fiction is a, maybe _the_, main way of ensuring that the fiction is nicely-paced and satisfactory in its content.

Obviously the above is a coarse-grained generalisation. And I can't _prove_ that the two sorts of pushback, and the expression of the aspiration, all come from much the same people. It's my impression of things.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My general sense of the FKR stuff I've read, and of what you're mentioning here - which obviously is not disconnected from their stuff - is that by _rules_ is meant something like _mechanics for action resolution, including action resolution subsystems_.
> 
> The contrast would be with rules that aren't expressed mechanically (eg most of what is GM-side in Apocalypse World) or with systems for generating content - like most of Book 3 in Classic Traveller.
> 
> Do you agree with this?




Yep. 

I admit to using the term "rules" loosely. But generally, I think that "rules" here means "written mechanics for action resolution (and subsystems)." 

Heuristics and norms can function as informal rules, and that's not what I was thinking of.




pemerton said:


> To me, this seems consistent with my suggestion upthread that the paradigm target of FKR criticisms of rules is D&D 3E. 5e D&D has a degree of overlap, including (but not limited to) elements of PC build which are definitely _not_ descriptors (eg the rogue's cunning action; the fighter's action surge; etc).




I think that the 3e / PF "mindset" is definitely the target- but I would posit that the original appeal to history and name would go back to the Arnesonian/Gygax divide. It's a mindset; when applied to D&D, it would be someone looking at the past, and one person would say, "The issue was that OD&D went to worse rules with AD&D." Another person would say, "The issue was OD&D added unnecessary rules."

More particularly and in a modern sense, you can look at the cunning action example. 

A proponent of the 5e system of play would see that cunning action applies in a way similar to a "keyword" and would seek to use it whenever the ability allows, despite the fiction.

A person who is interested in the design might believe that the issue is that the rule doesn't accurately model the fiction, and the rule should be improved (designed to match the fiction better).

An FKR devotee would believe that the issue is that there is a rule at all, and that the player would be better off not having to be beholden to the character sheet.

I don't think any of these are correct or incorrect, but they are different outlooks. 



pemerton said:


> Here is a controversial assertion: a good chunk of RPGers don't really want fiction-first RPGing in the Apocalypse World or Cthulhu Dark sense. They prefer a more boardgame-like experience for their combat resolution, with unstructured but relatively low-stakes free roleplay in between combats.




Agree. Is that controversial? I know that there is a decent contingent of people that like "structured" combat and "unstructured" role-play. 



pemerton said:


> Up those stakes too much and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of ToH (too much "gotcha"; why does the PC's Perception and Engineering skill not factor into things; etc).




Agree. 



pemerton said:


> Put too much structure on it and you will find a lot of the sort of pushback that (say) will come out in any discussion of 4e skill challenges (a "dice rolling exercise"; why do we _have_ to get N successes even if our plan is brilliant; etc).




Partly agree. I think that there is a strong resistance with a lot of people to "dice rolling exercises" but that many of them also like being able to use dice to overcome challenges. So, not sure on this? 



pemerton said:


> And zooming out a bit, there seems to be a widespread expectation/aspiration that _GM curation_ of the fiction is a, maybe _the_, main way of ensuring that the fiction is nicely-paced and satisfactory in its content.




Agree, to the extent we are discussing most forms of D&D. D&D is generally predicated on the GM pacing the fiction, and ensuring the content is satisfactory. 



pemerton said:


> Obviously the above is a coarse-grained generalisation. And I can't _prove_ that the two sorts of pushback, and the expression of the aspiration, all come from much the same people. It's my impression of things.




On this, I'm not sure. My own observation is that there tends to be a divide in approach between the "3e" player, the "1/2e player," and the "OD&D" It's a generalization that isn't always applicable, but (for example) the 3e player tends to be more focused on social skills as part of the game, the 1/2e player is more focused on the strict divide between crunchy combat and free role-play, and the OD&D player is more concerned with is amplification. 

The "4e" player, on the other hand, tends to be more open to skill challenges and or fiction-first. 

IMO, YMMV.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

How about another take.

So when we sit down to play any given FKR game how do we know as players what we are supposed to be doing? What's the game's objective (the player's objective here - not the character's)? How are players rewarded for it? How is the GM supposed to make that difficult? Where is the animating force? How are the larger play loops structured (not micro basic fictional positioning one)? Why are we here basically?

This is the kind of stuff that if I'm going to run a game or play in a game that has to have a meaningful answer. If one isn't provided then we all have to provide it. There is so much more that needs to be figured for a functional game than just setting and basic resolution procedures. I have a pretty good answer for what I think it is for most 5e play (and definitely for all the 5e play I have personally encountered). I'm not going to assume it's the same though.

That's the kind of stuff I'm mostly looking at when it comes to rules. What structure does this lean towards? What do the reward systems and play loops look like (micro and macro)? How do I know if I am good at playing or running them? What sort of feedback does the game give?

I guess maybe are FKR games even games in the traditional sense? Is there any real structure to them? I'm not really seeing any unless Cthulhu Dark is one.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

Last post was very stream of consciousness. I will collect my thoughts and have more later. I am just trying to understand what FKR is supposed to be about like from a game design standpoint (like you would find in a typical college course on game design).


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> How about another take.
> 
> So when we sit down to play any given FKR game how do we know as players what we are supposed to be doing?



Depends on the game. Like most others there will be a pitch. “Tonight we play Lost Era Star Trek. You’re the bridge crew of the _USS For Example_.”


Campbell said:


> What's the game's objective (the player's objective here - not the character's)?



To have fun. 


Campbell said:


> How are players rewarded for it?



By having fun. 


Campbell said:


> How is the GM supposed to make that difficult? Where is the animating force? How are the larger play loops structured (not micro basic fictional positioning one)?



Don’t start with the rule. Start with the fiction. The world. You’re playing Starfleet Officers aboard a Starfleet starship. How is that made difficult? What is the animating force? What are the play loops? 


Campbell said:


> Why are we here basically?



To have fun. 


Campbell said:


> This is the kind of stuff that if I'm going to run a game or play in a game that has to have a meaningful answer. If one isn't provided then we all have to provide it.



The fiction provides it. 


Campbell said:


> There is so much more that needs to be figured for a functional game than just setting and basic resolution procedures. I have a pretty good answer for what I think it is for most 5e play (and definitely for all the 5e play I have personally encountered). I'm not going to assume it's the same though.



I disagree with your premise. All you need is the fiction and the basic resolution mechanics. The rest is basically irrelevant. 


Campbell said:


> That's the kind of stuff I'm mostly looking at when it comes to rules. What structure does this lean towards? What do the reward systems and play loops look like (micro and macro)? How do I know if I am good at playing or running them? What sort of feedback does the game give?
> 
> I guess maybe are FKR games even games in the traditional sense? Is there any real structure to them? I'm not really seeing any unless Cthulhu Dark is one.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Depends on the game. Like most others there will be a pitch. “Tonight we play Lost Era Star Trek. You’re the bridge crew of the _USS For Example_.”
> 
> To have fun.
> 
> By having fun.



This is not plausible even by reference to the FKR resources that have been pointed to and quoted in this thread.

_Tactical_ infinity already gives us a focus for play: _tactics_. The notion of _problem solving _has also turned up. These are well-known ideas in game play in general, and in RPGing in particular. They tell me to expect a game much closer to Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain than (say) Wuthering Heights.

Just as one example: when I'm playing a member of the crew of the USS For Example, what do I need to know: my job as a crew member and the technology that I have access to? Or who I'm fighting with and who I'm sleeping with? Which will be more important for dealing with situations that play throws up?

Every FKR thing I've read suggests that it will be the former and not the latter; ie that relationships, emotional connections, etc will not be factored into either_ how situations are framed_ or _how situations are resolved_.



overgeeked said:


> Don’t start with the rule. Start with the fiction. The world. You’re playing Starfleet Officers aboard a Starfleet starship.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> All you need is the fiction and the basic resolution mechanics. The rest is basically irrelevant.



To add further to what I've posted above: W_ho authors the fiction? What bits of it am I expected to treat as salient? What bits can be ignored?_

Or to come from another angle: _Am I expected to lean into technical and tactical challenges as if we were playing a wargame? Or am I expected to lean into tropes and story conventions, relying on the GM to make sure these pay off in resolution?_

Or to get more specific about the hypothesised Star Trek game: _how seriously are we expected to take the military chain of command?_ An interesting feature of Classic Traveller is that its default for play is that characters are retired, freelancing former military personnel and hence the chain of command issue is sidestepped.

Or consider Agon 2nd ed: there is a leader of the band of heroes, who has an express function in play, and there is also a mechanic whereby another player can spend a resource to "persuade" the leader ie take over the leader function for one particular episode of play.

There are so many things that matter to effective, conflict-free play that are not settled just by being told the setting/premise and what dice we roll to work out if my phaser hits the person I'm shooting at.



overgeeked said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.



I think this is a bizarre conclusion. @Campbell plays a wider variety of RPGs - from OSR through PF2 through indie/"story" games through D&D 5e and just about every other label a person might put on a RPG - than any other poster I can think of on these boards.

I think it's pretty straightforward to answer the questions he's asking based on a reading of the FKR material. Just that the FKRers themselves don't want to do it - as far as I can tell as one manifestation of a broader "oppositional" orientation.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you simply will not like FKR games nor be anything but frustrated by conversations about FKR games. All your basic assumptions posted above are handled by the fiction or simply don’t matter to FKR games.




I think this is true of several posters here. It feels like extolling the virtues of steak BBQ to a vegan.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Just as one example: when I'm playing a member of the crew of the USS For Example, what do I need to know: my job as a crew member and the technology that I have access to? Or who I'm fighting with and who I'm sleeping with? Which will be more important for dealing with situations that play throws up?




Typically the GM will make reference to a fictional source "It's like ST:TNG" - in which case you probably can tell that interpersonal relations will matter.

By the way, I think I disagree with your suggestion that FK can't do the Congress of Vienna. That seems like exactly the sort of thing Braunstein type free RP tends to focus on. If the Congress is the focus of play, all the PCs and NPCs have their own agendas, and the result of the Congress is the result of their interaction in accordance with those agendas. As I hinted earlier re my empire-building example, this is a lot more useful as a teaching tool re what happens in real life, than a mechanical model would be.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm confused why I've received pushback, then.  If the GM's call is the only one that matters, this definitely changes the nature of the invisible rulebook and why it's invisible.  Now, the only invisible rulebook that matters is the GM's, and since it's invisible this is hidden from the players.  Yet you say that the GM must be able to explain their reasoning, which cuts against the invisible rulebook because it makes it visible.  We're back to the competing ideas of transparent play vs hidden play and why you'd even use an invisible rulebook at all.




I don't think 'invisible rulebook' is a helpful concept for you in understanding FK. The person who came up with it, as a metaphor, did not mean anything like rulebook as you understand the term. From reading her essay, she meant a sort of headcanon guide book to genre/setting norms. I think it would be best if you forgot about 'invisible rulebooks' completely.

Re arbitrariness, if I as GM am operating within the internal aspect of an NPC, their actions do not feel arbitrary at all. Their actions result from their motivations, hopes, fears, grudges, loyalties etc etc. I know some people don't/can't get their head around this, cannot take on the internal aspect of another character (possibly not even their own PC), and don't think other people can, either. In which case they should not GM a character based FK/free-roleplay game IMO, and if they don't trust the process they should not play in one, either.

Edit: Another way of putting it: when GMing FK style, I as GM am normally in 'actor* stance' playing NPCs, and in 'neutral referee' or 'world stance' when adjudicating. I am never in 'author** stance', except in a very residual sense that when GMing in a particular setting/genre my refereeing necessarily takes account of the original setting authors' - the rules they made for the world.

*In the Ron Edwards sense of internal-aspect method acting.
**In the Ron Edwards sense of story-creation, what would make a good story.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> To have fun.
> 
> By having fun.
> 
> To have fun.



IMHO, there are non-answers. When I sit down to play boardgames like Pandemic, Settlers of Catan, or Ticket to Ride or card games like Poker or Skat, I of course hope that I have fun, but these games still have objectives, player rewards, and the like built into the game, the feedback loop of play, and often their premises. The same is true for TTRPGs, whether we are playing D&D, Cortex Prime, Blades in the Dark, Fate, or Call of Cthulhu. Saying that your game is about "fun" is like saying that you're "nice" on your online dating profile or that you're "good at Microsoft Office" on your CV: it probably means, to put it mildly, that you don't have a lot else going for you to brag about. It's the lowest bar standard.

Also, what are the massively over-complicated games that you claim that FKR is reacting against?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I think this is true of several posters here. It feels like extolling the virtues of steak BBQ to a vegan.



Well, yeah, I guess it is.  The vegans* are asking what nutrients and vitamins you get, where you get the cut, how you cook it, what spices and preparation are involved, when what they're just missing is that it's tasty (fun)!  Vegans* just don't get tasty!

*not actual vegans


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I think this is true of several posters here. It feels like extolling the virtues of steak BBQ to a vegan.



I was more thinking the Monty Python sketch where Terry Jones is trying to explain charity to John Cleese’s banker.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, yeah, I guess it is.  The vegans* are asking what nutrients and vitamins you get, where you get the cut, how you cook it, what spices and preparation are involved, when what they're just missing is that it's tasty (fun)!  Vegans* just don't get tasty!
> 
> *not actual vegans



Why are vegans wasting their time asking about something they don't like and won't like? Do they think the steak eaters are having badwrongfun?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Why are vegans wasting their time asking about something they don't like and won't like? Do they think the steak eaters are having badwrongfun?



In a weird way I think it works better if you flip it. It’s steak eaters asking vegans where’s the beef? And the vegans are saying there’s no beef. That’s the point. To which the steak eaters just keep saying, “yeah, but explain to me where is my beef?” It’s like they don’t understand the concept of a meal without meat. So they’re hung up on meat and can’t quit asking about it. The vegans keep trying to explain the benefits of veg, the moral and ethical concerns of meat, etc. And the meat eaters just keep asking about the meat. No, that’s literally the point. No meat. But...but...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This is not plausible even by reference to the FKR resources that have been pointed to and quoted in this thread.
> 
> _Tactical_ infinity already gives us a focus for play: _tactics_. The notion of _problem solving _has also turned up. These are well-known ideas in game play in general, and in RPGing in particular. *They tell me to expect a game much closer to Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain than (say) Wuthering Heights.*
> 
> ...




Argh. No. I can't agree with this. You can't pull on one bit and expect to define something you aren't doing, and appear to _not want to do._

Take the instant example- you are keying in on the term "tactical infinity" and then equating to problem solving, and then stating that this must be the same as "skilled play" as in White Plume Mountain. But that is the opposite of what the FKR games in existence will show you!

Tactical infinity is about solving problems- but the "problems" can be anything. Here-

_Any tactic. Not the tactic on your character sheet. Not the tactic from your equipment package. Not the tactic associated with being a fighter or a magic-user. Any tactic. You're French fur trappers in the 1700s. How would you solve a problem? You're post-apocalypse water scavengers. How would you solve a problem? You're underpaid interns working in an anthopological lab. How would you solve a problem? The answer to all of these questions is "however it makes sense, given who you are, what the environment suggests, and however the fictional context allows." Now, in any of these situations, the stuff on your meager character sheet, be they keywords or items, certainly inform your choices, but they do not constrain them._

A "problem" doesn't have to be a trap; it can be any conflict, which includes relationships and emotional connections. Sure, it does have the connotation of something to overcome- but that's usually the point of a game (or even a story). Which is why:
_
Have you read Brideshead Revisited? The Wizard of Earthsea? Foundation and Empire? Any captivating novel, regardless of timeframe, setting, or genre? Well now you can run a full FKR game based on that book._

Yes, you can use FKR to play _Wuthering Heights_. And it doesn't mean that there are no rules- for example, maybe you want some sort of hate mechanic! But you start with the fewest possible, and work from there.

But in addition to the concept of taking any work or genre and "gamifying" it, you can look at the specific examples (114 of them) on itch- we have:
Sci-fi games
Post-apocalyptic rock music
FKR BiTD
FKR Troika with BITD mechanics
A game based on Messerspiel that states, "If you love Messerspeil, Trophy Gold, Blades in the Dark, or Cthulhu Dark ..."
A game where you are a home appliance  
FKR Star Wars
FKR Suicide Squad
A game of sailing and discovery of heritage 
Pokemon
Fast & Furious 
Play as an insect
etc.

There are OSR variants (including a pacifist version) but it's not accurate to typify this as just "White Plume Mountain" redux. IMO.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Why are vegans wasting their time asking about something they don't like and won't like? Do they think the steak eaters are having badwrongfun?



Why are you making this personal?  You're attacking people now, not discussing games.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Why are vegans wasting their time asking about something they don't like and won't like? Do they think the steak eaters are having badwrongfun?



And I'm honestly curious about what makes FKR FKR.  I find knowing more, even about things I may not personally like, helps me do better games.  And, I've already run into a game I didn't get that I finally did get and it's one of my favorites.   That understanding didn't come from being told its about fun,  but about clear descriptions of the methods and principles of play.   That,  in turn,  made my D&D games better,  not by copying over but because it helped me identify what's great in 5e and lean hard into that rather than trying to make 5e do things it's not great at. 

I don't understand why,  if FKR is something you love,  it cannot be discussed and the why's and how's of that love extolled.   "Fun" is,  as noted,  a non- answer.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

This is my bookshelf. There are many like it, but this one is mine. There are many sorts of games here. OSR games, Forge games, traditional games. Games with dense setting material. Games with low resolution setting. Games with dense mechanics. Games with a lighter touch. Each provides a unique value and is the result of incredible design effort (which should be respected). Each justifies its existence, not by replacing the experience provided by another, but by providing a different one with its own unique value proposition.

I could have lengthy conversations about each of these games, when I would use them, when I would not. What sort of players are uniquely suited to each. What each brings to the table. The discipline involved in the process of playing or running each.

What I am looking for is a distillation of FKR that shows the unique value it brings. When you would use it instead of something else. When you would not. Something that shows its value as its own thing and not as a superior form of something else. Something that respects the discipline and craft of different forms of play. How do I integrate into my overall understanding of roleplaying games? Where does it fit? Provide me with an integrative understanding that respects the value other games bring to the table. Show me how to do it in a way that is not just 'Do whatever man'.

To me what I'm seeing of the FKR reminds of the "intuitive" training types you see in the strength sports space. People that look at the various disciplines (body building, Olympic lifting, power lifting, strong man) and opt to almost randomly take what they want from each thinking they'll get similar results. Basically they argue that all the thought, experimentation, and practice that athletes in each discipline have put in has no real merit or value. _I just lift bro. It's easy._

I hope I am wrong about that. I hope that FKR has something new to offer. That it's experience is different in the same way D&D 5e is different from Blades in the Dark. That it does not put itself up as a replacement for the rest of the hobby.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

The answer to the vast majority of the persistent questions is: whatever makes sense in the fiction. The caveat is that “fiction” here means both the fiction as the shared delusion of game play and the fiction as the pre-game source material. 

What can, would, or could my character do? Whatever makes sense in the fiction.

What tech is available to my character? Whatever makes sense in the fiction.

What are the play loops? Whatever makes sense in the fiction.

These are not and can not be the same in every game. So it depends on the fiction. It’s fiction first applied to both the intrusion of the rules _during play_ and in the establishment of rules _prior to play_.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> View attachment 145170
> 
> This is my bookshelf. There are many like it, but this one is mine. There are many sorts of games here. OSR games, Forge games, traditional games. Games with dense setting material. Games with low resolution setting. Games with dense mechanics. Games with a lighter touch. Each provides a unique value and is the result of incredible design effort (which should be respected). Each justifies its existence, not by replacing the experience provided by another, but by providing a different one with its own unique value proposition.
> 
> ...



Seemingly unrelated, but relevant, question. Does Marvel Heroic have a character creation system?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> And I'm honestly curious about what makes FKR FKR.  I find knowing more, even about things I may not personally like, helps me do better games.  And, I've already run into a game I didn't get that I finally did get and it's one of my favorites.   That understanding didn't come from being told its about fun,  but about clear descriptions of the methods and principles of play.   That,  in turn,  made my D&D games better,  not by copying over but because it helped me identify what's great in 5e and lean hard into that rather than trying to make 5e do things it's not great at.
> 
> I don't understand why,  if FKR is something you love,  it cannot be discussed and the why's and how's of that love extolled.   "Fun" is,  as noted,  a non- answer.



I consider cooking one of my favorite hobbies. "It tastes good" often feels like a filler description about a dish or recipe. I mean, yeah, I hope that this food tastes good. Otherwise, why am I making or eating it? But I'm nevertheless interested in understanding why it tastes good. 

What are the ingredients and preparation processes that make the dish work or not. I enjoy, IMHO, to taste a dish that someone else prepared, whether at a restaurant, family gathering, or a friend's place, and try reverse engineering the dish based on taste and appearance. The more that I understand different dishes and recipes, the easier it is for me to improvise and build on those cooking principles. (IME, some people have no taste for food/flavor combinations that work well together.) 

I don't think that I'm inherently hostile to FKR. I want to understand how and why other games work the way that they do. I want to understand FKR and what makes it work and where it doesn't. What are the play benefits that FKR bring that I don't get from other games? I enjoy a wide range of games (e.g., D&D, OSR, Fate, Cortex, BitD, PbtA, Fantasy AGE, Cypher, etc) and there are many more that I want to try (e.g., Free League's MY0, The One Ring, Paleomythic, etc.). I have admitted that there are personal issues and red flags that I have with how some people have presented FKR and the language they used. I have stated, for example, that I think that Ben Milton's own heavy involvement in the OSR community likely flavors how he presents FKR and that maybe someone else who came from a different background would likely present it differently. 

I'm also curious about the context that FKR comes about. If someone says that FKR is a reaction to massively over-complicated rules, then I'm curious what the FKR community has in mind, especially if the present bulk of the FKR community comes out of the OSR sphere of thought. I'm curious because it seems counter-intuitive to me based upon what I see as a fantastic decade of elegant and intentional game design that is often incredibly considerate about being new-player friendly.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I consider cooking one of my favorite hobbies. "It tastes good" often feels like a filler description about a dish or recipe. I mean, yeah, I hope that this food tastes good. Otherwise, why am I making or eating it? But I'm nevertheless interested in understanding why it tastes good.
> 
> What are the ingredients and preparation processes that make the dish work or not. I enjoy, IMHO, to taste a dish that someone else prepared, whether at a restaurant, family gathering, or a friend's place, and try reverse engineering the dish based on taste and appearance. The more that I understand different dishes and recipes, the easier it is for me to improvise and build on those cooking principles. (IME, some people have no taste for food/flavor combinations that work well together.)
> 
> ...



Another seemingly unrelated, but relevant, question. What’s your opinion on finding recipes from food blogs?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I hope I am wrong about that. I hope that FKR has something new to offer. That it's experience is different in the same way D&D 5e is different from Blades in the Dark. That it does not put itself up as a replacement for the rest of the hobby.




I don't know that this framing is helpful. Should someone say, "Fiction first must be rubbished because it presents itself as a replacement for the entire hobby."

When you turn the interpretive lens around, it seems like a strange statement, right? D&D (and D&D-type systems) is, quite literally, the 800lb gorilla in the hobby. If you add Call of Cthulhu as a relatively "rules heavy" system, you're looking at the vast and overwhelming majority of the market.

...and yet, while games that we often discuss (like BiTD and other PbTA games, for example) are not even rounding errors compared to D&D/CoC, they still dwarf FKR. Heck, OSR clones dwarf it.

So ... a replacement for the hobby? A replacement for the wall of books that you have? No. Not even close.

It's just a small group of people playing (and occasionally putting out) indie games with miniscule rule-sets.

As for what it brings to the hobby? Diversity of gaming experiences. A multiplicity of approaching minimialist rulesets. An attempt to approach RPGs as genre exercises first. And finally, the concept of an iterative table-centric approach to rules.

No one is saying that this should be something you like; again, this doesn't even rise to the level of a rounding error within the hobby. I'm not even saying it's that new- most of it is incorporating different concepts and rules that have already been used (past is prologue). But it's usually at the margins that we get the ferment that eventually translates into more mainstream games.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I don't think 'invisible rulebook' is a helpful concept for you in understanding FK. The person who came up with it, as a metaphor, did not mean anything like rulebook as you understand the term. From reading her essay, she meant a sort of headcanon guide book to genre/setting norms. I think it would be best if you forgot about 'invisible rulebooks' completely.



I don't think you can just declare me to not be able to use an idea.  You need to present a case.

The issue I'm having with the invisible rulebooks, and that is part of that article, is where authority interacts with them.  In the article, it's clear that these invisible rulebooks are open for consensus seeking -- it's explicitly said in the article that comparison and getting on the same page are very important.  But, there's an undercurrent in the article that it's the GM's ideas that are the ones that matter, that the purpose of the *GM's *invisible rulebooks (which are really genre emulations but rather a conception of how things should play out and can disagree wildly on what's important in a given moment -- as mentioned by the article) is to be the heuristic by which the game is governed.  And you've explicitly said this just a few posts back -- that consensus seeking is not the point; it's the GM's game.

So, with all of this, we're back to the fact that, as it's being used by you, the only invisible rulebook that matters is the GM's, which takes this somewhat out of genre emulation because the GM's ideas may not match the genre or there may be a difference in understanding as to which genre is at play.  This can be good, I mean Coen brothers movies are pretty much all about dissonance in genres.  But it's not clear that there's a pathway that leads to this via principles of play.  


S'mon said:


> Re arbitrariness, if I as GM am operating within the internal aspect of an NPC, their actions do not feel arbitrary at all. Their actions result from their motivations, hopes, fears, grudges, loyalties etc etc. I know some people don't/can't get their head around this, cannot take on the internal aspect of another character (possibly not even their own PC), and don't think other people can, either. In which case they should not GM a character based FK/free-roleplay game IMO, and if they don't trust the process they should not play in one, either.
> 
> Edit: Another way of putting it: when GMing FK style, I as GM am normally in 'actor* stance' playing NPCs, and in 'neutral referee' or 'world stance' when adjudicating. I am never in 'author** stance', except in a very residual sense that when GMing in a particular setting/genre my refereeing necessarily takes account of the original setting authors' - the rules they made for the world.
> 
> ...



This isn't coherent, and borrowing (poorly) Forge stances doesn't aid the argument.  For one, your conception of a character is not the only possible or even best conception of a character.  There's no causal process here, it's more about what you're thinking than actually inhabiting the character.  The dig that some people can't do this is very poor manners -- I've been doing this for years and have lots of fun inhabiting a character.  What I don't do is confuse my fun for an actual, independent, causal process.  I am still making decisions -- the character is a figment of my imagination.  So, when faced with a dilemma, what happens is I decide on a course of action and then filter it through my character.  The character does not direct anything at all, because, again, imaginary.  This means that a choice you're making about the fiction is arbitrary and not actually better than a mechanically driven choice that is then roleplayed out.  It's different, sure, the process is different, and you're never faced with having a choice be confusing or upsetting to you because you're always making the choices.  This doesn't present a better model of people, or how real people react, though, because everyone is often confused, surprised, or upset by the choices others make, and we generally don't have the ability to predict individual responses all that well.

What makes either method -- you acting or using mechanics -- work well are principles of play and how those work.  These are what I'm trying to get from FKR.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Another seemingly unrelated, but relevant, question. What’s your opinion on finding recipes from food blogs?



Would you mind being a little more specific here? I'm not sure how to answer this without further specificity here. For example, is this a question asking whether or not it's okay to find recipes from food blogs?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Seemingly unrelated, but relevant, question. Does Marvel Heroic have a character creation system?




It does have guidelines for designing new characters, but not in the way most people expect. Characters are not created from a pool of points or options you pick. There are more detailed instructions, but you design the powersets that fit the character you want to play. Characters are not designed with balance in mind. Instead the game is designed so that if you are playing Ant Man you should have an impact even if Thor has a superior power set.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Would you mind being a little more specific here? I'm not sure how to answer this without further specificity here. For example, is this a question asking whether or not it's okay to find recipes from food blogs?



Do you enjoy searching the internet for recipes? What is your opinion/experience of using recipes specifically from non-professional food blogs?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> The answer to the vast majority of the persistent questions is: whatever makes sense in the fiction. The caveat is that “fiction” here means both the fiction as the shared delusion of game play and the fiction as the pre-game source material.
> 
> What can, would, or could my character do? Whatever makes sense in the fiction.
> 
> ...



But, this isn't strictly correct, is it?  It's whatever the GM thinks makes sense in the fiction.  I, as a player, have no ability to make this call, correct?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Do you enjoy searching the internet for recipes? What is your opinion/experience of using recipes specifically from non-professional food blogs?



Can we save time and skip this game to the pertinent point you want to make?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> It does have guidelines for designing new characters, but not in the way most people expect. Characters are not created from a pool of points or options you pick. There are more detailed instructions, but you design the powersets that fit the character you want to play. Characters are not designed with balance in mind. Instead the game is designed so that if you are playing Ant Man you should have an impact even if Thor has a superior power set.



Right. The guidelines presented are basically “do what you think looks right” instead of “here are specific mechanics for creating balanced characters from a pool of points” as you see in many/most other games. It’s the “do whatever, man” approach to character creation. And this lead to endless arguments when it was new about whether this setup of character creation even counted as a system.

But, it still works because the game you play isn’t about who has a slightly better power set. Everyone can have an impact on the story because of how the mechanics work. Thor will have one extra die in his pools sometimes and maybe a higher die type when focused on strength-based tasks, but that character creation setup still works because the game is looser and not focused on balance. It’s focused on emulating the ebb and flow of superhero stories...not mechanical superiority. So the lack of strict character creation rules literally doesn’t matter to the game as played. 

And that’s something people slowly learned over time as they played the game. The people who wanted strict character creation rules simply could not understand how it could possibly work because they were hung up on the character creation instead of just playing the game. But, because they couldn’t see past the lack of strict character creation rules, they missed out on a wonderful game. 

A lot of things people in this thread are hung up on simply don’t matter in FKR games. You’re hung up on the lack on strict character creation rules and, as a result, you’re missing the game. It’ll be okay. It’ll work out. Just play the game.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

@Snarf Zagyg

I'm not really looking to have a conversation about the hobby as a market. I'm looking to have one about it as an artform that acknowledges the full diversity of play. I want to know what FKR adds to the design conversation in the same way I might ask what The Last of Us or Dark Souls added to the design conversation in the video game space even though Call of Duty, FIFA and Madden dominate actual play of the masses. Actually phone games do, but that's another conversation entirely. I'm posing an artistic question, rather than a marketing one.

I have some possible answers here for :

1. OSR
2. Forge descendants
3. Traditional games
4. Nordic LARP
5. Journaling Games

I just want some possible answers for FKR as well.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Can we save time and skip this game to the pertinent point you want to make?



Funny. That’s precisely the point I wanted to make. Most food blogs put this giant, pointless preamble about their great-grandmother’s knitted shawl and trip to Mexico City circa 1920...snore...in front of the actual recipe. I don’t need the preamble. Just gimme the recipe. Get to the point, right?

That’s how I see FKR games. They cut all the BS and get to the point. I don’t need 400 pages of crunch to tell me to emulate something. I can read, watch, engage with the media directly myself. When you cut to the chase, it’s a character in a tense situation throwing a randomizer to determine if they overcome the obstacle in front of them. Everything else is narration. The precise randomizer doesn’t matter. The precise modifiers to the randomizer don’t matter. The numbers on your sheet don’t matter. It’s all your great-grandmother’s knitted shawl hiding the recipe. Cut to the chase. Gimme the recipe.

You don’t need a 400 page book filled with numbers and charts. All you need is a setting, a character, and a randomizer. All you need to cook is the recipe, a kitchen, and ingredients. You don’t need the story about someone’s knitted shawl.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> @Snarf Zagyg
> 
> I'm not really looking to have a conversation about the hobby as a market. I'm looking to have one about it as an artform that acknowledges the full diversity of play. I want to know what FKR adds to the design conversation in the same way I might ask what The Last of Us or Dark Souls added to the design conversation in the video game space even though Call of Duty, FIFA and Madden dominate actual play of the masses. Actually phone games do, but that's another conversation entirely. I'm posing an artistic question, rather than a marketing one.
> 
> ...



You’re framing the question in a way that precludes FKR from giving a satisfactory answer. You’re testing a fish by measuring its ability to climb a tree.

FKR seems to largely reject design as an end in itself. The design doesn’t matter, playing the game does. Play worlds, not rules. The world matters. The rules don’t.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Funny. That’s precisely the point I wanted to make. Most food blogs put this giant, pointless preamble about their great-grandmother’s knitted shawl and trip to Mexico City circa 1920...snore...in front of the actual recipe. I don’t need the preamble. Just gimme the recipe. Get to the point, right?
> 
> That’s how I see FKR games. They cut all the BS and get to the point. I don’t need 400 pages of crunch to tell me to emulate something. I can read, watch, engage with the media directly myself. When you cut to the chase, it’s a character in a tense situation throwing a randomizer to determine if they overcome the obstacle in front of them. Everything else is narration. The precise randomizer doesn’t matter. The precise modifiers to the randomizer don’t matter. The numbers on your sheet don’t matter. It’s all your great-grandmother’s knitted shawl hiding the recipe. Cut to the chase. Gimme the recipe.
> 
> You don’t need a 400 page book filled with numbers and charts. All you need is a setting, a character, and a randomizer. All you need to cook is the recipe, a kitchen, and ingredients. You don’t need the story about someone’s knitted shawl.



Okay, but you're including the recipe in the bits you don't need.  We're not asking for the story, we're asking for how it actually works, in play, in the moment, and what controls or influences things.  The answers we get are "fun" and "fiction," but this isn't any different from most other approaches to play.  Where's the recipe?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> You’re framing the question in a way that precludes FKR from giving a satisfactory answer. You’re testing a fish by measuring it’s ability to climb a tree.
> 
> FKR seems to largely reject design as an end in itself. The design doesn’t matter, playing the game does. Play worlds, not rules. The world matters. The rules don’t.



Design cannot not matter.  FKR is game design.  There's no avoiding it.  Stating it's not design is like saying fish aren't matter.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Design cannot not matter.  FKR is game design.  There's no avoiding it.  Stating it's not design is like saying fish aren't matter.





overgeeked said:


> You’re framing the question in a way that precludes FKR from giving a satisfactory answer. You’re testing a fish by measuring it’s ability to climb a tree.
> 
> FKR seems to largely reject design as an end in itself. The design doesn’t matter, playing the game does. Play worlds, not rules. The world matters. The rules don’t.



To follow on this, I think you might be thinking that game design is about developing rules to play?  That's part of it, but it's also the goals of play, the principles of play to support those goals, and the way you play.  The rules are part of that third thing, but not all of it.

I'm an engineer.  If you said that engineering design is just about specifying which screws hold a chair together and you'd rather just wing it with whatever you have at hand and works so you don't do design, I'd be very confused.  Because just the idea of a chair is part of design -- what is it intended for, how will it be used, what shape does it need to be, how large, how strong, how pretty or utilitarian, how much can it weigh, how many do I need to make, how long will it last, how do we dispose of it, how does it need to be maintained.  Screw specification is in there, as a part of how strong the chair needs to be and disposal and maintenance and even aesthetics, but that's not the entirety of design or even the barest fraction of how you design a chair.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> @Snarf Zagyg
> 
> I'm not really looking to have a conversation about the hobby as a market. I'm looking to have one about it as an artform *that acknowledges the full diversity of play*. I want to know what FKR adds to the design conversation in the same way I might ask what The Last of Us or Dark Souls added to the design conversation in the video game space even though Call of Duty, FIFA and Madden dominate actual play of the masses. Actually phone games do, but that's another conversation entirely. I'm posing an artistic question, rather than a marketing one.
> 
> ...




But that's just it. Not to reiterate what @overgeeked just said, but you're not asking the right question. And trust me, I get it. I really do- earlier in the thread I explained how it took me a year (really, I'm not exaggerating) to run my first diceless game eons ago because I just didn't get it. I couldn't wrap my head around it.

And it's the same here. You keep asking the same question about what this is bringing to the table in terms of design- which implies the rules. But that's roughly as helpful as asking, "What did Dogme 95 bring to special effects?" It's not just that the question isn't helpful, it's almost completely orthogonal to understanding.

And the reason is because the design (in terms of the rules) takes a backseat to the play. That might seem bass-ackwards to you, but that's how it works. This keeps getting reiterated by the same people who are trying it out, and the response always seems to be variations of, "What about the design? What about the rules?"

It's like someone trying to explain diceless games, and a person keeps asking, "Okay, but here's the thing. How do you play it without dice? I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but ... there's no dice. So why don't you explain to me where the dice are?"

It's one of those_ Cool Hand Luke_, failure to communicate, kind of things.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Funny. That’s precisely the point I wanted to make.



It has more to do with how I can spot bait for gotcha game when I see it.



overgeeked said:


> Most food blogs put this giant, pointless preamble about their great-grandmother’s knitted shawl and trip to Mexico City circa 1920...snore...in front of the actual recipe. I don’t need the preamble. Just gimme the recipe. Get to the point, right?



Regardless of how I or anyone feels about those food blog preambles, there are reasons why they do that though that has to do with both intellectual copyright and search engine optimization.

When I normally look up recipes, I'm generally consulting cooking channels on YouTube that talk a bit more about the process. Written recipes tend to be fairly barebones and unhelpful. It's one reason why I have difficulties recreating some of my grandparents' recipes, because they leave a lot of details out. (Also some Southern ingredients are an absolute nightmare to track down in Austria. Finding the right corn meal in the US outside of the South is bad enough, but Austria? Ugh.)



overgeeked said:


> That’s how I see FKR games. They cut all the BS and get to the point. I don’t need 400 pages of crunch to tell me to emulate something. I can read, watch, engage with the media directly myself. When you cut to the chase, it’s a character in a tense situation throwing a randomizer to determine if they overcome the obstacle in front of them. Everything else is narration. The precise randomizer doesn’t matter. The precise modifiers to the randomizer don’t matter. The numbers on your sheet don’t matter. It’s all your great-grandmother’s knitted shawl hiding the recipe. Cut to the chase. Gimme the recipe.
> 
> You don’t need a 400 page book filled with numbers and charts. All you need is a setting, a character, and a randomizer. All you need to cook is the recipe, a kitchen, and ingredients. You don’t need the story about someone’s knitted shawl.



Although I get the analogy you are trying to make, I unsurprisingly disagree with it. I think what you are mistakingly identifying as a food blog's "400 pages of crunch" is actually their "400 pages of fluff." The crunch is the recipe and preparation process itself. And just like with recipes, you can't put a copyright on game mechanics, hence the fluff. Also, I don't think this is entirely different from how many people approach a new RPG. They may skip the fluff and jump to the basic mechanics or character creation process.



Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, but you're including the recipe in the bits you don't need.  We're not asking for the story, we're asking for how it actually works, in play, in the moment, and what controls or influences things.  The answers we get are "fun" and "fiction," but this isn't any different from most other approaches to play. * Where's the recipe?*



Ask Grandma.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

By design I am mostly talking about the process of play rather than technical implementation details. What sort of scenarios can I be expected to engage with? How am I expected to approach those scenarios? What does a good character look like? What's the expected orientation to the other characters? What does good play look like? What's the collaborative process like? Basically what can I expect from the other people I am playing with?

So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling? What sort of answers can I expect on these questions? How do I do the thing?

I started roleplaying with freeform message board roleplaying when I was 10. I have done freeform in person. I enjoy parlor LARPs. These are questions that need to have answers even if they are informal. Most freeform communities have a pretty well developed process. Sometimes there are formal guidelines. Sometimes informal, but there is a discipline to doing it well. I am looking for the discipline here.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It has more to do with how I can spot bait for gotcha game when I see it.



That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.



Were you genuinely interested in my personal opinion about cooking blogs or my cooking hobby? Or did you just wanna blow past engaging my general interest in cooking and wow me with your insight? 

However, the fact that this is the only point you choose to engage with in my response to you about your cooking blog analogy is even more telling.



overgeeked said:


> *FKR seems to largely reject design as an end in itself.* The design doesn’t matter, playing the game does. Play worlds, not rules. The world matters. The rules don’t.



Except it doesn't. Based upon what I have seen so far from the helpful posters and blogs talking about FKR, the fact that FKR embraces a minimalist design seems incredibly intentional and purposeful for its play goals. That doesn't seem like a rejection of design, but a tacit embrace of it. For example, the assumption that rules get in the way of proper game-/roleplay seems pretty indicative of how FKR would go about designing games. Or the assumption that a knowledgeable GM is a more efficient processor for immersive gameplay than any given rule set is also a pretty good clue about its design philosophy.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> What sort of scenarios can I be expected to engage with? How am I expected to approach those scenarios? What does a good character look like? What's the expected orientation to the other characters? What does good play look like? What's the collaborative process like? Basically what can I expect from the other people I am playing with?



It depends entirely on the source fiction, fact, or history. There's no answer to your questions until there's an answer to the question: what world are you playing in? The answer to your questions changes depending on whether you're playing Star Trek, Star Wars, D&D, etc. You're asking about rules. Rules come second. The fiction (aka the source material) comes first.


Campbell said:


> So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling?



If you find Star Trek compelling, you'll likely find FKR Trek compelling as the whole point of FKR gaming is to emulate the fiction (aka source material) it draws from. Say you're a DS9 fan but dislike TOS. It doesn't matter what system or how well the Referee runs a TOS game if you're not interested.


Campbell said:


> How do I do the thing?



Stop worrying about the rules and just play the world. What would your character do if they were a real person inhabiting this world? Do that. Are you playing a klingon? Then do things a klingon would do. Are you playing a Starfleet officer? Then do things a Starfleet officer would do. 

It's like explaining Apocalypse World. "But how do I make an attack?" "You just do it." "What?" 

AW has fiction first mechanics. So does FKR. To do an AW move you need to do something in the fiction to trigger the mechanics. Same here. Roleplay. When the mechanics are needed, they'll come in. They aren't needed nearly as often as people think so they'll come up way less often than other games.

You keep putting the rules and mechanics first. Don't. You make a character and inhabit that character in the world. The Referee describes a situation. You tell the Referee what you want your character to do. They tell you what to roll, if anything...and the Referee narrates the results. Then do it all again. And again. And again.


Campbell said:


> I started roleplaying with freeform message board roleplaying when I was 10. I have done freeform in person. I enjoy parlor LARPs. These are questions that need to have answers even if they are informal. Most freeform communities have a pretty well developed process. Sometimes there are formal guidelines. Sometimes informal, but there is a discipline to doing it well. I am looking for the discipline here.



We've told you a dozen or so times already. Play the world, not rules. 

The goal is immersing in the world. The aim is immersing in the world. Skilled play is immersing in the world. The formal guidelines are immersing in the world. The discipline is immersing in the world. It's honestly no more complicated than that. But you seem to think it has to be more complicated and there has to be more rules to it. But there's not. 

The whole of an FKR game could be: "Here's the fiction (source material). Do your best to emulate the source material. Roll 2d6 if you need to resolve something that's not obvious from the fiction (in play)."


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> So say I am considering playing an FKR Trek game how do I evaluate if it's something I will actually find compelling? What sort of answers can I expect on these questions? How do I do the thing?




You have fun! You don't play the rules, maaaaan.....you play the world!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> You have fun! You don't play the rules, maaaaan.....you play the world!




I realize that sarcastic one-liners denigrating people you don't agree with gets people to "like" you, but it's not particularly productive.

So, have you ever had a conversation with someone who is super into the DM (and it will be the "DM" in this case) having ultimate authority over the fiction? And you try to explain a game with player authority over the fiction? And the person responds, "Yeah, dude, but then a player will totally have his character jump over the moon. How do you stop that? Huh?"

It's aggravating, right? Because we assume good-faith play, and we assume the players are going to act in a manner consistent with the fiction. So answering repeated variations of, "But what if the player is a jerk," isn't helpful.

A fundamental issue that seems to bedevil a lot of conversations about theory, about the division of authority, and about rules in TTRPGs, is this- what happens when there is an inconsistent view of the fiction between participants in the game? How do you determine what "really happens?" There are rules, there are principles, but fundamentally you need to assume that the participants aren't jerks, right? 

Well, one aspect of FKR that is both fundamental and unwritten is that the participants are _on the same page. _That there is a shared understanding of the fiction. Now, of course, the immediate retort will be- "But what if there isn't?"

Well? What if a player wants to jump over the moon? In a very real way, that's what the advertising ("It's high trust") is about. Because of that, it doesn't even matter _who _has control of any particular fiction. Which is why most FKR games have the referee as the rules authority, but with substantial player control of the fiction, but you also have a lot of FKR games that have explicit allowances for player authorship of the fiction, even to the extent of overriding the referee.

At the base of this, however, is the core assumption that you don't worry about the rules, and that you just say what you want to do.

I totally get that this isn't appealing to many people, but what I don't get is the sheer amount of vitriol this concept seems to generate.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Stop worrying about the rules and just play the world. What would your character do if they were a real person inhabiting this world? Do that. Are you playing a klingon? Then do things a klingon would do. Are you playing a Starfleet officer? Then do things a Starfleet officer would do.
> 
> It's like explaining Apocalypse World. "But how do I make an attack?" "You just do it." "What?"
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone's putting the rules first. 

You mention Apocalypse World....but if you say what you want to do in Apocalypse World, and then asks how that will work, anyone familiar with the game can actually answer the question. 

So that is what's being asked, overall.

Your insistence to "just do what your character would do" is true of all RPGs. Yes, sometimes people playing certain games will play the rules first, or some games have non-diegetic elements or what have you, but they still do function with a "state what your character wants to do, then we move on to the resolution system" model. The resolution system is generally where we find the significant array of scope.

You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system, but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system. It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system, but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system. It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.




But the resolution system and the mechanics aren't the same from one game to the next. That's a huge thing- as much as you mocked it .... maaaaan .... the point is to play the world. Which means that there can be one, or more, resolution systems depending on what you're playing.

The dice pool and stress dice of Messerspiel will not be the same as d6/d4/ally d6 of 1980 Legion.

Which goes all the way around again to the point people keep trying to make- the resolution systems (the rules) aren't the focus. I know that might seem weird, yet there it is.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think anyone's putting the rules first.



The people repeatedly asking about the rules clearly are.


hawkeyefan said:


> You mention Apocalypse World....but if you say what you want to do in Apocalypse World, and then asks how that will work, anyone familiar with the game can actually answer the question.
> 
> So that is what's being asked, overall.



Not really, no.


hawkeyefan said:


> Your insistence to "just do what your character would do" is true of all RPGs.



Then why the 24 pages of hostility to the idea?


hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, sometimes people playing certain games will play the rules first, or some games have non-diegetic elements or what have you, but they still do function with a "state what your character wants to do, then we move on to the resolution system" model.



Same with FKR games.


hawkeyefan said:


> The resolution system is generally where we find the significant array of scope.



In other games, maybe. Not in FKR games. The resolution system is bare bones. Intentionally so. To prevent people from focusing on it too much.


hawkeyefan said:


> You seem to be presenting the FKR games as lacking a resolution system



Only if you haven't read my posts about it in this thread.


hawkeyefan said:


> but I don't think think that most FKR games lack a resolution system for actions declared by a player. Most seem to have explicit, albeit simple, rules in this regard. Even the suggestion that is the most basic...."roll 2d6 and higher roll wins" is a resolution system.



Exactly. Most FKR games use that, or BitD, or PbtA, or similar quick and simply resolution mechanics.


hawkeyefan said:


> It lacks a lot, but it's still a resolution system.



Only if you think more widgets is an inherent good. The FKR does not think more is better in regards to mechanics. It minimizes the rules specifically to get them out of the way so players can focus on immersion in the world and their character.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I realize that sarcastic one-liners denigrating people you don't agree with gets people to "like" you, but it's not particularly productive.




I like to try and approach topics with a sense of humor. I actually find that very productive.

I felt answering @Campbell's question using the phrases that have been used to explain the FKR approach would highlight how they aren't really answers to anything.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> So, have you ever had a conversation with someone who is super into the DM (and it will be the "DM" in this case) having ultimate authority over the fiction? And you try to explain a game with player authority over the fiction? And the person responds, "Yeah, dude, but then a player will totally have his character jump over the moon. How do you stop that? Huh?"
> 
> It's aggravating, right? Because we assume good-faith play, and we assume the players are going to act in a manner consistent with the fiction. So answering repeated variations of, "But what if the player is a jerk," isn't helpful.
> 
> ...




Do you think that it takes bad faith for two participants to be on different pages in relation to the fiction? That an extreme example like "jumping over the moon" sheds any light? What if someone said the game is meant to be like the Daniel Craig era Bond films? Okay, that gives us some ideas, and may be very different than some previous Bond eras....but it still may allow for a lot of variation when it comes to expectations RE the fiction.

Which is fine. I think nearly all games need something like this, even ones as highly codified as D&D. You still tend to have a discussion about themes or the feel of a campaign when you get started. And that may even morph along the way, so expectations may shift accordingly, which can cause a mismatch.

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think that "play worlds, not rules" is a bad idea as a principle of play; it's comparable to "fiction first". But it doesn't seem to be much more than one principle.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> At the base of this, however, is the core assumption that you don't worry about the rules, and that you just say what you want to do.
> 
> I totally get that this isn't appealing to many people, but what I don't get is the sheer amount of vitriol this concept seems to generate.




I don't think it's unappealing, I just don't think it's as unique to FKR as is being said, and therefore people are wondering what they're missing.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 12, 2021)

If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?

Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work? What about just hitting someone from behind? Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness? Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic? Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant? How close are we following the tv tropes?

 These questions will probably need a rules framework, so aren't we just then playing a rules light system?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Only if you think more widgets is an inherent good. The FKR does not think more is better in regards to mechanics. It minimizes the rules specifically to get them out of the way so players can focus on immersion in the world and their character.



Can you explain to me what difference there is, if any, between FKR and Fiasco?  If you're not familiar, Fiasco is a game where players agree to a theme, roll on a simple chart to determine some core scene elements, and then roleplay scenes between each other.  At the end of each scene, the other players give each participant either a white (good) or black (bad) die to represent how they think that scene went.  After everyone has a scene, another roll on a simple chart is made to determine what twist happens.  The round is repeated.  At the end, everyone rolls their pools and subtracts the black total from the white total and gets to narrate their character's end accordingly (higher total is good, negative totals are bad).  Resolution here is a few rolls on charts and the end, everything else is freeplay roleplaying.  Is this FKR?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Arilyn said:


> If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?



Maybe, maybe not. A lot can be handled by staying in the fiction (in game).


Arilyn said:


> Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work? What about just hitting someone from behind? Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness? Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic? Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant?



It might. It depends on the fiction (in game).


Arilyn said:


> How close are we following the tv tropes?



Depends on the Referee and the source material. Likely more about binging a few episodes and pulling from those than reading TV tropes.


Arilyn said:


> These questions will probably need a rules framework, so aren't we just then playing a rules light system?



FKR games have a rules framework, it's just ultralight. Most FKR games use some variation of roll 2d6, higher is better. If opposed, roll off with 2d6, higher result wins.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

It looks like FKR play depends on a well developed sense of character, situation, and setting. I would argue that's true for pretty much all play, but we'll let it be. What I am looking is how do we get from let's play a game set in Dune to .....

It's just past the setting of the sun on Arrakis. You are agents of House Serragran, a vassal house attached House Atreides. Your retinue has recently arrived to news that Duke Leto has been assassinated and his heir, Paul has gone missing. You've tracked these Harkonnen spice smugglers down. They seem wary, but you are certain they are not looking for you. What do you do?

How do you know you are playing Corbin Bralek, a reformed spice smuggler who believes _You must watch out for those who watch your back_. How do you how much you care for Anna Margrave? That she cannot resist your roguish charm?

How do we narrow that scope down? How do we go about scenario design? How do we keep the fiction flowing? What about social constraints on play based on player desires?

Resolution mechanics are just about the least important element of RPG design. Getting to that defined place where we get to play our characters is not a simple process. How we do this and keep doing it is one of the most central questions in RPG design.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think it's unappealing, I just don't think it's as unique to FKR as is being said, *and therefore people are wondering what they're missing.*




If it was just that, it would be one thing. But that is not at all what I'm seeing. Look at what we just went through- over and over again about the rules, about the decision making, when the defining characteristic of the FKR games is that the rules don't matter- they aren't the focus. So what you see as surplusage, as a rallying cry, embodies the ethos as well. 

Anyway, there is a fairly large gap between, "Huh, okay. I get it, but it doesn't seem that new or interesting to me," as opposed to the amount of pushback that is being generated. I guess it's because the idea that the imaginary construct (world) has primacy, not the system, is somewhat orthogonal to the idea that the system matters? But I honestly don't know. 

All that said, I will go back to my original point- while the end results of FKR and (say) Fiction First can be very similar*, the process that leads to that is incredibly different. 

*Not to beat a dead horse, but Cthulhu Dark predates FKR, yet the lite version perfectly encapsulates what an FKR game is, and is frequently mentioned by the handful of people into FKR. And, of course, you had people here dispute that it was an FKR game, because reasons. Which is weird.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> It looks like FKR play depends on a well developed sense of character, situation, and setting. I would argue that's _*true for pretty much all play*_, but we'll let it be.



It's really not. Pawn stance is a thing. Beer and pretzels play is a thing. One shots are a thing. A lot of games have that, but not "pretty much all play". Large swathes of the hobby reject that entirely.


Campbell said:


> What I am looking is how do we get from let's play a game set in Dune to .....
> 
> It's just past the setting of the sun on Arrakis. You are agents of House Serragran, a vassal house attached House Atreides. Your retinue has recently arrived to news that Duke Leto has been assassinated and his heir, Paul has gone missing. You've tracked these Harkonnen spice smugglers down. They seem wary, but you are certain they are not looking for you. What do you do?
> 
> How do you know you are playing Corbin Bralek, a reformed spice smuggler who believes _You must watch out for those who watch your back_. How do you how much you care for Anna Margrave? That she cannot resist your roguish charm?



You decide you are. Marvel Heroic character creation. Only there's no power sets to worry about. You just make a character.


Campbell said:


> How do we narrow that scope down?



Referee's pitch.


Campbell said:


> How do we go about scenario design?



The Referee decides.


Campbell said:


> How do we keep the fiction flowing?



By staying in it as much as possible, i.e. avoiding stopping the fiction to engage with the rules as much as possible. And when you have to disengage the fiction to engage the rules, you keep the rules minimalist, resolve quickly, and move back to the fiction.


Campbell said:


> What about social constraints on play based on player desires?



Part of grouping up is doing whatever you can to get everyone on the same page. Typical session 0 stuff.


Campbell said:


> Resolution mechanics are just about the least important element of RPG design.



Hey! Something we agree on.


Campbell said:


> Getting to that defined place where we get to play our characters is not a simple process.



It can be. You just have to let it.


Campbell said:


> How we do this and keep doing it is one of the most central questions in game design.



It's no where near as complicated as you seem to think. People make simple things complicated all the time.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I like to try and approach topics with a sense of humor. I actually find that very productive.



Up until you directly make fun of the people you're trying to talk to, maybe.


hawkeyefan said:


> I felt answering @Campbell's question using the phrases that have been used to explain the FKR approach would highlight how they aren't really answers to anything.



They are answers, they're just not ones people are willing to accept. There's a difference.


hawkeyefan said:


> Do you think that it takes bad faith for two participants to be on different pages in relation to the fiction?



Not at all.


hawkeyefan said:


> That an extreme example like "jumping over the moon" sheds any light? What if someone said the game is meant to be like the Daniel Craig era Bond films? Okay, that gives us some ideas, and may be very different than some previous Bond eras....but it still may allow for a lot of variation when it comes to expectations RE the fiction.



Right. Which is why getting on the same page re: the fiction (source material) is key. Play the world. Going to the source material establishes the world. If the Referee makes any changes to that world, they will say so. Like, Daniel Craig Bond, but no nut torture, for example.


hawkeyefan said:


> Which is fine. I think nearly all games need something like this, even ones as highly codified as D&D. You still tend to have a discussion about themes or the feel of a campaign when you get started. And that may even morph along the way, so expectations may shift accordingly, which can cause a mismatch.



Like any game or group.


hawkeyefan said:


> As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think that "play worlds, not rules" is a bad idea as a principle of play; it's comparable to "fiction first". But it doesn't seem to be much more than one principle.



Why does it need to be more than one principle?


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think it's unappealing, I just don't think it's as unique to FKR as is being said, and therefore people are wondering what they're missing.



FKR isn't really unique in the "here's a new shiny" sense, rather it's unique in that it brings several things together in different ways than before.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> The people repeatedly asking about the rules clearly are.
> 
> Not really, no.




But it is. In the most recent instance, @Campbell even clarified he's asking about the process of play more than the mechanics. If we start with the fiction...."I swing my axe at the orc", then asking what is the process for resolution, that's not putting the rules first. Players declaring what they want their characters to do is a given.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

Arilyn said:


> If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?




Nope. That's the main point of FKR. 


Arilyn said:


> Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work?




Based on the fiction, if you are a Vulcan ... yes, assuming humanoid, and not Gary 7 or a robot. 



Arilyn said:


> What about just hitting someone from behind?




Based on the TOS- usually, yes. Based on the fiction, I would make it automatic for low-level humanoids (guards) and roll for other circumstances.



Arilyn said:


> Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness?




See above.



Arilyn said:


> Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic?




Based on the fiction - some computers, yes. IIRC, the ways you can do it are-

A. Find out an internal inviolable principle, and make the computer aware of the violation (Ultimate Computer, Archons)
B. Find out an internal principle, and have the computer carry it out (Changeling)
C. Something something Mudd and his androids (I, Mudd)



Arilyn said:


> Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant?




In TOS, the Prime Directive matters except when it doesn't. You have to assume good-faith play, so you can't just make a _pro forma_ announcement and then violate the Prime Directive. It's not like the South Park episode where you can kill any animal as long as you say, "It's coming right for us!" But yes, if there is an in-fiction reason that justifies it, why not? 



Arilyn said:


> How close are we following the tv tropes?





How ripped is Kirk's shirt when he needs to engage in some hand-to-hand?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> But it is. In the most recent instance, @Campbell even clarified he's asking about the process of play more than the mechanics. If we start with the fiction...."I swing my axe at the orc", then asking what is the process for resolution, that's not putting the rules first. Players declaring what they want their characters to do is a given.



Sigh. And that's been answered a dozen times. FKR isn't a singular game, it's a style of play, so there is no singular answer to these questions. But generally speaking...

What is the process for resolving an action in an FKR game? Same as most other games. 1. The Referee describes the environment. 2. The players declare what they want their characters to do. 3. The Referee narrates the outcome. If the Referee thinks the mechanics need to come into it, they will use them to inform the narration in step 3.

How does the Referee mechanically resolve an action in an FKR game? They use the resolution mechanic of the game they're playing. Most FKR games use 2d6, roll high. If opposed, both roll 2d6, higher result wins. Players only roll when the Referee asks them to.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If it was just that, it would be one thing. But that is not at all what I'm seeing. Look at what we just went through- over and over again about the rules, about the decision making, when the defining characteristic of the FKR games is that the rules don't matter- they aren't the focus. So what you see as surplusage, as a rallying cry, embodies the ethos as well.




Right, but that's just it....those things are still happening. Rules and decision making are still happening, unless we move past any kind of RPG as we typically define it and move into more freeform storytelling. I think what's problematic is citing "the fiction" as being the rules and the decsion making. I don't think that's a legit answer; it's like saying it's my keyboard that's responding to you. There's more to it than that.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Anyway, there is a fairly large gap between, "Huh, okay. I get it, but it doesn't seem that new or interesting to me," as opposed to the amount of pushback that is being generated. I guess it's because the idea that the imaginary construct (world) has primacy, not the system, is somewhat orthogonal to the idea that the system matters? But I honestly don't know.




Oh I'm not saying that some of the games are not interesting to me. I looked through several, and there are some I'd willingly play. I don't know if I ever will because I already have a list of games I want to get to, but it's possible. I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that.....I just don't really care about FKR as a label.

Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. The system it uses is a large part of the appeal.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sigh. And that's been answered a dozen times. FKR isn't a singular game, it's a style of play, so there is no singular answer to these questions. But generally speaking...
> 
> What is the process for resolving an action in an FKR game? Same as most other games. 1. The Referee describes the environment. 2. The players declare what they want their characters to do. 3. The Referee narrates the outcome. If the Referee thinks the mechanics need to come into it, they will use them to inform the narration in step 3.
> 
> How does the Referee mechanically resolve an action in an FKR game? They use the resolution mechanic of the game they're playing. Most FKR games use 2d6, roll high. If opposed, both roll 2d6, higher result wins. Players only roll when the Referee asks them to.



Can the GM ever choose to resolve things using a different method?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Oh I'm not saying that some of the games are not interesting to me. I looked through several, and there are some I'd willingly play. I don't know if I ever will because I already have a list of games I want to get to, but it's possible. I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that.....I just don't really care about FKR as a label.
> 
> Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. *The system it uses is a large part of the appeal*.




Ugh. No. What is "the system" of an FKR game, other than being "rule lite." There is no single "the system." That's the whole point. Unless by "the system" you mean, "There is no specific system, other than a preference for minimal rules and a concentration on the fiction." 

To a certain extent, FKR deliberately offloads the complexity of rulesets onto the participants of the game. Some might find that refreshing and freeing- the realization that most rules aren't necessary when the fiction can guide you. Some might find that empowering- that they can create the rules when they need to. 

Others might not- it's difficult to transition from the ability to rely on a specific system to relying on shared understanding, occasionally mediated by minimal rules.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Up until you directly make fun of the people you're trying to talk to, maybe.




There's a difference between making fun of you and pointing out how a phrase you keep using hasn't shed any light on what would otherwise seem like something you're trying to shed light on.



overgeeked said:


> They are answers, they're just not ones people are willing to accept. There's a difference.




No, sorry. "Play the world" doesn't answer "what happens when I swing my axe at the orc" or any other action declaration. It's just not an answer.



overgeeked said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Right. Which is why getting on the same page re: the fiction (source material) is key. Play the world. Going to the source material establishes the world. If the Referee makes any changes to that world, they will say so. Like, Daniel Craig Bond, but no nut torture, for example.




I'd be less worried about the torture scene and other lines and veils type concerns, and more about the appropriate genre tropes. Even just within the Daniel Craig films, things can vary pretty significantly. 

And looking at Casino Royale, how would the card game be resolved? "Play the world" again does not answer this. How do we determine if Bond can outplay Le Chiffre? 

Some games, even FKR games, will have very clear answers about this.



overgeeked said:


> Like any game or group.




Right. So what's different?



overgeeked said:


> Why does it need to be more than one principle?




Need to be? It doesn't really need to be in and of itself. But it certainly seems like it must be in order to differentiate itself from other styles of games and how they do things, and to fit with the idea that it is a combo of several things.



overgeeked said:


> FKR isn't really unique in the "here's a new shiny" sense, rather it's unique in that it brings several things together in different ways than before.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

This might not be fair to the overall FKR, but at least the proponents of it in this thread seem to raising a steel wall when it comes to the decisions GMs are making about what happens in the fiction, how the setting is designed, and how scenarios are designed. To me those decision making processes are the most important part of any RPG design and how that process works out in play is instrumental in my decision to play or not play a given game. It feels like you guys do not think players should have any meaningful expectations about the game's content. Is that fair?

To clarify I favor games with a strong GM role and like many of those decisions being in the GM's hands, but I want a view into the process to tell if a game is worth my time.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think what's problematic is citing "the fiction" as being the rules and the decsion making. *I don't think that's a legit answer...*



And there's the disconnect. People playing FKR games disagree. It's just as valid as any other answer. 

What would your character do? It depends on the character and the world they inhabit. Superman will react differently to Metropolis than Batman reacts to Gotham. Put Batman in Metropolis and there's a clash of contexts and expectation. Put Superman in Gotham and there's a clash of contexts and expectations. You can still turn those situations into game material, but it takes more work. 

Fiction is used two ways. Your typical gamer "fiction first" as in the fiction of the in-character shared delusion play. And fiction as the source material. The source material absolutely can and does set the rules for the game. 

What can my character do? It depends on the character and the world they inhabit. Can people fly? Not in Wuthering Heights...but they can in superhero fiction.


hawkeyefan said:


> I've already played Cthulhu Dark, and I found that refreshing compared to most other games that might be played to deliver a Lovecraftian game. I have nothing against rules lite games or the idea of fiction first or any of that...



What was refreshing about it?


hawkeyefan said:


> I just don't really care about FKR as a label.



Other than the horrendous font, what's wrong with the label?


hawkeyefan said:


> Nor do I think that the fiction mattering first is dichotomous with system matters. I mean, it would seem to me that for some folks, the decision to play an FKR game clearly matters. The system it uses is a large part of the appeal.



For me, the appeal is not just the ultralight systems, it's fiction first, immersive play, brains before dice, and the explicit ability to use anything as source material using "one" system. I'm fully aware that all these things exist already in the RPG space, but they haven't come together in quite the same way as the FKR. Other games do some of the same things, but not others.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Ugh. No.




My joke was unproductive, but the above is cool?



Snarf Zagyg said:


> What is "the system" of an FKR game, other than being "rule lite." There is no single "the system." That's the whole point. Unless by "the system" you mean, "There is no specific system, other than a preference for minimal rules and a concentration on the fiction."




Yes, pick any FKR game. Whatever method of resolution that game uses is one of the appeals of that game. Having a rules light game is a decision made with a purpose.  It will appeal to people who want the kind of game it will produce. 

How the game functions will matter.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 12, 2021)

System is more than resolution frameworks. It includes how content is generated, how we define characters, backstory authority, how we are expected to engage with the content. System in the sense that system matters talks about is just the entire design of the game. It goes way beyond resolution mechanics. It probably should have been stated as _design matters_ instead.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 12, 2021)

This is going to sound strange, considering I spent bundles of energy defending PbtA / FitD / Ironsworn in the Apocalypse World thread, but I can kind-of, sort-of understand what FKR is aiming at, a bit . . . .

Our current game of Tiny Frontiers (Tiny D6 sci-fi in space) is probably pretty close to an "FKR" experience in a lot of ways.

If you read through the Tiny Frontiers rulebook, there's almost nothing there. The entire mechanic is basically, "Roll 1d6 if it's something you're terrible at or disadvantaged, roll 2d6 if it's 'normal' circumstances, or roll 3d6 if it's something you're good at / advantaged. As long as you get a 5 or 6 on any of the dice you roll, it's a success. A critical success is if you roll a 6 on any two dice (meaning you can't critically succeed on a disadvantaged roll)."

There's no other bonuses or mechanical modifiers to anything. Literally none.

There's a very small count of minor racial trait adjustments that give circumstantial "advantage" rolls, an absolute bare-bones hit point system, and maybe 10-15 pages of slightly more "layered" rules for damage, armor ablation, and a pretty nifty theater-of-the-mind space combat system that is actually tremendously more fun than it has any right to be.

But it 1000% falls into the "minimalist" camp of design. And though it's unstated in the rulebook, it quite obviously and heavily leans into the notion of "GM decides" as the primary loop of play.

So I recognize what FKR proponents are saying about fictional positioning being the pre-eminent determinant of 'what's possible' in the game. There's nothing in the rules that says what happens when you punch a hole in a space cruiser with an assault rifle, it's just assumed that we'll all sort of agree that rapid decompression is the likely result---and if we don't agree, the GM is supposed to just jump in and say, "This is how it is."

As a result, I can sort of picture what the FKR proponents are saying, where the first basic input of action declaration is, "Where are we in relation to the assumed fictional universe?" Because in our Tiny Frontiers game, so much is just assumed / hand waved / ignored until suddenly it's relevant, and someone has to decide whether it works or not. For reference, the basic campaign setting for our game is the universe of the video game _Deep Rock Galactic _(which, apropos of nothing, is an awesome game in its own right).

But beyond saying "Okay, we're in _Deep Rock Galactic_," there are zero governing principles in the game rules about who is allowed to introduce _what kinds of things_ into the fiction and _when they are allowed to do it_. On absolutely no level would I consider it to be a "high agency" game.

And like @pemerton has noted, Tiny Frontiers really only works as a "ruleset" when its immediate focus is on _tactical engagement --- _it's highly gamist in that way. There's no rules, stated or implied, to introduce any kind of relationship / consequence / background milieu information through the players, other than the players just throwing things out there and seeing what sticks with the GM.

In a way, it feels like FKR is basically a complete surrender to the idea of "illusionism as principled play." I have no idea how our GM is really handling the inner workings of the fiction behind the scenes. What is determined as "meaningful" or "matters to the characters / matters to the fiction" is entirely behind an impenetrable "GM Third Wall."

If Tiny Frontiers leans heavily into the realm of FKR --- and everything I've read of FKR in this thread would seem to point that way --- I would find it difficult to see how FKR is viable for anything more than short-term play (mini-campaigns of 6-10 sessions), and only in circumstances where player-character actions are allowed to resonate within highly pre-framed areas of play that focus on tactical engagement.

Truthfully I was skeptical as to whether Tiny Frontiers had enough "bones" to really be fun, and I was wary of the GM, having had to suffer through a largely "setting tourist" campaign of Savage Worlds: Shaintar with him previously.

But strangely, and in spite of my misgivings, Tiny Frontiers has been a lot of fun, probably because our game has largely stayed within that fairly limited framework ("We're space dwarves, mining and hunting alien artifacts, swilling beer, and blowing stuff up!"). It's not what I'd choose to run/play all the time, but it's certainly been a worthy 4-month diversion from other games we've played.

TL;DR --- Imagine stripping away the entire D&D 5e ruleset until all that's left is rolling normally, advantaged, or disadvantaged on a static TN of 9 for all rolls. Characters get one, maybe two racial traits / feats that gives circumstantial advantage rolls. All damage is normalized as 2, 3, or 4 points per roll (and no others). Your amazing, hand-picked, "highly trusted" GM has final say in all other fictional positioning arbitration. Oh, and you occasionally get to play a fun "pirate ship" sailing mini-game, if you want. If you can picture the sort of game that would arise from that core conceit, you're getting pretty close to the realm of FKR.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Is that fair?



Not at all.


Campbell said:


> This might not be fair to the overall FKR, but at least the proponents of it in this thread seem to raising a steel wall when it comes to the decisions GMs are making about what happens in the fiction..



They're resolved the same as any other game. As we've said. A dozen times.


Campbell said:


> how the setting is designed...



The setting is mostly designed by other writers and artists. The Referee points to a piece of fiction or art and says, "Let's play that." There's your setting design.  


Campbell said:


> and how scenarios are designed.



How does a player view the process of the Referee designing a scenario without spoiling the fun and surprise of playing through that scenario? They can't. The closest you can get is something like "it's a dungeon crawl" or "West Marches in space" or "you're spice pirates on Arrakis during the transition between Atreides and Harkonnen". Do you want to know generally what to expect? Engage with the source material. We're playing FKR Star Trek TOS...so maybe watch a few TOS episodes. The scenarios will look like that.


Campbell said:


> To me those decision making processes are the most important part of any RPG design and how that process works out in play is instrumental in my decision to play or not play a given game.



FKR games are: Pick a fun bit of pop culture. Start playing. What more do you need?


Campbell said:


> It feels like you guys do not think players should have any meaningful expectations about the game's content.



That's mysteriously the opposite of what's been said. The players know exactly what they're getting into up front. "Would you like to play FKR Star Trek? Yes / No." That's not what you're claiming at all. How much more detail does the player need? Which era? TOS. Enterprise or not. Not. Bridge crew or not. Bridge crew. Etc. At a certain point you're just talking about playing the game instead of just playing. 


Campbell said:


> To clarify I favor games with a strong GM role and like many of those decisions being in the GM's hands, but I want a view into the process to tell if a game is worth my time.



You've been given that. You just reject the answers.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> My joke was unproductive, but the above is cool?




Well, your "joke" was mocking people you don't agree with in a sarcastic manner. 

Put another way, if you're engaged in a discussion (or argument) with someone, and you turn to your friend and mock the people you don't agree with, it is unlikely to help matters. As has been pointed out to you by two people now.

But yes, I should not have put in ugh, and I apologize- I was not mocking you, or "joking," but expressing a kneejerk exasperation that you keep treating all FKR games as having a single "system." 




hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, pick any FKR game. Whatever method of resolution that game uses is one of the appeals of that game. Having a rules light game is a decision made with a purpose.  It will appeal to people who want the kind of game it will produce.
> 
> How the game functions will matter.




As I was saying .... your second sentence talks about the resolution system within a single game, then your third sentence discusses "rules light" games in general (that the decision to be rule lite is the system?), your fourth sentence seems to refer to the third (the rules lite, shared fiction) ...

And then your last sentence wraps back to the second- which is to say, how the game functions (the published rules) are not important; simply put, you can have the same shared fiction (the part that matters) with different resolution mechanics, and the point isn't the resolution mechanics.

But I don't think this is productive.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 12, 2021)

My investment in FKR over the few threads we've had on it recently amounts to, "hey, I found this blog post with some interesting and provocative ideas."  I'm experiencing the collective response to be something like, "No!  That blog post is _*objectively uninteresting*_!!" 

That is, from what I can gather the people in this discussion who find some of these ideas interesting are not evangelists for the FKR brand, or at least I am not.  My 'criteria' when I read these blog posts is that there may be an idea that is thought provoking and provides a new perspective that I could bring to my game (e.g. do I need this gigantic keeper's book for Call of Cthulhu?  Here's a "Cthulhu"-themed game that's four pages.  In fact, here's a short story by Lovecraft, let's just start there. etc). Whereas others are  asking/demanding that whoever is in charge of this dang FKR movement to provide a thesis statement and a coherent articulation of core principles using the existing lexicon of rpg theory and vis-a-vis all other forms of rpgs on the market.

Put differently, I'm personally interested in playing an FKR game (either one of the specific games marked FKR on itch, or more likely just a game in an FKR-style).  Very little that has been said this discussion gets me closer to that goal of running a successful FKR game, mostly because the criticism of these games are coming from people who have already decided that they would not like to play these games or in this particular style.

I will say part of what appeals to me, probably, is exactly the qualities that annoy other people, namely the incoherence and incompleteness of it all.  In that it way its overall aesthetic is probably an extension of the "-punk" aspect of the osr, plus the youthfulness of diy spaces like itch and discord (and, certainly, that corner of the osr is not without its very serious problems!  Hopefully we are more attuned to that now).

Similarly it has been posited that the fkr ideas are nothing new.  Putting aside that this is a somewhat odd criticism to make of a 'movement' that makes explicit and constant reference to the 70s (19- or 18-...), it is perhaps apt in that I see, in between the lines, a gesture of forgetting and unlearning.  There is something of a fascination of the hobby in its pre-1974 childhood, or to our actual childhoods, seeing in them both the core of our "play-pretend" games and also a space that had not yet been overly defined.  The aim might be to recapture that exploratory mode.

Somewhat of a leap, but I'll mention I teach young people for a living, and their political sensibilities are inchoate, exploratory, sometimes predictably idealistic.  One might be inclined to always ask of them, "but what is your agenda?  What are your principles?  But all of this has been tried before, and you are doomed to failure.  You need to be practical."  And of course youthful energy can be co-opted in a number of ways.  On the other hand, this is to somewhat miss the point, and there is always something in their inclinations that seems essential even if they cannot always cogently articulate it.




Campbell said:


> View attachment 145170
> 
> This is my bookshelf. There are many like it, but this one is mine. There are many sorts of games here.



But what about your bookshelf full of novels?  Or of history books?  Could those be thought of as game books or as setting books?




Aldarc said:


> I don't think that I'm inherently hostile to FKR.



 I totally don't believe you!  Weren't you arguing that fkr was tyrannical in its implicit micro politics?



Ovinomancer said:


> To follow on this, I think you might be thinking that game design is about developing rules to play?  That's part of it, but it's also the goals of play, the principles of play to support those goals, and the way you play.  The rules are part of that third thing, but not all of it.
> 
> I'm an engineer.  If you said that engineering design is just about specifying which screws hold a chair together and you'd rather just wing it with whatever you have at hand and works so you don't do design, I'd be very confused.  Because just the idea of a chair is part of design -- what is it intended for, how will it be used, what shape does it need to be, how large, how strong, how pretty or utilitarian, how much can it weigh, how many do I need to make, how long will it last, how do we dispose of it, how does it need to be maintained.  Screw specification is in there, as a part of how strong the chair needs to be and disposal and maintenance and even aesthetics, but that's not the entirety of design or even the barest fraction of how you design a chair.




re: invisible rulebooks.  I understand them to the be the "rules" around genre.  How do we know when we are reading a hardboiled noir novel vs a more conventional mystery novel? How do we know when we are listening to slowcore vs postrock?  Further, as someone who teaches literary genre, I've found that you can try to enumerate key features, tropes, and styles, but that all these attempts at hard delineation, to make the "rulebooks" visible, as it were,, are less useful than to proceed through reading (or listening, or watching).  In other words:



Snarf Zagyg said:


> And the reason is because the design (in terms of the rules) takes a backseat to the play. That might seem bass-ackwards to you, but that's how it works. This keeps getting reiterated by the same people who are trying it out, and the response always seems to be variations of, "What about the design? What about the rules?"



yep



Campbell said:


> I started roleplaying with freeform message board roleplaying when I was 10. I have done freeform in person. I enjoy parlor LARPs. These are questions that need to have answers even if they are informal. Most freeform communities have a pretty well developed process. Sometimes there are formal guidelines. Sometimes informal, but there is a discipline to doing it well. I am looking for the discipline here.



That's interesting!  Do you have any links to these guidelines and such?  I believe some of this was the reference point for "OC" style games, but I missed out on that whole phenomenon, being out of the hobby for most of the current century.



hawkeyefan said:


> Your insistence to "just do what your character would do" is true of all RPGs.




Not really related to the point you are making here, but I do notice an interesting double movement in the criticism in this discussion.  There is 1) the criticism that FKR cannot be distinguished from other rpgs and, seperately, 2) criticisms of the fundamental presumptions of the role of the gm and player in fkr games.  The interesting effect, for me, has been that the criticism in this discussion has moved away from FKR specifically (because, per (1), it lacks specificity) and to some of the foundational aspects of role playing games as a distinct medium more generally (for example, the digression where @overgeeked posted the definition/explanation of the core elements of an rpg as provided by the dnd 5e phb, but without explicitly marking it as such.  Leading to criticisms that applied equally well to FKR--a ultra niche set of games that next to no one is playing--and 5th ed dnd, the most historically popular rpg on the market).


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> There's a difference between making fun of you and pointing out how a phrase you keep using hasn't shed any light on what would otherwise seem like something you're trying to shed light on.



There's a difference between whether something sheds light and whether your eyes are closed.


hawkeyefan said:


> No, sorry. "Play the world" doesn't answer "what happens when I swing my axe at the orc" or any other action declaration. It's just not an answer.



It is. It's just not one you will accept. There's a difference.


hawkeyefan said:


> I'd be less worried about the torture scene and other lines and veils type concerns, and more about the appropriate genre tropes. Even just within the Daniel Craig films, things can vary pretty significantly.



Sure. And as a responsible Referee you should cover that in your session 0.


hawkeyefan said:


> And looking at Casino Royale, how would the card game be resolved? "Play the world" again does not answer this.



Any way you want. I've seen people bust out actual cards and play. You can also simply roll. Two players (or a player and Referee) roll 2d6 each, higher result wins.


hawkeyefan said:


> How do we determine if Bond can outplay Le Chiffre?



Depends on the specific game. Some have traits that give you extra dice, some just roll, and some bust out the cards and play a hand.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 12, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> And there's the disconnect. People playing FKR games disagree. It's just as valid as any other answer.
> 
> What would your character do? It depends on the character and the world they inhabit. Superman will react differently to Metropolis than Batman reacts to Gotham. Put Batman in Metropolis and there's a clash of contexts and expectation. Put Superman in Gotham and there's a clash of contexts and expectations. You can still turn those situations into game material, but it takes more work.
> 
> ...




How will Batman react to Metropolis? The Fiction!

It's not an answer. The Fiction doesn't decide how Batman will react to Metropolis or anything else. The person writing the story decides. They certainly may draw upon previously established fiction related to Batman and to Metropolis....but that doesn't mean that there's a clear conclusion. One person may go one way, another may go in an entirely different direction.

When it comes to games, a mutual understanding of genre and trope and play expectations are all good things. But these are tools used to play. So we have ideas about Batman and his world and all that. But let's take an example of Batman trying to convince someone to not follow through on some scheme. 


Can Batman convince a bank robber who's grabbed a teller to drop his gun and let her go? 
Can Batman convince Joker not to drop the barrel of poison into Gotham's water supply?
Can Bruce Wayne convince Lex Luthor not to proceed with his hostile takeover of Wayne Enterprises? 
Can Batman convince Catwoman to go straight and give up a life of crime? 
These are all slightly different variations on the same basic scenario, but each has different factors that can influence the outcome. These are also scenes that could go either way; there is no certain outcome in any of them. So the fiction is not telling us how they are resolved. How a game handles that is very important to me as a player in order to understand Batman's chances of success, and for me to feel immersed in the game world and not just observing it.

Now, filtered through the general idea of FKR, there are a number of ways this could be handled. Maybe as a bonus or a penalty to the player's roll, or to the GM's opposed roll if that's how we go. Maybe roll 3d6 and keep the highest two for an advantage, or lowest two for some kind of disadvantage. 

What exactly happens if Batman Succeeds? What if he doesn't? Who decides these answers? What happens if an opposed roll is a tie?




overgeeked said:


> What was refreshing about it?




It was simple. It was elegant in that it did a lot of what Call of Cthulhu does with far less rules.



overgeeked said:


> Other than the horrendous font, what's wrong with the label?




I didn't say anything was wrong with it; just that I'm not invested in it.



overgeeked said:


> For me, the appeal is not just the ultralight systems, it's fiction first, immersive play, brains before dice, and the explicit ability to use anything as source material using "one" system. I'm fully aware that all these things exist already in the RPG space, but they haven't come together in quite the same way as the FKR. Other games do some of the same things, but not others.




This is all absolutely great. I'm glad these games are doing what you want them to do.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

Campbell said:


> *This might not be fair to the overall FKR*, but at least the proponents of it in this thread seem to raising a steel wall when it comes to the decisions GMs are making about what happens in the fiction, how the setting is designed, and how scenarios are designed. To me those decision making processes are the most important part of any RPG design and how that process works out in play is instrumental in my decision to play or not play a given game. It feels like you guys do not think players should have any meaningful expectations about the game's content.* Is that fair?*




Weirdly, you answered your own question.



Campbell said:


> To clarify I favor games with a strong GM role and like many of those decisions being in the GM's hands, but I want a view into the process to tell if a game is worth my time.




Then try one. As a one-shot. You'll probably spend less time than we have here. 

We all learn more by doing. Clearly, no amount of "tell" will work, so why not try "show?"


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> My investment in FKR over the few threads we've had on it recently amounts to, "hey, I found this blog post with some interesting and provocative ideas."  I'm experiencing the collective response to be something like, "No!  That blog post is _*objectively uninteresting*_!!"
> 
> That is, from what I can gather the people in this discussion who find some of these ideas interesting are not evangelists for the FKR brand, or at least I am not.  My 'criteria' when I read these blog posts is that there may be an idea that is thought provoking and provides a new perspective that I could bring to my game (e.g. do I need this gigantic keeper's book for Call of Cthulhu?  Here's a "Cthulhu"-themed game that's four pages.  In fact, here's a short story by Lovecraft, let's just start there. etc). Whereas others are  asking/demanding that whoever is in charge of this dang FKR movement to provide a thesis statement and a coherent articulation of core principles using the existing lexicon of rpg theory and vis-a-vis all other forms of rpgs on the market.
> 
> ...



I'm not at all hostile to FKR.  So far, it seems to have the same GM-as-central-authority that 5e has, if turned up a bit, and I like 5e, so that's not a problem.  I like Cthulhu Dark's system, and it's been claimed as an FKR game (although I'm not sure anymore if anyone's still doing this).  What I'm trying to elicit is what exactly makes FKR different and what are the defining traits of the approach.  I can enumerate these for lots of other games - the hows and whys.  I get seem to get anything for FKR except buzzphrases and generalities.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 12, 2021)

innerdude said:


> In a way, it feels like FKR is basically a complete surrender to the idea of "illusionism as principled play." I have no idea how our GM is really handling the inner workings of the fiction behind the scenes. What is determined as "meaningful" or "matters to the characters / matters to the fiction" is entirely behind an impenetrable "GM Third Wall."




One thing I would say here is that while I agree that some FKR games are like this, other FKR games very much allow player authorship of the fiction through explicit rules. 

I know that's unsatisfying, but the division of authority with final authority lying with the referee (GM Third Wall) is not an absolute requirement for an FKR game.


innerdude said:


> If Tiny Frontiers leans heavily into the realm of FKR --- and everything I've read of FKR in this thread would seem to point that way --- I would find it difficult to see how FKR is viable for anything more than short-term play (mini-campaigns of 6-10 sessions), and only in circumstances where player-character actions are allowed to resonate within highly pre-framed areas of play that focus on tactical engagement.




This, I agree with. I think that _most_ FKR games are best for short-term play (as you correctly note, mini-campaigns).

I think that it would be possible to run a full-on FKR campaign that's long term, but at a certain point, I'm guessing that there would need to be iterative rules generated by the table to allow for persistent and enriching play.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 12, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I totally don't believe you!  Weren't you arguing that fkr was tyrannical in its implicit micro politics?



That had a lot to do with the language and rhetoric used surrounding it, particularly based on Ben Milton's framing of FKR.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 12, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> How will Batman react to Metropolis? The Fiction!



Exactly.


hawkeyefan said:


> It's not an answer.



Yeah, it really is. Here, let me show you...


hawkeyefan said:


> The Fiction doesn't decide how Batman will react to Metropolis or anything else. The person writing the story decides. They certainly may* draw upon previously established fiction* related to Batman and to Metropolis....but that doesn't mean that there's a clear conclusion.



And there it is. Exactly. Past is prologue. There's 82 years of Batman lore to draw from. Though the few early years don't quite match up with the rest of it, there's some serious weight to the character's history. So when Batman starts acting out of character, most fans can spot it immediately. There might be things that are causing Batman to act that way the reader doesn't know yet, but unless there are unknown reasons, most fans would be right in their "that's out of character" assessment. So no, the fiction doesn't decide per se, but it does narrow the options. Thinning the field as it were. It provides expectations. Rules, if you like. 

You can't have Batman suddenly start murdering people without raising more than a few eyebrows. Why? Because that's wildly out of character for Batman. Why? Because the fiction has established rules for his behavior. The fiction has established rules for how superheroes behave. We know that Batman plays the hard bad cop type in Gotham and we know that Superman plays the boyscout good cop in Metropolis. So if we put the bad cop in the good cop's city...sparks will fly. It's a situation with inherent tension. That's story and drama. Many comics have been written with less. I don't see why we'd need more to play a game of pretend.


hawkeyefan said:


> One person may go one way, another may go in an entirely different direction.



Exactly. That's the fun of it. Not knowing. Being surprised. As PbtA games put it, play to find out.


hawkeyefan said:


> When it comes to games, a mutual understanding of genre and trope and play expectations are all good things. But these are tools used to play. So we have ideas about Batman and his world and all that. But let's take an example of Batman trying to convince someone to not follow through on some scheme.
> 
> Can Batman convince a bank robber who's grabbed a teller to drop his gun and let her go?
> Can Batman convince Joker not to drop the barrel of poison into Gotham's water supply?
> ...



Exactly. All established and defined by...wait for it...the fiction. The answers depend on the fiction. Is Batman in a hurry to get to the Joker and stop him from dumping those chemicals? Then he's just going to throw a batarang at the bank robber and be done with it. And of course Batman can't convince the Joker of anything. He's the Joker. Batman would have already thought of Lex taking over Wayne Enterprises and made sure it couldn't happen. Like not selling his majority share of the company. Batman has and will again in the future convince Catwoman to go straight...for a short time. But it won't last.


hawkeyefan said:


> These are also scenes that could go either way; there is no certain outcome in any of them. So the fiction is not telling us how they are resolved.



No, but they are telling us what our options for resolving them are. Is Batman going to get Catwoman to permanently give up crime? Nope. Never happen. Is Batman going to convince the Joker to not murder people? Nope. Never happen. 

You're putting the tension in the wrong spot to make a point. The tension in those scenes isn't whether Catwoman will go straight or whether Joker drops the chemicals. It's how long she'll be straight, what kind of team ups she and Batman have in the mean time, and what will finally make her go back on her word and start stealing again. It's in how Batman manages to save the people from death despite the Joker devising a super devious but utterly insane death trap.


hawkeyefan said:


> How a game handles that is very important to me as a player in order to understand Batman's chances of success, and for me to feel immersed in the game world and not just observing it.



I know you hate it, but it depends on the fiction. If Batman says the right things, Catwoman will go straight for a time. No roll required. And no matter what Batman says, Joker will always drop the chemicals. No roll required. Batman only talks to Joker to stall and to hear the jokes to try on Alfred back home.


hawkeyefan said:


> Now, filtered through the general idea of FKR, there are a number of ways this could be handled. Maybe as a bonus or a penalty to the player's roll, or to the GM's opposed roll if that's how we go. Maybe roll 3d6 and keep the highest two for an advantage, or lowest two for some kind of disadvantage.



All absolutely viable options. If you need a mechanical resolution.


hawkeyefan said:


> What exactly happens if Batman Succeeds? What if he doesn't?



It depends on the fiction. I gave some details above.


hawkeyefan said:


> Who decides these answers?



Generally the Referee. Some FKR games have shared authority but most are strong Referee authority.


hawkeyefan said:


> What happens if an opposed roll is a tie?



Re-roll until there's a winner or describe what a tie would look like in the fiction. Spider-Man holding webs stopping both a train full of people and his girlfriend from falling to their deaths. That seems like a tie to me. Clearly not a win as no one is saved. Clearly not a failure as no one's dead...yet.


hawkeyefan said:


> It was simple. It was elegant in that it did a lot of what Call of Cthulhu does with far less rules.



And that's one goal the FKR is pursuing.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> One thing I would say here is that while I agree that some FKR games are like this, other FKR games very much allow player authorship of the fiction through explicit rules.
> 
> I know that's unsatisfying, but the division of authority with final authority lying with the referee (GM Third Wall) is not an absolute requirement for an FKR game.
> 
> ...




One interesting note, is that the Wuthering Heights game that @pemerton has linked to and recommended appears to be a recreation of the game the Bronte siblings played, using the rules from an 18thc French game that they probably had access to.  But afaik, we don't know for sure what, if any, rules the siblings used for their "game."  It appears to be some part collaborative worldbuilding, and then telling stories and inhabiting characters within that world.  Whatever it is, it sounds like great fun!



> It may sound closer to a game of ‘let's pretend’ or a creative writing exercise - and it was both of those things - but this imaginative fantasy of the Brontës' creation also had a lot in common with a modern tabletop roleplaying game.












						The authors of Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre were roleplaying long before Dungeons & Dragons
					

In 1845, two years before Wuthering Heights was published, Emily Brontë shared a train trip to York with her siste…




					www.dicebreaker.com


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 12, 2021)

There's a good series of blog articles about FKR over on Darkworm Colt. Obviously not exhaustive, but I found them helpful in figuring out what the heck we're talking about here.

Edit: Darkworm Colt is Norbert Matausch, who started the FKR movement with another fellow. Anyway...


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> what happens is I decide on a course of action and then filter it through my character.



That's not what I do. I told you what I do. But you'll refuse to believe me, probably tell me I'm deluded or lying.  _sigh_


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But that's just it. Not to reiterate what @overgeeked just said, but you're not asking the right question. And trust me, I get it. I really do- earlier in the thread I explained how it took me a year (really, I'm not exaggerating) to run my first diceless game eons ago because I just didn't get it. I couldn't wrap my head around it.




I've often had the experience of 'not getting' a game or a play style. I assume the fault is with me, not with those who do enjoy that game or play style.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

Arilyn said:


> If a group is all on board for playing original series Star Trek, and are invested fans, isn't there still going to be questions that need to be nailed down in a rules way?
> 
> Will my Vulcan nerve pinch automatically work? What about just hitting someone from behind? Will that cause the target to instantly lose consciousness? Can I talk computers into self destruction with a string of logic or illogic? Can I wriggle out of the prime directive rules by stating that the culture was stagnant? How close are we following the tv tropes?
> 
> These questions will probably need a rules framework




You're not ok with "Play and find out"?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2021)

innerdude said:


> In a way, it feels like FKR is basically a complete surrender to the idea of "illusionism as principled play."



In Illusionist play the player choices have no influence on the outcomes, which are pre-determined. I think you're saying you suspect your GM is doing this?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> That's not what I do. I told you what I do. But you'll refuse to believe me, probably tell me I'm deluded or lying.  _sigh_



Okay.  Here's a check, though -- ask someone else to play the character.  Will the choices they make be the same as yours?


----------



## Baba (Oct 12, 2021)

This pattern. I know it.

The Harbinger of the New Wine will say: Look! This is the New Wine! You may have tasted wine before, but never like this - this is a taste and a smell that was just recently born, and it is wondrous and fresh and worthy of admiration! There’s nothing wrong with that older, slightly unimaginative wine that you have been drinking, but THIS never-before-seen wine is RADIANT! And also new.

Then the Warden who protects the world from too much enthusiasm will say: This is not new. I did this in 1978, or at the very least I know of someone who talked about doing it back then. And it was the very same thing, or close to it, and furthermore, it is not so very interesting. There are more interesting things that I have been doing for many years now. In fact, that thing that you are describing: Is it really a proper thing at all? It doesn’t fit very well in this box that I have made where things are supposed to fit.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I've often had the experience of 'not getting' a game or a play style. I assume the fault is with me, not with those who do enjoy that game or play style.



Sure, which is why we're asking questions.  "Play the world, not the rules" or "fiction" or "fun" are not useful answers though.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 12, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> There's a good series of blog articles about FKR over on Darkworm Colt. Obviously not exhaustive, but I found them helpful in figuring out what the heck we're talking about here.
> 
> Edit: Darkworm Colt is Norbert Matausch, who started the FKR movement with another fellow. Anyway...



I read those.  My takeaway is that FKR (according to that blog) is about emulating either a general or period piece.  Resolution is primarily GM's conception of the situation, with a fallback to a simple, random resolution system, with secret GM modifiers to the rolls as needed.  There's a different system presented on that blog that appears to be the GM assigning a die type (d4 to d20) to the player based on their action and how good they are at it (not clear if this is static based on character sheet entries or if it's situational or both) and the assigning a die type to the challenge, highest roll wins.  This is also a bit random, although, again, I'm unclear if player action declaration is a feed-in to this so that skillful declaration or manipulation of the fiction alters the odds.  The presentation of the system doesn't seem to indicate this, but I might have missed something.

All-in-all, it feels like a movement that's dismissive of actual game design and play principles and is trying to claim freeform RP and pair it with a random resolution system for some things.  I'm not even really clear on when the random resolution system is supposed to be engaged -- it appears to be whenever the GM wants to use it?


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> You're not ok with "Play and find out"?



I'm ok with it, but it's nice to know certain things. As a Vulcan I'd know how reliable my nerve pinch is, for example. Sure, in the show it just works but the GM might feel that a roll is required. As a player these things are good to know, and not for some gamey reason, but for a sense of how my world works.

I'd have trouble getting into the spirit of the game if I'm not sure, as a player, what that means. Playing TOS is a great starting point but there'd definitely be nuances between GMs. Is it a more realistic version of TOS, or are we going all in with the old show? The "rules" in this case are not putting constraints on me, but freeing me from second guessing.

This could definitely be settled before play, but then wouldn't rules start creeping in? We'd decide that the nerve pinch just works, or that there'd  a roll involved. And then the rules would be kept track of for consistency's sake, and then we'd end up with a rules light game. And this might be perfectly fine. But there'd still be rules players are adopting and understanding, and no longer just playing the world.

Some seem to be saying Cthulhu Dark is a FKR, but when I play it, I have some structure informing me how the world works. If I had a Star Trek version I'd know the tropes of that game version and know about my nerve pinch or odds of causing sentient computers to self destruct. If Cthulhu Dark is FKR then I guess I have no complaints.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Cthulhu Dark predates FKR, yet the lite version perfectly encapsulates what an FKR game is, and is frequently mentioned by the handful of people into FKR. And, of course, you had people here dispute that it was an FKR game, because reasons. Which is weird.



Upthread I posted this:


pemerton said:


> Is Cthuhu Dark a FKR game?



And got no reply.

I've asked whether Wuthering Heights would count as FKR. And likewise have had no reply. I've talked at some length about Classic Traveller, with reference to Christopher Kubasik's location of it within a free kriegsspiel tradition, and have had no response except technical discussion of Traveller editions from a fellow Traveller enthusiast.

This is making it hard for me to orient myself in the conversation, because every time I mention a play experience of mine that looks like it might overlap with the FKR space, I either get told I don't understand FKR, or get no reply.

I'll try again. Here are a series of posts I made last year about a freeform murder mystery that I ran for my family:


pemerton said:


> A few weeks ago I ran a session like this for my family - one of my daughters wanted to do a murder mystery for her birthday.
> 
> I adapted a murder scenario from an old Traveller module, and wrote up some characters (one for each other family member, plus a couple for their entourages, plus a small number of important NPCs whom I played). There was no action resolution in any mechanical sense - the players described what their PCs were doing, and who they were talking to, and I delivered up information as seemed appropriate (eg what they found if they searched a stateroom; what a NPC said if they spoke to him/her; etc).
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> This was a GM-driven experience. The players' contributions were entirely saying where their PCs went (inside a starship where I as GM had already decided what the floorplan was, what - of interest - was in each stateroom, etc) and speaking as their characters.
> 
> We didn't use any mechanics. Predominantly physical actions were resolved via description with me saying yes to the task performed _(I return from the Starlight Lounge to my stateroom_; _I look in the cupboard_) and then just describing the upshot (_OK, you're in your room_; _You see that in the cupboard there are two of each set of clothes_).
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> I ran a freeform murder mystery for my daughter's birthday last year. The answer was pre-authored by me. The setting was a spaceship in jump-space, so like an "Orient Express" or isolated mansion whodunnit - and reinforced by my framing - there were a finite number of suspects in a finite space. (Though the actual solution cheated a little bit in this respect, it was within fair parameters I think.)
> 
> The actual play consisted of (i) the set-up, letting the players get the hang of their characters and meeting the NPCs (including the victim) and then (ii) the investigation. This was all just "poking around" Poirot-style.
> 
> ...



I think that's a fairly full description of what I did. Is it anything like FKR?



overgeeked said:


> Seemingly unrelated, but relevant, question. Does Marvel Heroic have a character creation system?



Yes. It's found on pages OM110 to OM114. Here's the last two posts of mine I can find discussing this:



pemerton said:


> It's very straightforward to make PCs for Marvel Heroic. I wrote up two (for my kids) in about 10 minutes each yesterday. I've designed characters using the same system for fantasy RPGing too.
> 
> You just work out what the character is able to do, and assign appropriate traits and abilities.





pemerton said:


> I've played quite a bit of MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, and built characters for it. The only balance concerns I've had, and they certainly weren't enough to break the game, were Wolverine being perhaps a little too good in a straightforward supers game, and Gandalf being perhaps a little too good in my LotR game.




I'm also pretty familiar with RPGs that use free descriptors for PC building (Over the Edge; Maelstrom Storytelling/Story Bones; HeroWars/Quest; Cthulhu Dark; the background system in 13th Age; just to name a few).

Is OtE an example of proto-FKR?


----------



## innerdude (Oct 12, 2021)

S'mon said:


> In Illusionist play the player choices have no influence on the outcomes, which are pre-determined. I think you're saying you suspect your GM is doing this?




I refer to it as "principled illusionism" in the sense that the GM at least gives some thought to the player inputs and resulting outputs, compares it against the fiction state, and then resolves the action declaration . . . but would it matter either way?

There's a million ways an FKR GM / GM of Exceptional Force could modify the player inputs and/or resulting outputs to fit what they prefer without ever revealing the thought process or constraints to the player.

There's a mountain of "hidden backstory" in our current Tiny Frontiers game that only the GM is privy to. How much of that is influencing each and every action declaration and throw of the dice? I have know way of knowing. It's pure illusionism, but I can only hope it's principled.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> They're resolved the same as any other game. As we've said. A dozen times.



Huh? There are many different ways for the GM to decide the content of the fiction.

Just to set out some of them:

In the freeform murder mystery I just posted about upthread, I as GM wrote all the backstory in advance, and used that to support the framing, so that the players could solve the mystery.

When GMing Burning Wheel, some of the most important decisions about backstory are made by the players in the build of their PCs, and I as GM am expected to have regard to those matters in framing.

When I've run Cthulhu Dark and Wuthering Heights I've started the game by asking the players what their PCs are doing and where they are, and have woven those answers together to get the action going.

Which of the above is FKR-ish, if any?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> One interesting note, is that the Wuthering Heights game that @pemerton has linked to and recommended appears to be a recreation of the game the Bronte siblings played, using the rules from an 18thc French game that they probably had access to.  But afaik, we don't know for sure what, if any, rules the siblings used for their "game."  It appears to be some part collaborative worldbuilding, and then telling stories and inhabiting characters within that world.  Whatever it is, it sounds like great fun!]



I don't think this is correct; but the author of Rene/Wuthering Heights sometimes posts on these boards - @Philippe Tromeur1 - and so may be able to clarify.

I think that the only well-known game with a system similar to Wuthering Heights is Pendragon (Traits and Passions) but Wuthering Heights takes it further. And, most importantly, requires that every PC have something which flutters in the breeze!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Upthread I posted this:
> 
> And got no reply.
> 
> I've asked whether Wuthering Heights would count as FKR.




I apologize- I thought my position was clear!

While I am not the defender of FKR purity, just a dabbler in the form for now, I would say yes, CD (esp. the lite pdf) most certainly is. 

Wuthering Heights (at least, the version I downloaded and checked out) would be a closer call. But arguably has too many mechanics. Again, FKR’s boundaries are nebulous, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. It‘s not a hot dog nor a sandwich, but more of a taco-wrap.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> My investment in FKR over the few threads we've had on it recently amounts to, "hey, I found this blog post with some interesting and provocative ideas."  I'm experiencing the collective response to be something like, "No!  That blog post is _*objectively uninteresting*_!!



I spend much of my time on ENworld responding to posts that tell me that my RPGing either doesn't exist (because non-GM-driven play is impossible; because it was impossible that anyone might have enjoyed 4e D&D as a fiction-first, "story now" RPG; that Apocalypse World can't be used to play a mystery) or is irrelevant (because it does not turn up on the Roll20 stats or the ICv2 sales charts).

Then I encounter some posts telling me that my RPG life will be changed if only I lean into Cthulhu Dark - a game which as far as I know I was the first on these boards to play and to post about.

I have read a number of FKR blogs, forums etc, and am trying to locate them within the framework of RPGs I'm familiar with. For instance, is Risus a FKR game? I have a version (Risus15) that I downloaded in 2006. It is - as is openly acknowledged - heavily derivative of Over the Edge, though it uses a different (death spiral) framework for conflict resolution (which is actually not too dissimilar to Prince Valiant, although that game is not noted as an influence).

What is not really discussed in Risus, and what I don't see discussed on the FKR blogs, are principles to determine consequence narration and how that then feeds into subsequent framing. (Cthulhu Dark does not really have this either. When I've run it, I use BW-style Intent and Task and Let it Ride.) I don't think attention to these things is especially precious or outrageous.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

I guess I could as, is Prince Valiant FKR? Or FKR-adjacent?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, but they are telling us what our options for resolving them are. Is Batman going to get Catwoman to permanently give up crime? Nope. Never happen. Is Batman going to convince the Joker to not murder people? Nope. Never happen.




Sure, the previous fiction informs the situation and offers potential outcomes. It doesn’t decide the outcome.

“Never happen” seems like a bad way to play a game! We’re not trying to perpetuate a status quo to maintain a profitable IP. We’re trying to playa game and see what happens. 



overgeeked said:


> You're putting the tension in the wrong spot to make a point. The tension in those scenes isn't whether Catwoman will go straight or whether Joker drops the chemicals. It's how long she'll be straight, what kind of team ups she and Batman have in the mean time, and what will finally make her go back on her word and start stealing again. It's in how Batman manages to save the people from death despite the Joker devising a super devious but utterly insane death trap.




I don’t think it’s a matter of the tension being misplaced. But it all depends on what the fictional positioning is; the point at which the GM says “what do you do?” 



overgeeked said:


> I know you hate it, but it depends on the fiction. If Batman says the right things, Catwoman will go straight for a time. No roll required. And no matter what Batman says, Joker will always drop the chemicals. No roll required. Batman only talks to Joker to stall and to hear the jokes to try on Alfred back home.




These all seem like the GM deciding. Why? No roll required doesn’t sound like a game to me. This is my area of concern when it comes to not having a known resolution system in place, which the players can rely on.

Maybe the GM thinks something’s a foregone conclusion, but a player thinks there’s a chance one way or the other.

For me, that’s what rules and processes are for. So that players can make informed decisions rather than trying to read the GM’s take on things. 




overgeeked said:


> Generally the Referee. Some FKR games have shared authority but most are strong Referee authority.




Right, this is the actual answer. The fiction cannot decide anything, it can only inform the decision. The GM decides. He decides if something is impossible, or if it’s trivial, or of we need to use dice (or whatever randomization method) to determine the outcome. This isn’t true of all FKR games, I imagine….I saw a couple that didn’t function this way. But it seems a common default. 

Could we change that to the players deciding? What happens then?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> While I am not the defender of FKR purity, just a dabbler in the form for now, I would say yes, CD (esp. the lite pdf) most certainly is.



OK. As per my post not far upthread, you can see that I think Cthulhu Dark is not a complete system. It's close, but it doesn't specify what principles govern how consequences are to be determined, nor how binding they are. I think if someone was using it to run a CoC module that wouldn't matter, because the module structure would do all the heavy lifting.

When using it to play more freeform/improv, as I have, then principles of this sort are needed. As I said, I just used Burning Wheel intent+task and Let it Ride. Those are very portable principles for a lot of RPGing, in my view. (Not universal, though. Apocalypse World uses different ones.)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> These all seem like the GM deciding. Why? No roll required doesn’t sound like a game to me. This is my area of concern when it comes to not having a known resolution system in place, which the players can rely on.
> 
> Maybe the GM thinks something’s a foregone conclusion, but a player thinks there’s a chance one way or the other.



This relates to @S'mon's post upthread about running the Congress of Vienna via freeform RP.

When I ran my freeform murder mystery last year, I adjudicated the NPCs freeform. But they were either mere ciphers (the steward, the captain) or were plot devices (the NPC who was murdered) or were antagonists with fairly clear (pre-defined by me) backstories and character traits that suggested natural pathways to answer the sorts of questions that would be posed during interrogation by the PCs.

Had things gone sideways - eg the PCs started using threats against family members, or torture or the threat thereof - then the game would have fallen apart, as I had no resources in my GM notes to respond to that sort of thing.

Likewise there was no scope, in the scenario as written by me, for an antagonist NPC to fall in love with a PC and confess, hoping they would be reunited once a prison term was served.

When should there _be a chance, one way or the other_? That in itself is a question of game design.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I spend much of my time on ENworld responding to posts that tell me that my RPGing either doesn't exist (because non-GM-driven play is impossible; because it was impossible that anyone might have enjoyed 4e D&D as a fiction-first, "story now" RPG; that Apocalypse World can't be used to play a mystery) or is irrelevant (because it does not turn up on the Roll20 stats or the ICv2 sales charts).
> 
> Then I encounter some posts telling me that my RPG life will be changed if only I lean into Cthulhu Dark - a game which as far as I know I was the first on these boards to play and to post about.
> 
> ...



I don't know!  I have neither an encyclopedic knowledge of rpgs nor of your posts to this forum.  And, as mentioned, I am not an FKR evangelist, just think that there are some interesting ideas there.  So I can try to explain what I find interesting about it and why, but I'm not well positioned to defend it as a 'movement' (because I don't care) nor to really convince anyone else (because...well I guess because I don't care).  So for example, I can say these are some things which pique my interest: freeform roleplay, rules light/improvising rules, leaning/immersion into genre and setting.  Those things are probably not specific to FKR, but as a non-defender of the "FKR brand," it doesn't bother me and is not a question that I need answered.  Neither am I bothered by moments that lack clarity or consistency, because I'm looking for ideas, not a rigorous definition.  (I will say the Wuthering Heights game is attractive to me for similar reasons.)

But in terms of what some of these FKR writers would say, this post seems to suggest that "FKR" is more an approach than a type of game.  So a game can be "FKR-ified" via a simplification of rules.  Again, not defending this position (I have never played half these games), just directing you to a post: 








						The Landshut Rules: Free kriegsspiel rules
					

Before Gary Gygax published DnD in 1974, there already were people playing roleplaying games. Back in the days, the distinction between rpgs and wargames (“kriegsspiele”) was non-existe…




					darkwormcolt.wordpress.com


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

To elaborate on the Congress of Vienna - I think it's very hard to get inside the head of Metternich, or Castlereagh. With regard to the latter, for instance, how does one inhabit the mind of a representative of one of the most liberal states in Europe arguing that political stability depends upon affirming the most reactionary forms of government? And would the freeform play of Castlereagh ever lead to his suicide?

If they are conceived of as _representatives of objective interests_, rather than as idiosyncratic individuals, perhaps it is easier? Do the idiosyncracies of the individuals matter to the _diplomatic_ oucomes? Maybe not; it's hard to be sure, I think.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 13, 2021)

So I have a massive amount of respect for a number of fairly minimal designs including Lady Blackbird, World of Dungeons, Troika, Into The Odd, and Lasers & Feelings.

This is pretty much the extent of World of Dungeons (it's text is 3 pages including a very minimal character sheet)


> ROLLING THE DICE
> 
> When you attempt something risky, sum 2d6 and add one of your attribute scores, based on the action you’re taking. (The GM will tell you some of the possible consequences before you roll, so you can decide if it’s worth the risk or if you want to revise your action.) A total of 6 or less is a miss; things don’t go well and the risk turns out badly. A total of 7-9 is a partial success; you do it, but there’s some cost, compromise, retribution, harm, etc. A total of 10 or more is a full success; you do it without complications. And a total of 12 or more is a critical success; you do it perfectly to some extra benefit or advantage. Skills: If you have an applicable skill, you can’t miss. A roll of 6 or less counts as a partial success, but with a bigger compromise or complication than a 7-9 result.
> 
> ...


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I don't know!  I have neither an encyclopedic knowledge of rpgs nor of your posts to this forum.  And, as mentioned, I am not an FKR evangelist, just think that there are some interesting ideas there.  So I can try to explain what I find interesting about it and why, but I'm not well positioned to defend it as a 'movement' (because I don't care) nor to really convince anyone else (because...well I guess because I don't care).  So for example, I can say these are some things which pique my interest: freeform roleplay, rules light/improvising rules, leaning/immersion into genre and setting.  Those things are probably not specific to FKR, but as a non-defender of the "FKR brand," it doesn't bother me and is not a question that I need answered.  Neither am I bothered by moments that lack clarity or consistency, because I'm looking for ideas, not a rigorous definition.  (I will say the Wuthering Heights game is attractive to me for similar reasons.)
> 
> But in terms of what some of these FKR writers would say, this post seems to suggest that "FKR" is more an approach than a type of game.  So a game can be "FKR-ified" via a simplification of rules.  Again, not defending this position (I have never played half these games), just directing you to a post:
> 
> ...



Do you have actual play you can post about?

Here are two Cthulhu Dark actual play posts, and one for Wuthering Heights (which I know you have seen).

The final line in the first Cthulhu Dark post is this: _I don't think there's anything that CoC does that Cthulhu Dark can't do with a much smaller character sheet (name, occupation, and a sanity die in front of you) and a more powerful and flexible system._

To me, that seems consistent with what FKR people say. But maybe I've misunderstood them?


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 13, 2021)

Campbell said:


> So I have a massive amount of respect for a number of fairly minimal designs including Lady Blackbird, World of Dungeons, Troika, Into The Odd, and Lasers & Feelings.
> 
> This is pretty much the extent of World of Dungeons (it's text is 3 pages including a very minimal character sheet)



fwiw World of Dungeons and Apocalypse World are games that are referenced quite often (and positively) on the FKR discord


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

So I followed @Malmuria's link and found this: Apocalypse World, powered by ancient rules

Here is the most important bit:

*SAVES & COMBAT*
The ref assesses your character’s overall ability for any task a hand, then he assigns you a die. This die type ranges from d4 up to d20, with a d8 being solidly average, d4 being really unskilled and d20 being really good, an expert.
Then he assesses the difficulty of the situation and assigns it a die, too.
Roll your die vs. the referee’s die. Higher number wins and gets to determine what happens.​
I think anyone can see that that will produce a vastly different play experience - in terms of content of fiction, pacing, emotional intensity, etc - from AW.

To paraphrase my comment posted just upthead about Cthulhu Dark, I think there is plenty that Apocalypse World is doing that this system would not.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, the previous fiction informs the situation and offers potential outcomes. It doesn’t decide the outcome.



No, but the Referee should use the previously established fiction to inform the newly established fiction.


hawkeyefan said:


> “Never happen” seems like a bad way to play a game!



Only if you assume that there's a chance to do literally anything at any time, which is a rather bad assumption to make.

I don't treat conversation as mind control. You roleplay through it. If there's no way an NPC would engage or be reasoned with, there's no reason to roll. Like the Joker. Yeah. Never. The Joker will literally never be talked down. Unless it's part of his plan, a ruse or con. You can't talk a tornado down (if you have that as a superpower, yes you could, but last I checked Batman doesn't have _reach the unreachable_ as a superpower). To me, the Joker is a force of nature. There's no talking to him in the sense of persuading him because he's beyond reason. He's cartoon crazy. There's not enough rationality there to reach with a conversation. So yeah, never. Other Referees might, and probably would, rule it differently. But that's where I'd say no.

The Catwoman example would depend entirely on the established fiction and the roleplaying. Does Batman walk up to Catwoman, and the player just throw dice, and declare a result? That wouldn't fly. Do they roleplay through the conversation? What do they say? Is it a line of persuasion that Catwoman would buy? If, as the Referee, I didn't already have an idea of what would or would not work on her, I'd call for a roll. Not in the sense of persuasion as mind control, but rather to determine whether she bought it or not. In that case, me not already knowing how she'd react to the line, that's a great use of opposed rolls. Referee and player both chuck 2d6 and whoever rolls higher wins. If there's  a tie, we sort out what a tie would look like in the moment.


hawkeyefan said:


> We’re not trying to perpetuate a status quo to maintain a profitable IP. We’re trying to play a game and see what happens.



But we're also trying to accurately represent established characters from pop culture. Play to see what happens doesn't mean always roll and allow anything to happen. It means not planning the story. Set up a situation and see how the PCs bounce off it. That doesn't preclude having an idea of what NPCs want or need or what their goals are.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t think it’s a matter of the tension being misplaced. But it all depends on what the fictional positioning is; the point at which the GM says “what do you do?”



I'm more a fan of hard framing scenes. I'd rather cut to the chase and start a scene when something's happening. When there's an interesting choice for the character to make. One of the tools I really like is BitD's flashbacks. Seeing it in print it's such a forehead slappingly obvious and great idea. Like Batman declaring that he's got a toy for that. Of course he does. He's Batman. But that wouldn't really work for Superman. But him taking a few seconds to fly to the Fortress of Solitude to fetch some Kryptonian weapon...sure. Why not?


hawkeyefan said:


> These all seem like the GM deciding. Why?



Because the default is Referee authority.


hawkeyefan said:


> No roll required doesn’t sound like a game to me.



Why assume that because these few example wouldn't require a roll that there's no rolls ever in the game? If you perform an action that the Referee can't determine the outcome of based on the fiction _and_ the action would have an interesting outcome whether you succeed or fail, then you roll. You don't need the dice to determine the outcome of every action. It just happens that I think those actions wouldn't need rolls. Batman vs a mook? No roll, auto success. Describe to me how awesome Batman is as he takes out the mook. Batman talking to Joker or Catwoman? Roleplay it out. As above about the Ref determining the outcome, which I have a solid idea of these characters, so wouldn't need to roll. Batman fighting the Joker? Bring out the dice. Batman solving a puzzle by the Riddler? Work through it as much as you can in character and in fiction...and if you're completely stuck, then roll for hints or clues. You may not be able to solve it, but Barman probably could. Batman having a heart-to-heart with Robin? Roleplay it. Batman disarm the timer before the bomb goes off? Roll it. The fiction is primary. Not the rules and not the dice. If it's obvious from the fiction what would happen, don't roll.


hawkeyefan said:


> This is my area of concern when it comes to not having a known resolution system in place, which the players can rely on.



The resolution system is known. If you have questions about how your Referee is ruling, ask them. If you mean "there's no list of skills or list of DCs to check the Referee's work against," then yeah, no such luck. That's a feature, not a bug.


hawkeyefan said:


> Maybe the GM thinks something’s a foregone conclusion, but a player thinks there’s a chance one way or the other.



And in that case they can talk it through. But in the end, the Referee's running the game, so their word is final.


hawkeyefan said:


> For me, that’s what rules and processes are for. So that players can make informed decisions rather than trying to read the GM’s take on things.



You could just ask them. And a lot of this is covered in session 0s. Which version of Batman are we running? Is it Killing Joke or Batman: The Brave and the Bold? The idea is to be as close to the same page as possible to minimize disagreements. But they'll inevitably happen.


hawkeyefan said:


> Right, this is the actual answer. The fiction cannot decide anything, it can only inform the decision. The GM decides. He decides if something is impossible, or if it’s trivial, or of we need to use dice (or whatever randomization method) to determine the outcome. This isn’t true of all FKR games, I imagine….I saw a couple that didn’t function this way. But it seems a common default.



Yes, it is.


hawkeyefan said:


> Could we change that to the players deciding? What happens then?



Why would you want to? But sure, you could. And it would likely turn rather quickly into Fiasco. With more dice. The few times we played that it turned immediately into "I cut off your finger." "No you didn't. You can't do that." There's no rules to fall back on and there's no Referee to be the final authority. Without much rules, you need a Referee to be the authority of the fiction. You could always try to go the other way, lots and lots of very precise rules to try to cover everything, but there will inevitably be a disagreement on the interpretation of those rules...and without a Referee to arbitrate, your game's done. Depending on how dug in players get. But I'd rather just play. Someone's the Referee and they run the show. As long as they're not arbitrary and open to questions about their decisions and use the fiction as their guide, it's all good. Let's play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> So I followed @Malmuria's link and found this: Apocalypse World, powered by ancient rules
> 
> Here is the most important bit:
> 
> ...




Yeah, that’s my feeling as well. I’m all for a light rules system. But I don’t think that’s necessarily the goal in and of itself.  I want the rules and processes of the game to promote the world/genre/themes of the game. I think the rules of Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark are worthwhile because they do this.

Where as, comparing Call of Cthulhu to Cthulhu Dark, I’m not really convinced that much is added to the experience by having expanded skill lists vs. an occupation, or detailed monster stats vs. a rule that says if you directly oppose them you die.

I think when it comes to rules, for me, the juice has to be worth the squeeze. But there are plenty of games where I think that’s the case. So the idea of stripping everything down to the most basic, and then stuffing a  lot of GM authority into the empty spaces just has very little appeal.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think when it comes to rules, for me, the juice has to be worth the squeeze. But there are plenty of games where I think that’s the case. So the idea of stripping everything down to the most basic, and then stuffing a  lot of GM authority into the empty spaces just has very little appeal.



I guess for me there's a difference between an _idea _and an_ ideal_. The idea of a rules-light game that rests heavily on GM adjudication of the fiction is coherent enough. Though I'd be keen to hear a bit more about actual play.

But I don't see that this is any sort of ideal for RPGing. It's just one sort of possibility.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I don't treat conversation as mind control.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Does Batman walk up to Catwoman, and the player just throw dice, and declare a result? That wouldn't fly.



Who do you think does treat conversation as mind control? On the other hand, it's the only way most people have to influence others, and there's a lot of that going about!

And who do you think is saying that the player can just throw dice and declare a result? That looks like a description (maybe a caricature? I'm not sure) of 3E D&D social resolution. But I don't think there is a single poster in this thread who would use 3E D&D's social resolution framework as an example of anything but bad design.



overgeeked said:


> You roleplay through it. If there's no way an NPC would engage or be reasoned with, there's no reason to roll. Like the Joker. Yeah. Never. The Joker will literally never be talked down. Unless it's part of his plan, a ruse or con.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I just reread the last 4 pages of The Killing Joke, because I had a memory that it involves a conversation between The Joker and The Batman. My memory was correct. I think maybe this is an example of what @hawkeyefan has in mind - how do we work out what The Joker does, in response to Batman's offer to rehabilitate him?

Presumably rehabilitation of supervillains isn't out of the question - Magneto and The Gladiator are the two examples I think of right away - and I don't see The Joker as a priori out of the question in this respect.

I don't think that a roll-based mechanic is the only way to drive character development and change, but it's one obvious one. And I don't think that fidelity to the GM's vision is the only way to accurately represent established characters from pop culture.



overgeeked said:


> Batman talking to Joker or Catwoman? Roleplay it out. As above about the Ref determining the outcome, which I have a solid idea of these characters, so wouldn't need to roll. Batman fighting the Joker? Bring out the dice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The fiction is primary. Not the rules and not the dice. If it's obvious from the fiction what would happen, don't roll.



I'm not sure why we need the dice in the case of a fight. Has The Batman ever lost to The Joker in a round of fisticuffs?



overgeeked said:


> hawkeyefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This isn't really my experience. I've not played Fiasco. But when I've played games that give the players a lot of authority over the fiction (eg my approach to Cthulhu Dark; or most recently my friend and I playing a two-player shared-GM game of Burning Wheel, where each frames the adversity for the other's PC) there hasn't been the sort of problem you're describing.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> pemerton said:
> A few weeks ago I ran a session like this for my family - one of my daughters wanted to do a murder mystery for her birthday.
> 
> I adapted a murder scenario from an old Traveller module, and wrote up some characters (one for each other family member, plus a couple for their entourages, plus a small number of important NPCs whom I played). There was no action resolution in any mechanical sense - the players described what their PCs were doing, and who they were talking to, and I delivered up information as seemed appropriate (eg what they found if they searched a stateroom; what a NPC said if they spoke to him/her; etc).
> ...




One way to invest this play with agency is the following:

For every move the group makes (go to place x to investigate, interrogate NPC y, read newpaper article z to suss out connection), their final score is subtracted from a predetermined tally.  The less moves they make before solving the puzzle, the better score they get (eg starting at Sherlock Holmes and ending at Amateur Dick).

Done well, that would invest play with a Skilled Play goal and the scorekeeping apparatus to divine the skill.

Yet another way to invest this play with agency is the following:

The 2 players play characters around a murder mystery (not a detective) with a dramatic need (perhaps a card is drawn at the outset of play with a pithy agenda on it).  Each player has 1 Relationship Point, 1 Alibi Point, and 1 Clue Point.  They can use their Relationship to oblige the GM to have someone important to them enter a scene and can orient that NPC in anyway the player sees fit (the GM then plays it out).  They can use their Alibi to oblige the GM to affirm either their alibi or an NPC's alibi when some matter of that alibi is in question (which could have significant trickle down effect up-to-and-including taking the character off the table for the crime).  They can spend their Clue to place an item or a piece of forensic evidence in a scene.  This can't pin the crime on someone but it can point in a direction.  When they spend any Point, they roll 1d6.  On a 4-6, they get what they want.  On a 2-3, they get what they want, but something else is true that they wish wasn't (perhaps they were going to visit the newspaper next to speak to the lead author of a piece...but they've just showed up in the morgue!).  On a 1, things go bad.

Done well, that would invest play with Story Now protagonism where they get to significantly impact the shape and trajectory of the unfolding mystery (including their character and and their characters' relationships orientation to the final outcome).



Without some version of either of those two and without some form of clear, concrete, and game-specific metagoal ("have fun" is none of those things) and corresponding intentful design which allows players to skillfully/artfully pursue it (fulfilling or failing)...I don't see where play invests the players with much agency.  Revealing an already written mystery for the sake of the excitement of a well-conceived case-unraveling is fun as hell...but its certainly not brimming with agency.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> One way to invest this play with agency is the following:
> 
> For every move the group makes (go to place x to investigate, interrogate NPC y, read newpaper article z to suss out connection), their final score is subtracted from a predetermined tally.  The less moves they make before solving the puzzle, the better score they get (eg starting at Sherlock Holmes and ending at Amateur Dick).
> 
> ...



I think the first thing you describe has some overlap, as a mechanic, with The Green Knight. The difference is that in The Green Knight the score is maintained on a dynamic basis and iterates back into your success chance.

When I ran the game for my family agency was really not at the top of my list. My daughter wanted a puzzle and that's what she got! The solution was on the borderline for fair, but generated no complaints:


Spoiler



The killer is not one of the cast of characters. She is the twin of one of the NPCs, which explains why she can be in two places at once.

The clues are (i) two sets of every outfit in the NPC's cupboard, and (ii) two meals being ordered for the NPC's room. My family members worked out that this NPC was suspicious, _and_ they got both the clues, but they didn't join the dots. When I revealed the answer when we finished - in the fiction, that means when they arrived at their destination - there seemed to be acceptance that it was tricky but fair.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I just reread the last 4 pages of The Killing Joke, because I had a memory that it involves a conversation between The Joker and The Batman. My memory was correct. I think maybe this is an example of what @hawkeyefan has in mind - how do we work out what The Joker does, in response to Batman's offer to rehabilitate him?




The scenarios I offered with Batman (with the exception of the hostile takeover by Lex Luthor) are all examples that I’ve seen go a number of ways in comics and related media. Sometimes it goes one way, sometimes another.

Meaning that there is support for either answer if we look to the fiction as guidance.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Why would you want to? But sure, you could. And it would likely turn rather quickly into Fiasco. With more dice. The few times we played that it turned immediately into "I cut off your finger." "No you didn't. You can't do that." There's no rules to fall back on and there's no Referee to be the final authority. Without much rules, you need a Referee to be the authority of the fiction. You could always try to go the other way, lots and lots of very precise rules to try to cover everything, but there will inevitably be a disagreement on the interpretation of those rules...and without a Referee to arbitrate, your game's done. Depending on how dug in players get. But I'd rather just play. Someone's the Referee and they run the show. As long as they're not arbitrary and open to questions about their decisions and use the fiction as their guide, it's all good. Let's play.



That's a terrible take on Fiasco, and I'm not sure how you ended up there.  The game is clear that in the event of dispute, the current active player has the say.  There's no such back and forth as you're presenting it -- and even trying to do that is bad faith play to begin with.  Fiasco works great as a game -- you don't have to like it, but it works when played in good faith -- and it does not illustrate the need to have a GM to keep players from trying to maim each others' characters.  There are plenty of other ways to resolve conflicts -- like Fiasco actually does -- that don't involve Bob says.  Bob says is a perfectly fine choice, but it's not at all the only one nor has claim to being objectively better.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 13, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a terrible take on Fiasco, and I'm not sure how you ended up there.  The game is clear that in the event of dispute, the current active player has the say.  There's no such back and forth as you're presenting it -- and even trying to do that is bad faith play to begin with.  Fiasco works great as a game -- you don't have to like it, but it works when played in good faith -- and it does not illustrate the need to have a GM to keep players from trying to maim each others' characters.  There are plenty of other ways to resolve conflicts -- like Fiasco actually does -- that don't involve Bob says.  Bob says is a perfectly fine choice, but it's not at all the only one nor has claim to being objectively better.




I've never played Fiasco and so cannot speak to the content here, but the way this is phrased strikes me as rather impolite.  You've depicted the other poster somewhere between playing in "bad faith" (why would anyone do that with their free time) or just being totally incompetent in how they understood and played the game.  As a person who knows of Fiasco but hasn't played it, your post comes across as "you're playing it wrong."  Even if true, to my mind, it doesn't speak well of the game if someone can read the rulebook and get the basics completely wrong; if that's case it would seem that that's a problem of the game, not the player.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I've never played Fiasco and so cannot speak to the content here, but the way this is phrased strikes me as rather impolite.  You've depicted the other poster somewhere between playing in "bad faith" (why would anyone do that with their free time) or just being totally incompetent in how they understood and played the game.  As a person who knows of Fiasco but hasn't played it, your post comes across as "you're playing it wrong."  Even if true, to my mind, it doesn't speak well of the game if someone can read the rulebook and get the basics completely wrong; if that's case it would seem that that's a problem of the game, not the player.



It's a really slick game. Fantastic really. One tagline is "powerful ambition & poor impulse control". You're playing a Coen brothers film, basically. But you need a group you can trust. Like a lot. It's very narrative heavy. There's no skills or stats. No task resolution. Conflict resolution is handled by playing through scenes. The short version is you: 1) pick a setting; 2) roll for connections and build a relationship web between the characters; 3) everyone takes turns being in the spotlight until the game resolves after so many scenes. That's a gross oversimplification of a really elegant game, but it's the only bit that's relevant.

Everyone takes turns being in the spotlight. You do that with scenes. When it's your turn, the scene is about your character. You get to pick whether you establish the scene or resolve the scene. If you establish, the table resolves; if you resolve, the table establishes. Establish meaning you decide the who, what, where, when, and why of the scene. Flashbacks, flashforwards, everyone's there naked in a sauna or everyone's bundled up tight in the back of a freezer truck bound for Alaska...as long as the scene is about the spotlight character. Resolve meaning decide how the scene ends in a positive or negative for the spotlight character. Very much a shared-authority, high-trust game. Sounds like an absolute dream on paper...unless you play with "that guy." And we did.

The trouble is there's no conflict resolution for what happens _within_ scenes...except for this: "To be perfectly clear, you don’t set stakes as such (although it’s OK to say what you want), you don’t roll the die to determine an outcome, and the only limits on your description are those imposed by your friends on a social level − if they balk, figure it out together as players, with you (the player whose character is in the spotlight) having the final say."

So whoever is in the spotlight controls the scene, basically. Push comes to shove, the entire table disagrees...doesn't matter. The rules are clear: the spotlight player has the final say. They have carte blanche. So when the spotlight player decides their character is going to hack bits off of other players' characters...despite the entire rest of the table objecting...that's that. The other characters are now missing limbs. Period. That was the first spotlight scene for that player. The second went about the same...before we stopped. Mid game. Booted the guy and never played Fiasco again.

Yes, that absolutely was an example of bad faith play. But it's also perfectly within the rules. So I'm not interested in shared authority. Gimme a good, old-fashioned Referee/GM/DM any day. This was years ago, when the game was new. Thinking back, there's a lot of things we could have done. Put in a house rule about a table veto, now we know about things like X cards (which they did in 2E), so could use that...but I'm not into RPGs with lots of tchotchkes. I was over the moon about that game. It's perfectly in my wheelhouse of interests and I still use it as an idea generator. But I'm over the idea of shared authority, especially anything to the level of spotlight = DM.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

innerdude said:


> I refer to it as "principled illusionism" in the sense that the GM at least gives some thought to the player inputs and resulting outputs, compares it against the fiction state, and then resolves the action declaration . . . but would it matter either way?
> 
> There's a million ways an FKR GM / GM of Exceptional Force could modify the player inputs and/or resulting outputs to fit what they prefer without ever revealing the thought process or constraints to the player.
> 
> There's a mountain of "hidden backstory" in our current Tiny Frontiers game that only the GM is privy to. How much of that is influencing each and every action declaration and throw of the dice? I have know way of knowing. It's pure illusionism, but I can only hope it's principled.




OK, I don't think I agree with your use of Ilusionism. You seem to be saying that any opaque action resolution is Illusionism, but that's not how I understand the term at all. If the GM "gives some thought to the player inputs and resulting outputs, compares it against the fiction state, and then resolves the action declaration", and this process affects the declared outcome, it's not Illusionism as Edwards described it. And I think he came up with a useful term for a particular play style, a style unrelated to black-box GMing.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This relates to @S'mon's post upthread about running the Congress of Vienna via freeform RP.
> 
> When I ran my freeform murder mystery last year, I adjudicated the NPCs freeform. But they were either mere ciphers (the steward, the captain) or were plot devices (the NPC who was murdered) or were antagonists with fairly clear (pre-defined by me) backstories and character traits that suggested natural pathways to answer the sorts of questions that would be posed during interrogation by the PCs.
> 
> ...




I think this gets to why I don't GM murder mysteries! I've read a ton of _The Alexandrian_ posts on them, but I don't enjoy them as fiction, and I wouldn't enjoy them as GM. In an Agatha Christie the whole plot seems to exist as a Puzzle to be Solved - and I don't like Puzzle gaming (or IRL) either. It's as alien to me as my style is to some ram-headed folk. 

I may create or use a Situation with NPCs that may superficially resemble the start conditions of a murder mystery - there might even be a murder - but I'm not interested in seeing it resolved according to the beats & tropes of murder mystery fiction. What I'm interested in is the people - PC & NPC - their motivations, personalities etc. I love seeing them interact in accordance with their goals etc, with no pre-determined outcome. If the PC detective falls in love with the murderess NPC and they run off together, that's certainly fine by me. I love me the immersion, the experience of being 'in' the fictional world. I don't find murder mystery fiction immersive at all; the world seems to exist only as a thin backdrop for the mystery/plot/puzzle.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I spend much of my time on ENworld responding to posts that tell me that my RPGing either doesn't exist (because non-GM-driven play is impossible; because it was impossible that anyone might have enjoyed 4e D&D as a fiction-first, "story now" RPG; that Apocalypse World can't be used to play a mystery) or is irrelevant (because it does not turn up on the Roll20 stats or the ICv2 sales charts).




So now you want to put the boot in yourself?   

J/K, you've been reasonable as always Mr P. But I get the same frustration when I see people refusing to engage with what you say about your play style, as I get when I see here people refusing to engage with what the FK-ers say about their play style.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> To elaborate on the Congress of Vienna - I think it's very hard to get inside the head of Metternich, or Castlereagh. With regard to the latter, for instance, how does one inhabit the mind of a representative of one of the most liberal states in Europe arguing that political stability depends upon affirming the most reactionary forms of government?



That feels like you've pre-determined what should be in question. What I loved seeing in my play was more akin to the 'representative of one of the most liberal states in Europe' *coming to the conclusion* that 'political stability depends upon affirming the most reactionary forms of government'. To me those are the golden moments. Sometimes they seem to change the worldview of a player as well as the worldview of their PC. I've seen players have political-moral epiphanies in-game. Right up there with "Are we the Baddies?"


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I guess I could as, is Prince Valiant FKR? Or FKR-adjacent?



I'll try. Do players need to take into account extra diegetic, out of fiction stuff, looking at their char sheets, rules, follow procedures, in order to play the game? 
If yes, then no FKR.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 13, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Why are vegans wasting their time asking about something they don't like and won't like? Do they think the steak eaters are having badwrongfun?



To be blunt, Some definitely do. Both the metaphorical and the literal. But the metaphor is problematic.

In Alaska, and several other US states, "Vegan" has huge sociopolitical baggage which isn't comparable to the Traditional RPG crowd, nor, largely, to the storygame crowd, either. Many people in Alaska claiming to be vegan are very political about animal rights, and also tend to be animal rights activists, especially in Alaska, where most families consume game meat or game fish at least monthly. And many of those moved to Alaska specifically to object to the hunting, fishing, commercial meat, commercial dairy, and commercial fishing industries.

Oregon it's less so... but still, many who stick to the vegan "No animal products in my food" do get hostile reactions, especially if east of I-5...

Back to the gaming side.

Ignoring the bad metaphor... All 6 or 7 playstyle camps have their extremists who think the others are doing it wrong and are a bad influence on the industry, and some of that subset in each preach that.

Personally, I don't like FKR, and don't trust GMs who don't want me knowing the rules. I think Gygax's rule zero should definitely go the **** away as bad. I have no issue with groups agreeing to modified rules; I run my houserules changes past groups before using them. I want players to make decisions on game state issues every bit as much as on story state issues.

Are they doing it wrong? No. But often, they're _describing_ it wrong.



Ovinomancer said:


> Design cannot not matter.  FKR is game design.  There's no avoiding it.  Stating it's not design is like saying fish aren't matter.



And this is highlighting a problem with the OSR crowd, the ultralight rules crowd, and the FKR crowd: The appearance of self-delusion by the adherents. Many of them can't or won't engage on a meaningful level in terms that Trad and/or Storygamers can grok. Or (as we've seen in thread) give answers that are meaningful only to their in-group, but meaningless outside.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

Arilyn said:


> I'm ok with it, but it's nice to know certain things. As a Vulcan I'd know how reliable my nerve pinch is, for example. Sure, in the show it just works but the GM might feel that a roll is required. As a player these things are good to know, and not for some gamey reason, but for a sense of how my world works.




I think as a player I'd understand that my attempt at a Nerve Pinch won't necessarily succeed, but I'd expect that if I successfully get in position & apply a nerve pinch to an unaware human, the human will collapse. So I'd expect any conflict resolution roll (etc) to take place before the pinch is actually applied. If the GM lets me apply the pinch but then gives the human target a saving throw, that's going to take me out-of-genre and feel immersion breaking - ie, poor GMing.

If the GM says "OK Subcommander Tolok, you go to nerve pinch NPC Captain Kirk, but something warns him and at the last minute he twists aside, grabbing your arm!" - well that seems absolutely fine. If my 'Exalted Redshirt' or 'Dragon' Romulan Subcommander PC is going up against NPC Captain Kirk, I ought to have a pretty good idea of how things are likely to go down...


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Are they doing it wrong? No. But often, they're _describing_ it wrong.



I feel like I've made some pretty good attempts to describe what I do, only to be repeatedly stonewalled by at least one poster (to the extent I've now had to add to my ignore list). The feeling of repeatedly bashing head against brick wall is no fun. 

Is it surprising that different people with different play goals may use the same or similar words to describe different things?  And that this can lead to misunderstandings? That seems perfectly normal & to be expected, to me. What I struggle with is when people refuse to allow those misunderstandings to be resolved, and keep doubling down on them even when the other side says "No, that's not what we/they meant at all".


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 13, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I feel like I've made some pretty good attempts to describe what I do, only to be repeatedly stonewalled by at least one poster (to the extent I've now had to add to my ignore list). The feeling of repeatedly bashing head against brick wall is no fun.
> 
> Is it surprising that different people with different play goals may use the same or similar words to describe different things?  And that this can lead to misunderstandings? That seems perfectly normal & to be expected, to me. What I struggle with is when people refuse to allow those misunderstandings to be resolved, and keep doubling down on them even when the other side says "No, that's not what we/they meant at all".



When a subgroup adopts a terminology to mean something different from the parent group, it's problematic. Ron Edwards being amonst the worst offenders on that score. Simply put, *we'd all be better off if we had a common lexicon.*
We don't, and that really doesn't reflect well on the minority/outlier sub-group when they use jargon in discussions with the wider audience.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Do you have actual play you can post about?
> 
> Here are two Cthulhu Dark actual play posts, and one for Wuthering Heights (which I know you have seen).
> 
> ...




That's a step from rules medium/heavy to ultra light. There is another step from formalized ultra light to FKR. 

Not necessarily because it needs even less rules, but because rules are not what is shaping the game a priori.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I'll try. Do players need to take into account extra diegetic, out of fiction stuff, looking at their char sheets, rules, follow procedures, in order to play the game?
> If yes, then no FKR.



So if I look at my character sheet (likely just a note card) when playing Risus to remind myself how I ranked my clichés with dice does it stop becoming FKR?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> When a subgroup adopts a terminology to mean something different from the parent group, it's problematic. Ron Edwards being amonst the worst offenders on that score. Simply put, *we'd all be better off if we had a common lexicon.*
> We don't, and that really doesn't reflect well on the minority/outlier sub-group when they use jargon.



What jargon are you thinking of, in the context of this thread?

Edit: I agree it's not good to take someone else's existing developed jargon/term-of-art, and use it to mean something else. Edwards did that when he twisted the GDS Threefold Model to create his GNS. And much woe was wreaked thereby.  But I've not seen anything comparable here.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> So if I look at my character sheet (likely just a note card) when playing Risus to remind myself how I ranked my clichés with dice does it stop becoming FKR?



Yes. 

Edit: Yeah, I think so. If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Yes.



So Risus is not FKR? Or does its FKR status quantumly fluctuate based upon whether I am looking or not looking at my character sheet?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> So Risus is not FKR?



I don't think so. But, again, it is me answering, I don't blog about FKR. 

See above my EDIT of last reply to you


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Yes.
> 
> Edit: Yeah, I think so. If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.



And I, myself Gm, would not run it as such, as an FKR "Play worlds... bla bla", if there were procedures to follow, rules to resolute, in place.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> It's a really slick game. Fantastic really. One tagline is "powerful ambition & poor impulse control". You're playing a Coen brothers film, basically. But you need a group you can trust. Like a lot. It's very narrative heavy. There's no skills or stats. No task resolution. Conflict resolution is handled by playing through scenes. The short version is you: 1) pick a setting; 2) roll for connections and build a relationship web between the characters; 3) everyone takes turns being in the spotlight until the game resolves after so many scenes. That's a gross oversimplification of a really elegant game, but it's the only bit that's relevant.
> 
> Everyone takes turns being in the spotlight. You do that with scenes. When it's your turn, the scene is about your character. You get to pick whether you establish the scene or resolve the scene. If you establish, the table resolves; if you resolve, the table establishes. Establish meaning you decide the who, what, where, when, and why of the scene. Flashbacks, flashforwards, everyone's there naked in a sauna or everyone's bundled up tight in the back of a freezer truck bound for Alaska...as long as the scene is about the spotlight character. Resolve meaning decide how the scene ends in a positive or negative for the spotlight character. Very much a shared-authority, high-trust game. Sounds like an absolute dream on paper...unless you play with "that guy." And we did.
> 
> ...



This is like saying that since FKR play allows for a hard GM railroad (bad faith play), that the game is flawed and basing a theory of play around this.  If people are engaging in bad faith play -- explicitly against the guidance, rules, and principles of play -- then this is not sufficient reason to blame the structure of the game for the experience.

ETA: there's nothing about having a GM that forestall the exact problem from occurring!  All you've done is consolidate authority over the scene, you haven't actually prevented this exact example from happening.  There's nothing about having a GM that fixes this problem.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sounds like an absolute dream on paper...unless you play with "that guy." And we did.
> So when the spotlight player decides their character is going to hack bits off of other players' characters...despite the entire rest of the table objecting...that's that. The other characters are now missing limbs. Period. That was the first spotlight scene for that player. The second went about the same...before we stopped. Mid game. Booted the guy and never played Fiasco again.




Oh...


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I'll try. Do players need to take into account extra diegetic, out of fiction stuff, looking at their char sheets, rules, follow procedures, in order to play the game?
> If yes, then no FKR.



OK. I'm not sure if you count memory as looking up the sheet or not. PCs in Prince Valiant have rankings in Brawn, Presence and up to two-dozen skills. They also have equipment lists. And there are canonical resolution procedures.

Cthulhu Dark doesn't count as FKR under this test either, as the Insanity rating is something that has to be remembered and applied in play.



Numidius said:


> If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.



Upthread I posted an ostensibly FKR bloggers formalised set of someone-facing rules for playing AW-flavoured FKR: Apocalypse World, powered by ancient rules

I'm not saying this as a gotcha - I'm just trying to work out what different people are meaning by FKR. I take it that you wouldn't count that system as FKR.



Aldarc said:


> So Risus is not FKR? Or does its FKR status quantumly fluctuate based upon whether I am looking or not looking at my character sheet?



As I posted upthread, Risus is very similar to OtE but with tighter editing, and replacing OtE's combat rules with a simpler, more universal, conflict resolution system that has some resemblance to Prince Valiant. In terms of rules systems it's no lighter than OtE without the combat rules (eg just use opposed checks and drop hit points altogether) or Prince Valiant.



Numidius said:


> Oh...



I had the same thought!


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

@pemerton 

Just to be clear, when I say "players looking at their character sheet" I mean: looking for numbers, rules related minutia, "What can I do know?" moments when scrolling a long list of stuff and modifiers. Extra diegetic stuff. "Lets see if I have 1 more point to add to that roll". 

Of course actually looking at the sheets is not the issue in itself, this isn't a game of memory, after all. 
As you say: equipment. Yes. List of spells if Vancian-like magic. Skills (I'd love to play WFRP with just skills and critical hits tables). Feats (5e with all feats as fluff only, no mechanical bits, for example). Previous fictional events written down. I guess all good to look at. 

From that AW FKR (yeah, I know) game you posted:

STATS:
Cool 0, Hard+2, Hot+1, Sharp-1, Weird+1. This translates to:
A violent, good-looking, somewhat dim man with a strange sixth sense. 

That's what I mean. Numbers becoming descriptions. 

I found good advice from Wizard Lizard's (which is a french woman, by the way) blog: 





__





						The Emergent Game
					

Blog about OSR OD&D and Into the Odd




					undergroundadv.blogspot.com
				









						Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!
					

Blog about OSR OD&D and Into the Odd




					undergroundadv.blogspot.com
				




...and also from her in the FKR Discord chat:

So, conversation between referees and players, resolution based on what would make sense in the world, ref as final arbiter over rules, etc.
is a fitting definition to wargames too.
Like, you could use the Landshut rules or Any Planet is Earth etc. to run games where you control one character
or you could take a bird's eye view and run skirmishes or mass battles
and the point is that you can do all of this in the same game.

That's why we say the distinction [between wargames and rpgs] kind of melts away. 

Consider the following game elevator pitch: you and your friends play the officers of a mercenary band in pseudo-historical France during the hundred years war. You index cards which describe said officers, or maybe even just "whatever character you want". Maybe someone plays an aide de camp, someone plays the seer and lover of the leader, etc. In play, the referee starts by setting up a battlefield, with chits or miniatures, and have players handle various groups of units, even potentially including the enemy forces.

Then, halfway through the battle, we "zoom in" on some hill with ruins terrain on it where a small squad is. 
At that point, the GM hands out index cards with informations about a bunch of men-at-arms, and every player assumes control of one of them. They're in a dungeon under the ruins, looking for an ancient magical weapon that, if safely recovered, would turn the tide of battle their side.
Game becomes a one-on-one dungeon crawl for a few hours.
Half of the dudes die in the dungeon. But one of them comes out with a magic sword that gives him the strength of ten men!

We focus back on the minis/chits and terrain. The ref puts a new figure to represent that magic sword-wielding character on the battlefield.
A dragon shows up, helping the enemy forces. The magic sword hero jumps on it to duel it. The other players keep moving their troops and handling the battle with referee supervision, while in a corner of the table, the sword player fights the dragon (maybe by himself, maybe with ref supervision, maybe another player who isn't too busy gets to play the dragon).
The hero gets killed, the dragon starts rampaging through the mercenary army and most of its forces are destroyed!

Suddenly, the referee begins describing things from the subjective point of view of the initial "party" I described.
There's this massive army killing your troops and they're coming for you next, what do you do?
Maybe some stay and fight to the death,
Maybe some try to run away, 
but it's back in first person view.
Later on, the party is safe and sound (minus the second in command, who bravely stood with the men) hidden in a cave. With no troops to handle, the rest of the session will be played in 1st person.

Next session begins with bandits (50 of them) ambushing the heroes. They first need to figure out how to stall their capture or fight and not die, until eventually a cavalry of rohirim arrive! These, again, are played by players, same for the bandit army.
Etc.

Because the referee handles all rules (all one or three of them in case of contemporary FKR, though back in the days it seems they also kind of liked having a lot of rules to back up their refereeing, sometimes. Depends on the GM, depends on who you speak with), this kind of stuff is seamless compared to if you were using a framework like 5e.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> As I posted upthread, Risus is very similar to OtE but with tighter editing, and replacing OtE's combat rules with a simpler, more universal, conflict resolution system that has some resemblance to Prince Valiant. In terms of rules systems it's no lighter than OtE without the combat rules (eg just use opposed checks and drop hit points altogether) or Prince Valiant.
> 
> I had the same thought!



_Over the Edge_ and _FUDGE_ were explicit influences for Risus, Fate, and Cortex. This is one reason why I typically think of them as coming from a similar game philosophy that places an importance on fictional tags for establishing the character: e.g., Clichés (Risus), Aspects (Fate), and Distinctions (Cortex). So even if these games have different underlying architecture - Cortex (Savage Worlds), Fate (FUDGE), etc. - their fictional tags are an important part of how they understand character. One could, for example, potentially make a d20 based game that operates along similar game design philosophy and principles as Fate, Cortex, and Risus.

There are a number of fiction-first games that run pretty close to what FKR is doing. FKR, however, seems to reject the points of design that draws attention to its design or mechanics. So, for example, if I Create an Advantage in Fate, then I am creating an Aspect (a fictional tag) for the scene: e.g., "Blinded by Pocket Sand."






An Aspect is essentially anything in the fiction that has enough in-fiction significance to have mechanical weight or interactivity for characters. It can be invoked for a +2 to the player's roll against the effected NPC. The NPC has to spend at least one turn to try getting rid of the Aspect. Creating this Advantage may simply require beating +2 on the Difficulty Ladder. How we do this in Fate may depend on the dials and knobs in place (e.g., Skills, Approaches, Rated Aspects, Stunts, etc.), but I may still spend a Fate point to invoke one of my character Aspects to make this succeed: e.g., "Unpredictable Conspiracy Theory Redneck."

Though Cortex varies in its system architecture, it may produce a similar result as Fate: e.g., player inflicts a Complication on the NPC ("Blinded by Pocket Sand") or player creates a temporary Asset ("Pocket Sand!").

FKR would seem to say that all of these rules are completely unnecessary. The player declares that they use pocket sand, and the GM declares that it works or makes the player roll for it. (Or possibly the GM simply declares that it doesn't work.) The dice resolution systems for FKR varies, so I won't presume what those are. However, players in Fate can reliably make this happen, and they know how they can reproduce the effect (i.e., Create an Advantage). It's also something that can be inflicted on them.

I suspect that the differing reasons why Fate (or other games) may want these rules and why FKR doesn't could highlight some real insight into these two different sorts of games approach the nature of fiction, rules, and the participants. I respect the idea that FKR is fiction-first - (not sure why FKR doesn't just say that rather than "play worlds not rules") - but there seems to be a different attitutde towards the fiction that I can't quite put my finger on.

Like I understand that a human processor is (potentially) faster at adjudicating fiction without rules, but I'm not necessarily sure that the fastest possible speed is necessarily the optimal thing.. IMHO, the rules are an underestimated contributing factor for the pacing of the game. The rules can draw attention to dramatic moments in the fiction.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> If your table relies on numbers of dice to inform their choices, and there is a formalized set of player facing rules they expect to follow in order to proceed in the game, then, as I understand it, it is not FKR.



A further comment on this: Prince Valiant is classic Greg Stafford design. So there is nothing like WotC D&D feats, or other quirky exception-based stuff that generates pure mechanical manipulation. (With one exception: players can get Gold Stars on their PC sheets that entitle them to a bonus die once per session.)

So there is no difference between playing one's PC's stats and playing one's PC's in-fiction strengths.

This contrasts with eg Burning Wheel, or 4e D&D.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

Can @overgeeked , @Numidius , @Malmuria , or @Snarf Zagyg unpack what the difference is between "play worlds, not rules" from the credibility test that takes place for each component of situation framing > action declaration > consequence handling in all games governed by genre logic that are emulating said genre?

Is it the same thing?  Subtly different?

If its the same thing, then the only difference would be:

"play worlds *and *rules"

vs 

"play worlds *not *rules"

So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:

* GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)?  GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.

* Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves.

* GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space.



So that is the typical procedure/loop for most of the games I've GMed in the last 65 million years (the KT Boundary Event was actually the beginning of TTRPGing...bit of trivia for everyone to pop out at your next dinner party...you're welcome).  

What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the *and *and the *not *here?

I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step.  But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc).  I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process.  I'm there.  But in a game, I have to have something...so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff.  So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).


So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 13, 2021)

The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player. So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question, just about my character relative to other characters. Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player. So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question, just about my character relative to other characters. Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.



I think if you read the second of @Numidius's links to Lizard Wizard you'll get an answer: Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!

I think that could be translated to climbing easily enough (in principle: I imagine the narration would be about handholds, tired fingers, straining tendons, etc. @Manbearcat should be able to elaborate!).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 13, 2021)

Hmm. Yes and no. I'm talking more about that moment when the player is trying to decide what to do, not the narration of doing it. I suppose it works to a point, but when you expand my example to anything that would normally be covered by skills it feels like an awfully shallow information environment for the players as regards decision making. That could just be my lack of experience with FKR in play though.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm. Yes and no. I'm talking more about that moment when the player is trying to decide what to do, not the narration of doing it. I suppose it works to a point, but when you expand my example to anything that would normally be covered by skills it feels like an awfully shallow information environment for the players as regards decision making. That could just be my lack of experience with FKR in play though.



Well, I imagine you would say that you (as your character) look at the wall, to see what the best way to tackle it might be. The GM would say something about what you can see, and perhaps what it's "rating" is or something else about the apparent difficulty. Then you'd say what you do. If you don't say that you chalk your fingers maybe the GM narrates slipping due to sweat, and then you have to explain how you hold your position with legs and one hand while getting to your chalk bag with the sweaty hand.

At least something like that (and with apologies to posters who actually know something about climbing).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Well, I imagine you would say that you (as your character) look at the wall, to see what the best way to tackle it might be. The GM would say something about what you can see, and perhaps what it's "rating" is or something else about the apparent difficulty. Then you'd say what you do. If you don't say that you chalk your fingers maybe the GM narrates slipping due to sweat, and then you have to explain how you hold your position with legs and one hand while getting to your chalk bag with the sweaty hand.
> 
> At least something like that (and with apologies to posters who actually know something about climbing).



That last sentence is problematic for me. What about players who don't know about climbing? Or martial arts? Or swordfighting? Or machine guns? Or the nuances of a criminal enterprise? I mean this on both ends, for the player and GM, a significant imbalance of practical knowledge seems troublesome. Again, I'm not naysaying here, just a little boggled.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

S'mon said:


> That feels like you've pre-determined what should be in question. What I loved seeing in my play was more akin to the 'representative of one of the most liberal states in Europe' *coming to the conclusion* that 'political stability depends upon affirming the most reactionary forms of government'. To me those are the golden moments. Sometimes they seem to change the worldview of a player as well as the worldview of their PC. I've seen players have political-moral epiphanies in-game. Right up there with "Are we the Baddies?"





S'mon said:


> I may create or use a Situation with NPCs that may superficially resemble the start conditions of a murder mystery - there might even be a murder - but I'm not interested in seeing it resolved according to the beats & tropes of murder mystery fiction. What I'm interested in is the people - PC & NPC - their motivations, personalities etc. I love seeing them interact in accordance with their goals etc, with no pre-determined outcome. If the PC detective falls in love with the murderess NPC and they run off together, that's certainly fine by me. I love me the immersion, the experience of being 'in' the fictional world. I don't find murder mystery fiction immersive at all; the world seems to exist only as a thin backdrop for the mystery/plot/puzzle



To me, there seem to be two readings of _in accordance with_: a _causal_ reading; and a _consistency _reading. I've got nothing against the second - the goals etc set some sort of soft/fuzzy boundary of tenability/plausibility around a character's reactions and responses. I tend to find the first implausible. It's a creative decision, what a character does.

I think whether a player learns something moral-political from their creative play is a separate thing, that depends on further aspects of personality etc. Eg, and at a risk of painting with a broad brush, and given my impressions of the two people I'm about to mention, I would expect this more from (eg) Picasso than from Eric Hobsbawm. I don't think these personality differences necessarily tell us anything more about the virtue/character of the person.

Here's an example from my own play (Burning Wheel) where the fiction led me to develop a character:


pemerton said:


> My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.
> 
> At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - _The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!_;_ Aramina will need my protection_ - and three Instincts - _When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle_; _If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself_; _When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning_.
> 
> ...



For my part, I think the fiction has to get pretty emotionally laden for these sorts of things to feel "emergent" rather than "deliberate".


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think if you read the second of @Numidius's links to Lizard Wizard you'll get an answer: Example of Play in Diceless Combat with Norbert G. Matausch + Free Zine!
> 
> I think that could be translated to climbing easily enough (in principle: I imagine the narration would be about handholds, tired fingers, straining tendons, etc. @Manbearcat should be able to elaborate!).




Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that? I’m struggling to distinguish what I just read from some kind of Calvinball Conch Passing hybrid. That is not what I anticipated from engaging in this thread nor from reading a few systems/blogs.

I mean…what governs the moment of play below?




> *Wiz*: could I stab his eyes with my fingers? Or is he holding me by the shoulders?
> 
> *Norbert: *my old rule is, "if you ask 'can I', my answer is always 'no', but if you just DO, it might work"




We’re playing the world…not the rules. Ok.

These are the elements of the shared imagined space.

* on plane.

* big beefy jerk.

* I say I’m a shaolin archetype.

* I go tray to face to angry beefy jerk and it just works (I don’t know why).

* I try to ask questions to orient myself to the fiction (I’m playing the world) because I have no rules to orient me. I get stone cold rebuffed by the GM who says “just do it” (this really feels like someone read Apocalypse World and just ripped out all the system architecture that handles said orienting of character : player : situation …it even feels like they’re channeling VB’s casual prose).

* So I just do it…and it works (why I don’t know).


I could easily map this onto climbing or talking or running. It would all be the same; working from a huge information deficit and getting rebuffed when I try to ask orienting questions. Like so:

Player: Is this a big move? Seems like you’re describing a big move? Like a double Dino where I lose all 4 points of contact on the wall for a moment? That right? Is the hold Im leaping to a sloper or a tiny pinch or crimp? Something bad like that? I’ve gotta be tired at this point? Am I tired? Can I reroute to something more technical but time consuming? Less explosive and dangerous?

GM: If you ask me stuff, you can’t do it. Just DO it. Maybe it’ll work.

Player:  …ooooooook? I reroute to a more technically demanding and lengthy route but I’ve got the gas tank for that and it’s way less dangerous.

GM: Cool. Your fingers are getting exhausted as you near the crux. One last move and you’re at the top.




That is a depiction of actual play? That feels like that has to be an orthodox-deviant version of FKR. That does not look like what I’ve read this far. That play example is on a continuum of Consensual Story Time or Calvinball depending upon the frequency of seemingly arbitrarily “yes” or “no” responses by the GM.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> That last sentence is problematic for me. What about players who don't know about climbing? Or martial arts? Or swordfighting? Or machine guns? Or the nuances of a criminal enterprise? I mean this on both ends, for the player and GM, a significant imbalance of practical knowledge seems troublesome. Again, I'm not naysaying here, just a little boggled.



Well, I think a premise of at least some FKRery is that the player will bring their expertise. That seems to be the implication of the blog I linked to just upthread.

This is the logic of referee and player expertise in free kriegsspiel, I think.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

@Manbearcat 
Yeah, fascinating, ah ah! 

Btw I guess that was an improvised exchange in a chat, nonetheless...... yeah 

That is basically how I handled combat in my Gumshoe game, to be honest. Sometimes asking the player to roll a D6, eventually spending skill points.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That is a depiction of actual play? That feels like that has to be an orthodox-deviant version of FKR. That does not look like what I’ve read this far. That play example is on a continuum of Consensual Story Time or Calvinball depending upon the frequency of seemingly arbitrarily “yes” or “no” responses by the GM.



I had a similar response. The blog refers to Theatrix, which I've heard of but don't know. Maybe it says something about when to say yes and when to say no? Here is the Wikipedia entry:Theatrix (role-playing game) - Wikipedia. If that's accurate, then I don't think the example in the blog was strictly by the book!


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Well, I think a premise of at least some FKRery is that the player will bring their expertise. That seems to be the implication of the blog I linked to just upthread.
> 
> This is the logic of referee and player expertise in free kriegsspiel, I think.




That I can absolutely get with.

One of my theoretical Player Best Practices  above was exactly that (give solicited advice when the GM needs help).

But that doesn’t seem like what’s happening here.

If we were to map this into climbing there might be a back and forth between player and GM and the player then rolls Gas Tank + Gear + Climbwise (3d6 and gets 2 results of 4-6) vs Long Route + Slippery Hold (2d6 and GM gets 0 results of 4-6) for a contest of 2d6 +2 vs 2d6 +0…win and you’ve made the ascent…lose and it costs you something and we’re still on the wall.

But that looks very different from the completely unstructured freeform without descriptor restraint and extremely limited orienting aspects that I just read.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

@S'mon, which bit stunned you?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @S'mon, which bit stunned you?



I am unable to take actions at present, sorry


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> @Manbearcat
> Yeah, fascinating, ah ah!
> 
> Btw I guess that was an improvised exchange in a chat, nonetheless...... yeah
> ...




“Sometimes roll a d6, eventually spending skill points” is considerably more systemitized than what I read in that blog!

I mean the below sincerely.

If I was going to come up with the douchiest satire of dysfunctional FKR play, it would be much friendlier to they FKR movement than what I read there.

That feels like somebody who hates FKR trolled them with a blog.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> “Sometimes roll a d6, eventually spending skill points” is considerably more systemitized than what I read in that blog!
> 
> I mean the below sincerely.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but the point, to me, is that if you want combat fiction-full, with diegetic, in-fiction harm and consequences, that is the way to go. 
FKRers say also: develop rules as you go if you need 'em, or borrow from the tons of existing rulesets.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 13, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Yeah, but the point, to me, is that if you want combat fiction-full, with diegetic, in-fiction harm and consequences, that is the way to go.
> FKRers say also: develop rules as you go if you need 'em, or borrow from the tons of existing rulesets.




But where is the orienting of the players to the constituent parts of the fiction that should inform their move-space as they navigate decision-points?

I mean…typically that orienting is the synthesis of (a) conversation surrounding the shared imagined space + (b) rules.

In that example, the (a) is outright vetoed by the GM (the player asks orienting questions and gets rebuffed…these orienting questions would be the internal dialogue and automaticity that happens IRL when dealing with obstacles whether they’re people or things or places or self doubt or or emotions or some combination) and (b) doesn’t exist!

That moment of play is the opposite of “tactical infinity.” That moment of play depicted is “tactical nothingness.”

EDIT - If it’s not clear…I’m frustrated. I actually thought I was starting to get my head around conceptually what is happening in the FKR movement. I thought I had a model for play in my head. Reading that excerpt has set me back significantly.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> But that looks very different from the completely unstructured freeform without descriptor restraint and extremely limited orienting aspects that I just read.




So here's the disconnect, in my opinion.

You have a few people here (mostly @Malmuria @overgeeked @S'mon @Numidius @niklinna  and myself ... I apologize if I missed anyone) articulating that we think that there are some interesting ideas in "FKR." Some of us are viewing it in terms of interesting ideas, some are running the rules-lite games that are considered FKR, some are adopting some of the principles for use in their own games (such as stripped down D&D as advocated by some FKR/OSR proponents). 

None of us (AFAIK) are "leaders" or "central figures" or "speakers of the orthodoxy" of FKR. Just curious gamers trying stuff out that seems interesting. 

From my P.O.V., for the most part (not completely, not totally, but for the most part) the disconnect is coming because we have a group of people trying to share the things that they find interesting and valuable. And the skepticism is coming from people that are trying to "define" it. 

We end up close to the wine post!








						System matters and free kriegsspiel
					

My joke was unproductive, but the above is cool?   Well, your "joke" was mocking people you don't agree with in a sarcastic manner.   Put another way, if you're engaged in a discussion (or argument) with someone, and you turn to your friend and mock the people you don't agree with, it is...




					www.enworld.org
				




So it's an endless redux- first, there was an argument over what Free Kriegspiel (not even FKR) is. Then people were uncomfortable because some people (apparently? I'm unclear on this) who mentioned FKR elsewhere also mentioned OSR, or had other opinions that were bad. Now it's an issue that disparate examples of play, or disparate examples of the game itself, have to be justified as being the "one true way" of FKR. Which no one can do, because the term is just an umbrella term that doesn't have a single game, or even a single "style of play" to it.

To give you a few examples-
A. You have the OSR/OD&D/FKR crossover. Darkworm Colt's blog (Norbert Matusch) is an example of this. It's people that use the term to try and re-create a neo-Arnesonian approach to the game. I think it's interesting, but that's not my cup of Mad Hatter tea. 
B. Then you have the playing the fiction, DM-adjucation approach. The original "play worlds, not rules" blog post linked to (d66 Classless Kobolds aka Jim Parkin).
C. Next, you have the broader swath of people using "FKR" as an umbrella term for inspiration to create rules-lite systems that are ... well, I want to say fiction-first, but I don't want to accidentally trample over a definition and cause problems. We can say that the narrative concepts matter more than numbers on a character sheet and rules abstractions.

The thing is, other than a shared interest in rules-lite systems (which I believe @pemerton would say are incomplete systems, and knowingly so!), there's little to connect a lot of them. Does an FKR game provide for little, some, or significant amount of player authorship of the narrative? Yes! Does an FKR game allow a player to override the referee? Maybe! Does an FKR game depend on actual experience, genre knowledge, or just willingness to move the narrative along? You betcha!

I get that it's frustrating trying to pin this down. In a way, it would be like someone saying that D&D in general is cool, and then the problem being that you get multiple people arguing about OD&D, 4e, 2e, 5e, 1e, 3e, and pointing to all the different ways people play them and what other people say about it. And, of course, someone will then say, "Hey, y'all BASIC!" It's not just a single thing- and people can (and do) have multiple interpretations.

To the extent you keep asking about the rules or the method of play, you are going to get frustrated. What I am taking from FKR, and the "FKR" (really, a philosophy regarding rules-lite games) is different than what others might take. And that's okay! IMO.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 13, 2021)

One reason why I find both Story/Narrativist and OSR games appealing is how they represent two divergent responses (if not conscientiously so) to the issue of GM-curated Force, as broadly represented by Traditional gaming. But from what I can tell - even by reading the old play stories of Ur-gaming with Arneson, M.A.R. Barker, et al. - there aren't exactly any safeguards against GM Force that are part of FKR. So how does FKR handle the issue of GM Force?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

I wrote the OP in this thread. It was not any sort of criticism of free kriegsspiel; it was an analysis.

And someone else turned this into a thread about FKR. Which is fine by me.

I think I would find it helpful if someone who thinks they "get" FKR better than me would identify some of the rules-heavy systems that are the objects of its critique. As I've said, 3E D&D seems to me to be the core of it; but are there other systems that are also being had in mind?

Not far upthread @Numidius suggested that D&D-style spells are compatible with FKR. Can RQ be played in a FKR-adjacent fashion?

Anyway, it seems time to mention Vincent Baker on cubes and clouds: a list of those blogs is here, and here's the one I know best: anyway: 3 Resolution Systems.

Obviously FKR is very hostile to cubes-to-cubes resolution (D&D hit points; WotC D&D stop-motion initiative; at least some interpretations of the action economy and PC abilities that affect it more generally; damage-on-a-miss, which tends to undercut Baker's treatment of "I hit" as a cubes-to-cloud relationship; etc). They love cloud-to-cloud.

It's the attitude towards cubes-to-cloud that I'm unclear about, because it is sometimes called for but there is a least an intermittent hostility to systematisation, though not a uniform hostility. (The AW-flavoured FKR clearly has a systematic mechanical framework, of rolling dice whose size reflects fictional likelihoods of prevailing in a given sort of contest.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> It's the attitude towards cubes-to-cloud that I'm unclear about, because it is sometimes called for but there is a least an intermittent hostility to systematisation, though not a uniform hostility. (The AW-flavoured FKR clearly has a systematic mechanical framework, of rolling dice whose size reflects fictional likelihoods of prevailing in a given sort of contest.)




Again, it's _not just one thing._

Let's make this exceedingly easy using a system you are familiar with. Cthulhu Dark (lite). Go to the section marked UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

Now, imagine the following based upon that:
A. "Standard model." Keeper decides everything.
B. "Shared model." There is a Keeper, but decisions are collaborative.
-There can be different, agreed-to, collaborative frameworks.
C. "Fiasco model." No Keeper.

Same game. Same ruleset. Very different approaches.

This gets even trickier when you introduce different games under the same banner.

1. GM applying "FKR" by using a genre source (Star Trek: TOS or Brideshead Revisited or whatever) with an invisible rulebook and GM decides.

2. Group playing FKR with ruleset allowing players to override GM narration.

3. Group playing FKR with ruleset allowing players to "rewind" scenes or have genre-appropriate narrative devices (flashbacks, montages).

Because FKR is not a single thing, game, or set of rules, asking about "the" method of resolution doesn't work. This is the repeated disconnect- it's not one thing, so you can't expect one answer, or have it fit into one box (or, um, one cube).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 13, 2021)

That bit where the GM says “If you ask ‘can I do it’, you can’t; but if you just do it, then you might do it” sums up the area of criticism I have about what seem to be some elements of FKR; namely, reliance on GM interpretation of the fiction combined lack of player facing rules and seemingly total GM fiat on how things go.

There are games that were linked on itch.io that I absolutely would play. There are others I’d like to try if the opportunity came up. Those don’t appear to be anything like what was described in that blog.

If I found myself playing in such a game, I’d have to politely bow out. There’s nothing appealing to me about that example of play.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 13, 2021)

This from Vincent Baker - the precursor to cubes-and-clouds, I think - also seems relevant: anyway: post a comment

And this from the comments is interesting too (it's still Baker):

When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular, possibly unnatural ways. I'm f****n' around with their working creative relationships.

Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create _permission_ and _expectation_. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human interactions at a deep level.

So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak, flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to already be in place, or the game crashes.​
This is also pretty good:

In my imagination, a rule is like if you take a nail and scratch a line in dry dirt, and what people actually do is like where the water actually runs. Some water will run down the line you scratched, because you scratched it. Other water will run down the line you scratched but would have run there even if you hadn't. Other water will go wherever it goes. And (and here this picture breaks down, now I'm talking about bizarro-world water) some water will respond perversely to your line, bouncing off of it or testing its limits or sliding around it or flowing in the opposite direction out of plain orneriness.​
And this seems directly on point re FKR ("cues" means _cubes_, ie the material tokens used to mediate decisions about the shared fiction):

[Imagine a picture of two arrows, one running out of the cloud (ie shared fiction) back into itself, one running rightward to the cubes]

In play, this highlighted moment is a moment of judgment. Of interpretation. Someone has to read the game's fiction and draw conclusions about it.

Brother Benjamin is laying his hand on Sister Coral's hand. Does this count as escalation? Sister Coral's shaken by his touch, and relents. Her player's taken the blow, but does it count as a social blow or a physical blow?

Bobnar (tx Ben) is standing on a tree stump when the wood-trolls attack. Does this count as the high ground?

Ned McCubbins is breaking from cover and running like hell across the beach, in plain view of a boatful of His Majesty's marines. Does this count as going into danger? . . .

The convenience of cue-to-fiction or cue-to-cue is that nobody has to read anything, or that the reading is trivially easy, if you prefer. I say "Morton casts 'good for having back at your ungrateful relations,'" and I erase 2 evil from my character sheet. It's a triviality to judge whether this counts as my having spent 2 evil. There's one solution to the problem of biased judgment: commoditize it. Create a cue; create something undeniable or trivial to read. Coordinate mechanical advantages with mechanical costs or mechanical risks. . . .

Commoditization is Fate's solution to the problem of biased judgment (and the solution of dozens upon dozens of games). Your character has the high ground in a fight. Is it to your advantage? If you pay for it to be, yes. Later on, your character's enemy has the high ground. Is it to the other player's advantage too? If she pays for it too, yes. Otherwise, nope. Having the high ground doesn't give you the advantage - that would require a moment of judgment, vulnerable to bias - it gives you the opportunity to buy the advantage.

It's a fine solution. However, it's not the only solution, and it's not the best solution for every game. It's the heart of Frank Tarcikowski's complaint from that Forge thread:

...I'm saying that one should invest in the SIS, and specifically, in Situation, moment-by-moment. Who's there, what's going on, what does it look like, sound like, feel like? In my experience, if you have a game system that works perfectly well without investing much in the SIS, people may tend to rush the story and their imagination of the actual in-game situation gets rather blurry. Such games still sound great in a write-up but to me, they're leaving a bad taste, like reading a good book way too fast.​
My experience matches Frank's.

Another solution, equally good, equally not-always-suitable: give the moment of judgment to a player who's strongly invested in getting it _right_, not in one character or another coming out on top.

Player 1 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to have the high-ground advantage.

Player 2 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to NOT have the high-ground advantage.

Player 3 STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, and doesn't care a bit whether Bobnar has the high-ground advantage.

Which player should get to judge Bobnar's position? (Hint: Player 3 should.)

This solution has a hell of a lot to recommend it, when it's suitable. It works directly counter to Frank's complaint.

And I'm certain there are more solutions to the problem of biased judgment than just these two.​
EDIT: I think this helps us see why _Look through crosshairs_, as a principle in Apocalypse World, is doing more than simply establishing genre. It is also telling the GM that they are _not_ an advocate for the NPCs they control, any more than they are an advocate for the weather or for the petrol mileage on the Chopper's motorcycle.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 13, 2021)

If we're not talking about a distinct approach why are we talking about FKR then? Why not just have a discussion about minimalism in RPG design? If the category has no real meaning what does the manifesto or label add to the conversation? What are we actually talking about? What's interesting here? What specific sort of fun are we talking about? It's obvious to me that some types of fun are not on the table when we start talking about minimalist designs.

On my posting style:

Gaining a cohesive understanding of things is fun for me. It's why I participate in these discussions. To question things, interrogate them, learn more, and alter my internal model of the way things work. I have zero real interest in convincing anyone of anything on these boards. Every question I ask is part of an attempt to understand more. When I speak I'm saying how I see things, although I am not always the best at moderating my words to phrase things in more palatable ways.

@S'mon I wanted to thank you for being so clear and to the point. The way you talk about FKR seems cohesive, consistent, and like something I could enjoy playing. I wish I got the same sense from the FKR blogs.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 13, 2021)

I wanted to clarify some of the comments I made upthread. When I said I think you need a cohesive model of play I don't think you need the books to define that. I think most of the folks playing do have a fairly cohesive model of play worked out. I just do not think it's the only model of play or even the most natural to run/play an RPG.

Like if I sit down to run a game with no specific game in mind what generally ends up happening is that I end up grabbing an existing mental model off the shelf from games I have experience with. I will run basically Apocalypse World, basically Blades, basically Sorcerer, basically Burning Wheel or basically B/X. This is also true for games I run that lack a cohesive model of play. I pretty much run Exalted like Burning Wheel. I pretty much run L5R like Sorcerer. Dune is like a mixture of Blades and Burning Wheel.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 13, 2021)

Since I don't know any FKR live streams, I'm gonna post the next best thing...


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

Campbell said:


> @S'mon I wanted to thank you for being so clear and to the point. The way you talk about FKR seems cohesive, consistent, and like something I could enjoy playing. I wish I got the same sense from the FKR blogs.




Heh, I'm not even familiar with the FKR movement! I'd never heard of it before this thread. Everything I know about Free Kriegsspiel is from my own research and practice.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @S'mon, which bit stunned you?




(Very hard day at work, sorry if incoherent) I guess the way your play example exemplifies a really hardcore 'author stance' approach. It just feels so alien to what I do. Alien rather as in






It feels pretty scary!

Here's an example of play from late in my Wilderlands campaign, where the empire of Hakeem Godslayer (chris107) is falling apart - Sensitive Content Warning (blog nsfw, but nothing nsfw in that link). The NPCs like Namelin Bronze are just being played according to my sense of their character; Namelin has a rep as 'greedy and ruthless'. When Hakeem had earlier 'retired' and left Namelin co-ruler of the empire, Namelin & his sister Llanet didn't think that made much sense - Sensitive Content Warning


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:
> 
> * GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)?  GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.
> 
> ...



Wow. That's a lot of jargon. If I understand all that, then yes, that looks right to me, save the bolded and italicized bit. Compelling implies deference to story, FKR doesn't do that. Emergant story rather than pushing for story structure, acts, etc. It goes for internal consistency according to genre expectations. So what makes for the most compelling story isn't a factor. Unless it is. Because, again, it's a playstyle not a singular game or system. So it will be different depending on the actual game played and the actual Referee running it. Along with the genre emulated and the players at the table. 


Manbearcat said:


> What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the *and *and the *not *here?



_*And*_ implies that the rules are on par with the world. Equal stature. As relevant as. They're not. The rules are at the end of the list of things that are important, if that. The goal is to get to character immersion and world immersion. Every time you engage mechanics that breaks immersion, takes you out of the shared delusion of the fiction, etc. So a push for the simplest rules possible, while still having rules, so you can deal with the rules as quickly as possible (minimizing breaking immersion), and move back to actual play (i.e. immersion in character and world).


Manbearcat said:


> I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step.



But you do. Your entire life has trained you to expect and accept certain things from a wide but limited list. In real life you wouldn't shrug off seeing a person lift off from the ground, unaided, and simply fly away. Nor would you be blasé about a person breaking off part of a building and throwing it. The "real world" is just as much a genre with genre rules and tropes and expectations as any other.


Manbearcat said:


> But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc).



Right. But in real life you don't have an omniscient observer (Referee) to ask questions and no expectation of objective answers. Take the gastank. You can ask the Referee about how much gas is in the tank. You can ask the Referee about how far you'd estimate that car could go with about that much gas. This simulates you looking at your gas gauge and _estimating_ how much gas is there and _estimating_ how far you can go with what you have in the tank. But to gamers, that would drive them up the wall. "Why can't I know exactly how much gas is in the tank?" "Do you stop the car and precisely measure the amount of gas in the tank or are you eyeballing it and guessing?" "Why can't I know exactly how far I can go with what's left in the tank?" "Because you haven't driven it yet. You're estimating distance based on an estimate of gas. And there could be trouble ahead. There's no precision to be had." But that's exactly how it goes in real life. At best you can estimate based on past experience and your list of genre expectations. At no point is there an omniscient observer to tell you precise probabilities. It's an affect/conceit of gaming.


Manbearcat said:


> I don't _*need rules for that in real life*_ that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process.  I'm there.  _*But in a game, I have to have something*_...



And that's the disconnect. In ultralight games, like most FKR games, there's already more rules than you'd expect in real life. There's already "something" there in FKR and ultralight games. It's just not enough for some. Because as gamers, we want more. More widgets to poke at and more buttons to press. Because it's a game. It has rules. But one of the goals of FKR is to shift the focus from game rules onto immersion and verisimilitude by pushing game play towards the "play loop" we use in real life.


Manbearcat said:


> so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff.



But we don't need to do that. We don't need to regulate and encode anything beyond the genre expectations and if we can't decide based on the fiction, roll 2d6. If something needs to be encoded, like say the quantity of food a horse eats in a day, instead of looking in a rule book for the answer (D&D5E says it's four pounds, btw) you look to real life as much as possible and then only if it's relevant. Does it matter right now, in this moment, exactly how much food a horse eats? If not, then it doesn't matter. Horses need to eat 1-2% of their body weight in roughage a day, for what it's worth. Unless you're talking about really small breeds of horses, they need more than four pounds of food a day. And that's part of the problem. As gamers we default to the rules rather than reality...when we have objective reality all around us to default back to. (When/if objective reality is a valid reference point, it might not always be...such as space opera, etc.) That creates cognitive dissonance with people who know more about a particular subject than the writers of the rules. It breaks their immersion. So rather than codify a quick but wrong answer in the rules, don't. If it matters enough that you would want to stop the game and take time to look it up in the rule book...take the time to look it up for real. Especially now. Hello internet. If it's about genre, reference the genre. If it's mechanical, roll 2d6. I've been doing this hobby for about 37 years. I have played a lot of games with a lot of gamers across the country in various environments, and I've yet to come across a single rule in any game that is justified in being more complicated than "roll 2d6, higher is better." Genre emulating rules are a bit different. Like Doctor Who's pitch perfect initiative rules. Actions occur in the following order: talkers, movers, doers, fighters. Or Cthulhu Dark's "if you fight monsters, you die."


Manbearcat said:


> So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).
> 
> So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?



You're not wrong. It's a misalignment of expectations. You expect a lot of mechanical rules you can read prior to play. That's simply not what FKR wants to deliver. FKR points to genre tropes and particular pieces of fiction as the rules to use. If you want to assimilate rules prior to play, find out what the genre or piece of fiction, fact, or history you're playing is...and binge some stuff. So questions like "how do I climb a wall?" aren't answered with "on page 25 you'll find the DCs for climbing various surfaces" instead you'll get "it depends on the genre and circumstances in play at the time you want to climb a wall." How do you climb a wall? You tell the Referee that you climb the wall. They will make a decision based on the relevant circumstances in the moment if it's an automatic success, automatic failure, or you need to roll. If their decision sounds off to you, ask them. They'll explain their reasoning. It's a feature, not a bug.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Ok. I don’t mean to be a jerk…but holy mother of god. I can’t imagine playing that? I’m struggling to distinguish what I just read from some kind of Calvinball Conch Passing hybrid. That is not what I anticipated from engaging in this thread nor from reading a few systems/blogs.



For what it's worth, a lot of that sounds atrocious to me as well.


Manbearcat said:


> GM: If you ask me stuff, you can’t do it. Just DO it. Maybe it’ll work.



Yeah, that's a jerk Referee. For me a better response is "you can try". I'm not a fan players asking permission. Don't do that. If you're asking clarifying questions, that's great. You can do whatever a person with your character's capabilities could do in this situation. If you're asking if you can poke someone in the eye, I'll assume you mean "am I physically capable of performing this action" rather than "mother may I". I've found that players try to guess what they assume the Referee wants them to do by asking the permission questions. Like hoping the Referee will reveal what the "right answer" is based on response to the permission question.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> The thing I don't get/don't like about some of the examples in the blog posts I linked to is how the verbal descriptors turn into mechanical bonuses, to wit at the discretion of the GM. One of the purposes of mechanical bonuses is to replace or model the certainty of the character vis a vis skill X for the player.



Think of it like Fate's aspects only instead of the player having to spend a Fate point to get a benefit, the benefit is persistent. If you describe your character in a way that suggests they can climb, then they can climb. If you describe your character as an office drone who's a shut in couch potato, not so much.


Fenris-77 said:


> So, the character would climb a given wall because they think they have the skills, but the player doesn't have access to that, they have stats and whatnot. So, sure, in a FKR game I have the descriptor 'climby' or somesuch, but that doesn't really tell me anything about the wall in question...



Why would it? What about describing your character as 'climby' involves defining the characteristics of a wall you might climb?


Fenris-77 said:


> just about my character relative to other characters.



Exactly like most games with mechanical weight to how climby your character is. If you have STR18/+4 and expertise in athletics that only tells you about your character...relative to other characters...but tells you exactly zero about the difficulty of climbing walls.


Fenris-77 said:


> Which leaves me to ask the GM - does this wall look like one I can climb without too much trouble or do I think I'm likely to fall to my death? I find having to ask those questions intensely annoying. So how does FKR not end up feeling like that? I haven't played FKR, so that's an honest question, not a baited trap.



Exactly like most games with mechanical weight to how climby your character is. You still have to ask the D&D DM those questions. The only difference is you have the rulebook to look at to estimate what you assume your DCs will be. But you still have to ask _in the moment_ how difficult _this_ wall is at _this_ time in the fiction.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 13, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Simply put, *we'd all be better off if we had a common lexicon.*



As a wider community we can't even agree on a definition for roleplaying. Literally the thing we do collectively as a hobby lacks even a working definition, much less a precise or definitive one.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think I would find it helpful if someone who thinks they "get" FKR better than me would identify some of the rules-heavy systems that are the objects of its critique. As I've said, 3E D&D seems to me to be the core of it; but are there other systems that are also being had in mind?



My impression is that pre-OD&D is the goal for FKR style play; I've heard the term "Arnesonian gaming" elsewhere.  Incidentally, this view would place it in specific relation to the history of dnd more so than in relation to more recent non-dnd-like rpgs.  Further, my impression is that in dnd-type games there is a particular relationship between system and setting that they are trying to invert.  So, rather than playing a game of 1e, or 3e, or whatever in the setting of Greyhawk, you are "playing Greyhawk."  For example, see some of the quotes included in this post:









						Play worlds, not rules: Juggling ideas for stone age rpg sessions
					

… and I don’t mean The Flintstones here. What really is driving my interest these days (in terms of roleplaying games) is to go as far back as possible with the rules. And since it&#821…




					darkwormcolt.wordpress.com
				






> _“Doing it by the book” was impossible; the book – and the game rules – hadn’t been written yet. (1)_
> _“I mentioned that I’ve never really ‘played D&D’; I’ve played “something called Blackmoor with Dave, something called Greyhawk with Gary, and something called Tekumel with Phil” (2)_
> _“We played using whatever tools we needed at that point in the campaign – RPGs, Braunsteins, miniatures, boardgames, poker, you name it.” (12)_
> _“There’s a lot of nonsense about the way Dave played and organized Blackmoor floating about; a lot of people are assuming that he was working to A Great Master Plan when he wasn’t. He loved to simply play, and he whipped up the game mechanics and ‘history’ / ‘timeline’ to suit the game in progress. I guess that the best way to ‘play like Dave’ is to not over-think the thing – don’t worry about how it all has to make sense somehow._




There is something resonant here even when looking at the rules-lite games of the OSR.  On osr forums, there is a lot of talk of "which system" to use.  e.g. quesitons like, "do I use basic fantasy or OSE or the black hack?"  Sometimes there is an attempt to "match" system and setting, e.g. "what system is best for barrowmaze/stonehell/ultraviolet grasslands?" or "how do I convert Against the Giants for Into the Odd."  All those games might be rules lite, but there is a certain obsession over which of those variations of dnd are 'best.'  

Part of my particular circumstance is that I have players who don't bother to read rules or principles anyway, so I'm basically running all the 'game' elements on my end anyway.  I played a 5e campaign this way, which was done by the book, which for some of the players amounted to them rolling a die and me doing all the math and narrating the outcome.  So rather than focus on system, what I want is for my players to turn to a random page of the Ultraviolet Grasslands setting book, look at one of the beautiful illustrations, and say 'this, whatever this is, I want to play this.'


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> As a wider community we can't even agree on a definition for roleplaying. Literally the thing we do collectively as a hobby lacks even a working definition, much less a precise or definitive one.



RP is a problematic word only when one wants to use it as exclusionary. 
The problem lies when the minority use jargon in external discussions.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Think of it like Fate's aspects only instead of the player having to spend a Fate point to get a benefit, the benefit is persistent. If you describe your character in a way that suggests they can climb, then they can climb. If you describe your character as an office drone who's a shut in couch potato, not so much.
> 
> Why would it? What about describing your character as 'climby' involves defining the characteristics of a wall you might climb?
> 
> ...



Why would it? I guess that's a fair question. Think of it in terms of D&D, although that isn't particularly my jam. If I have a +8 to climb, i have a pretty good handhold (har har) on my chances of climbing any given wall, especially when you add in that the basic spread of DCs is the same from DM to DM. Now that really isn't materially different than 'climby', I'll grant you, but is more grounded. By which I mean I'm comparing a number I know to a likely range of numbers. Whereas with climby I'm comparing a less-well-defined number against a complete unknown. To grant another point, in both cases I can ask the GM "how climbable does the wall of the keep look?" which is perfectly reasonable question in the vein of _what are my chances_ rather than _may I_. However, the answer to that question in D&D provides me, the player, with significantly more information than it does in FKR. The language of the answer in D&D indexes DC pretty precisely even if the DC isn't mentioned, which gives the player a very good idea what the PCs chances of climbing the wall are, which is solid emulation of a PCs fictional ability to decide that same thing for himself. It seems les so in FKR, to me anyway.

A caveat: this isn't me showing my flag as a hyper-cautious player. I'm not. I drive characters like stolen cars, to borrow a phrase, but a big part of enjoying that is that the games I like don't surprise me on the mechanics side, just on the consequences and results side.

To be clear, I bet this problem clears up with time played at the FKR table, and I'm really thinking about this as a new player trying to learn a system and figure out my character. I just see a lot of scope for FKR to feel like a shallow information environment with a lot of disconnects between GM and player knowledge sets and expectations. Obviously it's not always like that, lots of people really enjoy FKR, but I'm struggling a little to figure out why not. Much as @hawkeyefan said above, the examples given _really_ don't appeal to me, and that doesn't happen to me very often with RPGs. Anyway, just searching for clarity. Thanks for the response.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

I am going to post some sincere responses.



Malmuria said:


> My impression is that pre-OD&D is the goal for FKR style play; I've heard the term "Arnesonian gaming" elsewhere.  Incidentally, this view would place it in specific relation to the history of dnd more so than in relation to more recent non-dnd-like rpgs.  Further, my impression is that in dnd-type games there is a particular relationship between system and setting that they are trying to invert.  So, rather than playing a game of 1e, or 3e, or whatever in the setting of Greyhawk, you are "playing Greyhawk."



To me there seems to be a big difference between _playing Earthsea_ - which has been mentioned upthread, as an example (referring to this blog) - and playing _Greyhawk_. To the best of my understanding, Greyhawk as GMed by Gygax is not a fully-realised fiction like Le Guin's novels. It's a megadungeon with some associated stuff that includes an Alice in Wonderland pastiche, a King Kong pastiche, etc.

I'm also not sure that "playing Greyhawk with Gary" can be prised off the fact that Gary is an experienced wargame referee and designer who brings a certain set of play sensibilities to his table (as can be seen very clearly in his DMG, among other works).

Tekumel is obviously a bit different in this respect, although personally I think it's striking how close the Empire of the Petal Throne rules adhere to "exploration of the underworld" play. I don't know if this was Barker's concession to wargaming, or reveals something about the parameters of his fictional conception - I guess Jon Peterson or Shannon Appelcline has probably addressed this question.



Malmuria said:


> Part of my particular circumstance is that I have players who don't bother to read rules or principles anyway, so I'm basically running all the 'game' elements on my end anyway.  I played a 5e campaign this way, which was done by the book, which for some of the players amounted to them rolling a die and me doing all the math and narrating the outcome.



This paints a particular picture of the way in which your players want to engage with their RPGing.



Malmuria said:


> So rather than focus on system, what I want is for my players to turn to a random page of the Ultraviolet Grasslands setting book, look at one of the beautiful illustrations, and say 'this, whatever this is, I want to play this.



This reminded me of this and this from Ron Edwards:

*Exploration and its child, Premise*
The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is *Exploration*. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.

When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever prompted it is *Premise*, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session. Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative commitment going.

Person 1: "You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret from the cattle and coping with other vampires." [See atmospheric, grim, punky-goth pictures]

Person 2: "Ooh! Cool!"

Person 2 might have liked the grittiness of the art, the romance of the word "vampire," or the idea of being involved in a secret mystical intrigue. Or maybe none of these and an entirely different thing. Or maybe all of them at once. It doesn't matter - whatever it was, that's the initial Premise for this person. . . .

The key to Gamist Premises is that the conflict of interest among real people is an overt source of fun. It is not a matter of upset or abuse, and it is certainly not a "distraction from" or "failure of" role-playing.

A possible Gamist development of the "vampire" initial Premise might be, Can my character gain more status and influence than the other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires?
Another might be, Can our vampire characters survive the efforts of ruthless and determined human vampire hunters?
. . .

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?
Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?
. . .

*Simulationist Premises* are generally kept to their minimal role of personal aesthetic interest; the effort during play is spent on the Exploration. Therefore the variety of Simulationist play arises from the variety of what's being Explored.

Character: highly-internalized, character-experiential play, for instance the Turku approach. A possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of Character Exploration might be, What does it feel like to be a vampire?
Situation: well-defined character roles and tasks, up to and including metaplot-driven play. A possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of Situation Exploration might be, What does the vampire lord require me to do?
Setting: a strong focus on the details, depth, and breadth of a given set of source material. A possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of Setting Exploration might be, How has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?
System: a strong focus on the resolution engine and all of its nuances in strictly within-game-world, internally-causal terms. A possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of System Exploration might be, How do various weapons harm or fail to harm a vampire, in specific causal detail?
Any mutually-reinforcing combination of the above elements is of course well-suited to this form of play.
The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game, internally causal terms.​
I think this is a good explanation of the pretty wide variety of ways in which a RPGer can want to play _this_.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> We don't need to regulate and encode anything beyond the genre expectations and if we can't decide based on the fiction, roll 2d6. If something needs to be encoded, like say the quantity of food a horse eats in a day, instead of looking in a rule book for the answer (D&D5E says it's four pounds, btw) you look to real life as much as possible and then only if it's relevant. Does it matter right now, in this moment, exactly how much food a horse eats? If not, then it doesn't matter. Horses need to eat 1-2% of their body weight in roughage a day, for what it's worth. Unless you're talking about really small breeds of horses, they need more than four pounds of food a day. And that's part of the problem. As gamers we default to the rules rather than reality



I think it's widely recognised that the need for RPG books (especially GM manuals) to serve as mini-encyclopaedias has passed.

In a Classic Traveller session that I GMed last year, the PCs were blasting/drilling through 4 km of ice. Their available tools included a triple beam laser turret. We wanted to know how long it took them - in Traveller this matters because it goes to upkeep costs (modest), crew salaries (a bit more than modest), ship repayments if in issue (currently not for this group of collectors of used starships), and also how long I have as referee for my various NPCs spread over multiple worlds to take action "offscreen".

To work it out, we Googled up some papers reporting on using lasers to melt ice and extrapolated wildly from those.

I don't think that makes us FKRer, though. Even back before Google, playing Rolemaster, I remember using actual encyclopaedias to answer questions about (eg) animal mass and speed; and using the expertise of the engineers at the table to resolve other technical questions. (And in another recent Traveller session I remember one of the engineers at the table face-palming multiple times in response to my narration of something-or-other involving electric fields, where I was trying to reconcile some aspect of a module setting I was using with some other bit of framing I was doing!)



overgeeked said:


> In ultralight games, like most FKR games, there's already more rules than you'd expect in real life.



This isn't obvious to me. In real life I have a lot of knowledge about things I'm familiar with: eg I know how many exams I can mark per hour or per day. I know that I can run about 12 km in about 1 hour, but probably not 24 km in 2 hours! I know that I can standing two-legged jump up my Town Hall steps 3 at a time but probably not 4 at a time without risking injury!

I choose these examples because they correlate to the sort of issues of personal capacity that @Fenris-77 has pointed to in relation to climbing.

How important are these sorts of things in RPG resolution? Well, in a system like 4e's skill challenges, hardly at all, because the resolution framework operates independently of these sorts of fictional details (eg I declare I'm marking all the exams, and if I succeed on an INT or CON check as seems appropriate then I get them done, otherwise something goes wrong - depending on context the failure might be narrated as me falling asleep, or getting too bored to keep going, or some external interruption like a fire alarm, which did happen to me once). The fiction has a big impact on framing, and a big impact on consequences, but not a big impact on the actual resolution process.

In a system like Rolemaster or AD&D, this sort of detail often matters a fair bit, and outcomes can turn on whether or not a character is able to deliver a performance that is above the human minimum but not necessarily at the human maximum for the endeavour in question. (The actual way RM handles this is incredibly baroque: PCs have a static movement rate, derived from PC height and the Quickness stat; they have a Sprinting skill bonus; they have a Jumping skill bonus; how those bonuses are used to derive performance is extremely unclear, with multiple published subsystems none of which is fully transparent. I think Burning Wheel is far superior in this respect, with consistent resolution rules and less attempt at feet-per-second granularity.)

This issue of individual capability is applicable to horses and starships too. In real life some horses are hungrier and/or faster than others; some vehicles and some weapons perform better than others. Both RPG rules _and_ encyclopaedias tend to flatten out this real-life variation.



overgeeked said:


> So questions like "how do I climb a wall?" aren't answered with "on page 25 you'll find the DCs for climbing various surfaces" instead you'll get "it depends on the genre and circumstances in play at the time you want to climb a wall." How do you climb a wall? You tell the Referee that you climb the wall. They will make a decision based on the relevant circumstances in the moment if it's an automatic success, automatic failure, or you need to roll. If their decision sounds off to you, ask them. They'll explain their reasoning. It's a feature, not a bug.



To me, this sounds like a stripped-back RuneQuest (or similar "reallism"-oriented system with transparent PC gen).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I bet this problem clears up with time played at the FKR table, and I'm really thinking about this as a new player trying to learn a system and figure out my character. I just see a lot of scope for FKR to feel like a shallow information environment with a lot of disconnects between GM and player knowledge sets and expectations.



I don't think it's a coincidence that Arneson, Gygax and others found that over the course of their play sufficiently many resolution subsystems crystallised that they were able to write them down and publish them.

Marc Miller in the original Traveller rules encourages the referee to make notes of decisions made about how to resolve situations, how to adapt the published subsystems, etc, so as to maintain a consistent world that is fairly adjudicated.

My understanding of some of the FKRers is that they want to live through this sort of process themselves rather than take the benefit of someone else's having done it.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My understanding of some of the FKRers is that they want to live through this sort of process themselves rather than take the benefit of someone else's having done it.



See I'd call that the game design process, which is something I do. However, it's not something I'd _pay_ for (not that anyone said that, just saying). Nothing wrong with it at all, but what you're describing is part pf the road to a more complete RPG, not a standalone RPG system, or set of ideals, or whatever, which is very much what at least some proponents of the FKR seem to want to index. I think if you told a lot of FKR fans that they were simply working toward a 'finished' or more compete RPG they might take umbrage. IDK... maybe it's true for some and not others. Anyway, I don't have an issue with it, but it doesn't seem to encapsulate or really index at all some of the failures to communicate we've had in the tread in places.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> guess the way your play example exemplifies a really hardcore 'author stance' approach



Using the terms "author" and "actor" in Edwards' sense here, it's mostly actor stance: that is, _a person (me, the player) determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have _as opposed to_ a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them._

In order through the play as posted:

* The two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. *Actor stance*

* This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. *Actor stance*

* Thurgon asked Rufus after Auxol. *Actor stance*

* Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze. *Actor stance *(including knowledge of the character's own traits and inclinations)

* Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. *Actor stance*

* Aramina looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him. *Actor stance*

*  I (pemerton) told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. *Not an action declaration as such* - that's already happened above - but a suggestion to the GM as to how, in mechanical terms, I believe Aramina's telling Rufus what she thinks of him ought to be resolved.

* Thurgon tried to break Rufus out of his shock and shame with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. *Actor stance*, again with an indication to the GM as to how, in mechanical terms, I believe Thurgon's attempt ought to be resolved.

*  Aramina tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin. *Actor stance*, again with an indication to the GM as to how, in mechanical terms, I believe Aramina's attempt ought to be resolved.

* The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol. *Actor stance*

*  I tried a different approach, to avoid the Duel of Wits the GM was pushing towards. *Author stance* - my real world priority was not to have my character be hosed in a contest I was pretty sure he couldn't win, partly because of his stats and partly because a Duel of Wits is resolved via blind declarations and my GM is a much better tactical wargamer than me and would crush me in the declaration process.

* I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate. *Actor stance*

* Thurgon raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. *Actor stance* - having retroactively motivated my character to try an "externa" rather than conversational approach to reconciling with his mother, I decided to perform this prayer by drawing on my knowledge of my character's situation, traits and inclinations.

*  I decided that this made an impact on Aramina too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined. *Actor stance *- this is a decision based on the character's traits and inclinations plus having inhabited her through the previous sessions of play, the immediately prior interaction with Rufus, and then witnessing the miracle performed by Thurgon. The key turning point was the Ugly Truth check against Rufus, in which her expression of bitterness towards Rufus had been via an account of the (relative) virtue of Thurgon and their younger brother - if you like, Aramina had persuaded herself of the truth of her own invective! Witnessing the miracle drove this home.​
I haven't tried to classify the GM's stance in playing Rufus and Xanthippe, though I suspect it was mostly author stance, with his real-world priority being to apply pressure as a BW GM is meant to do. When I'm playing BW, I don't worry about the GM's reasoning process - to use Vincent Baker's terms from Apocalypse World, I am very happy to be _misled_! (Ie to take the GM's narration at face value as an account of the internal cause-and-effect logic of the fiction.)

But anyway, the fact that this is all actor stance is pretty important to my own play experience, which is mostly about intense inhabitation of the character, especially their emotional experience. This is why I love Burning Wheel, because it brings this more than any other RPG I know. (I expect Sorcerer is up there too but I've never played it.) It's also why my BW character's tend not to advance as quickly as my GM's character's do when he is playing! He spends more time in Author stance, retroactively motivating his characters to take the actions that will meet his real-world priority of triggering advancement checks (think of a system a bit like the classic RQ improvement-based-on-use).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> See I'd call that the game design process, which is something I do. However, it's not something I'd _pay_ for (not that anyone said that, just saying). Nothing wrong with it at all, but what you're describing is part pf the road to a more complete RPG, not a standalone RPG system, or set of ideals, or whatever, which is very much what at least some proponents of the FKR seem to want to index. I think if you told a lot of FKR fans that they were simply working toward a 'finished' or more compete RPG they might take umbrage. IDK... maybe it's true for some and not others. Anyway, I don't have an issue with it, but it doesn't seem to encapsulate or really index at all some of the failures to communicate we've had in the tread in places.



On the thread: I think it's a success! Look at the title. And what are we discussing 500 posts in? We're discussing system - ie (to quote Ron Edwards) _a means by which in-game events are determined to occur_ - and how free kriegsspiel works as a system, and also what the FKR has to say about system.

On whether my description of FKR's relationship to Arneson, Gygax etc is painting FKR as _play = playtesting/game design. _Mabye?

But here's another thought - once again, it's Edwards, under the heading "Pitfalls of Narrativist game design":

Karaoke. This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme in the text, in detail.

<snip most of Edwards' quote from Over the Edge, which finishes with the following - the quoted "I" is Jonathan Tweet:>

The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse.​
All I (Edwards] see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the _results_ of the play-experience as the _material_ for another person's experience?​
I love this passage from Edwards, and have often referred to it before. One thing I loved about 4e D&D is that it dropped so much of the accreted karaoke of D&D - how exactly does a Sepia Snake Sigil work (compare the rules text in Unearthed Arcana to the 2nd ed AD&D PHB to the 3E PHB to see this build up of _someone else's_ play experience as the material for our play)? What happens if I blast a fireball into a small space? Can my character jump across the wild spaces of the Elemental Chaos and grapple Ygorl? In its place it substituted crisp resolution mechanics in the form of DCs-by-level, page 42, the uniform player-side resource economy, the combat action economy, and the skill challenge framework.

My understanding of at least some of the FKRers - not the one's playing Cthulhu Dark, and frankly not Dark Empires either, but the ones who want to "play like they were playing with Gary in Greyhawk" is that they are sick of the karaoke of _system_ to some pretty fundamental degree. They want to experience the creation of it for themselves

That's not a passion of mine - I don't want Sage Advice-style karaoke of adjudication but am happy to take useful and versatile systems off the shelf - but I'm not going to fault  that passion in others.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 14, 2021)

Maybe FKR posts, particularly this one that has been referenced the most, slips from _setting_ to _genre _without thinking enough about what the difference might be, despite areas of overlap.  For example, if we are playing a Star Wars rpg, are we playing in the Star Wars universe as a setting, or are we telling Star Wars-esque stories?  (This was referenced upthread as a confusion between genre and realism (though I would argue that realism is a genre)).  I'm guessing that the envisioned (and perhaps never realized) fkr-style play involves turning any given novel into a _setting_, and then having play being driven by the invisible "rulebooks" of what sort of thing happens in that setting, as set by the genre and particularities of whatever novel(s) or historical fictions you want to play.

Anyway, I finally have gotten around to watching the show _Community_, several years after it aired.  Of course there was famously an episode entitled "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons."  Some of the relationships among the characters in this episode have already been established as toxic, so there's a lot 'wrong' with what's going, from which the comedy of the episode derives.  But I thought it was an interesting representation of gm as 'playing the world' style dnd.

(cw: this episode was removed from netflix because Ken Jeong's character is "dressed" as a drow.  Because netflix would never platform bigotry, no.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 14, 2021)

At the very least I see some real success in that we're now talking about system and not playing roshambo with each other.   There's going to be some difficulty talking about 'FKR' in the same way as there is about PbtA - both are closer to design philosophies (or maybe desired table experience philosophy in the case of FKR, but whatever) than are are a single 'thing'. I'm happy to ask questions and learn something.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> But you do (use genre logic in real life). Your entire life has trained you to expect and accept certain things from a wide but limited list. In real life you wouldn't shrug off seeing a person lift off from the ground, unaided, and simply fly away. Nor would you be blasé about a person breaking off part of a building and throwing it. The "real world" is just as much a genre with genre rules and tropes and expectations as any other.




I don't have time to get to all of your post (I have to get one of my Blades' games Faction/Setting Clocks resolved and written up before tomorrow night's game..."playing the world" FitD style!), but I wanted to pull this out because (IMO) if this isn't enormously controversial, it surely should be.

I also think this hooks into my DC 30...DC 35(?) 5e post from 2016 where I specifically asked folks to discuss their adjudication process of endgame Mythic Tier action declarations (genre logic or naturalistic causal logic).  That was a train wreck of utter incoherency and I feel like what you're saying above (which IMO is problematic for player's intuiting how any given instance of action declaration will be ruled upon) is related.

What you're saying above (I, and everyone else, uses genre logic in real life) just makes no sense to me.  Why?  Genre logic is when a reader or a participant in a game has their orientation to a moment of fiction (either now or upon reflection or when making predictions about the future) anchored to/by the tropes inherent to that fiction.

Despite the fact that naturalistic causal logic (gravity and thermodynamics and muskuloskeletal systems and energy transfer and the impact of moral hazards on social fabric) might remain exactly the same, in Swashbuckling Space Opera we expect a very different set of tropes to emerge than we do in Sci Fi Horror.  As the reader or as the participant at a game table, your inferences, intuitions, and predictions are going to be entirely different from one another.

This shouldn't be particularly controversial as so much of the ire against 4e was due to the "mythic superhero logic" that undergirded every moment of play and the trajectory as a whole.  The conversations on this subject (genre disparity) are legion (despite the fact that the naturalistic causal logic of a PoL setting would be exactly the same as FR or Greyhawk or even Dark Sun etc).


So to land this airplane...no, I don't use genre logic in real life.  My intuitions, inferences, and predictions aren't governed by some kind of "trope coefficient" (lets call it) whereby its significantly more likely that some naturalistic causal logic defying instantiation of an event is apt to happen (because the world is anchored to genre tropes).  When I look at a V4 Boulder (the upper boundaries of my capabilities...they go up to V17 by the way...so that should give you an idea of how utterly ordinary I am as a climber), I evaluate prospective routes based on a lot of parameters (many native to me and my abilities but many native to the nature of the nuances of the obstacle).  I have intuitions, I draw inferences, and I make predictions.  But none of those 3 are anchored to/governed by "I'm the hero of my story so I really should be able to climb this" or "falling would be anticlimactic" or "the rising action should happen right before the crux and the ascent will be the denouement" or "that vent right above the boulder is where I expect a band of ninjas to drop out" or "is that a sniper at the top of that boulder across the way...of course" or "a fall and a broken arm and then cut to my montage of my recovery process where I beat Chad the Douche Climber in the THE BIG CLIMB OFF" or "the douchey corporate lackey comes in to foreclose on the place with a big jerk smirk on his face but we all rally behind the salf-of-the-earth gym owners and raise money through car washes and lemonade stands and punt the corporate jerk to the moon afterward."

My intuitions, inferences, and predictions are all grounded by a world liberated from any "trope coefficient" (sadly I might add).  Hence, no genre logic.

EDIT - All of the above that I've said is why that DC 30...35 thread (and the incoherent/conflated handling of naturalistic causal logic with a collage of genre tropes) was so fraught.  If I'm a player and I think any of your (a) situation framing or (b) your credibility test handling (yes you can do that...no you can't do that) or (c) your DC adjudication (the DC is extremely hard because it indexes a normal person...the DC is between medium and hard because DC indexes mythic tier adventurers rather than the standard distributions of adult humanoids in FR) or (d) consequence handling wobbles (its naturalistic causal logic in this case...it indexes normal humanoids in that case...it indexes mythical greek tropes in that case...some opaque combination of all of it) to and fro...AND I'm reliant upon it NOT wobbling (being consistent and intuitive so I can make reliable inferences and predictions which orient me to the situation and the move-space I can feasibly or reliably make).

Well, that wobble is a huge problem.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I have intuitions, I draw inferences, and I make predictions.  But none of those 3 are anchored to/governed by "I'm the hero of my story so I really should be able to climb this" or "falling would be anticlimactic" or "the rising action should happen right before the crux and the ascent will be the denouement" or "that vent right above the boulder is where I expect a band of ninjas to drop out" or "is that a sniper at the top of that boulder across the way...of course" or "a fall and a broken arm and then cut to my montage of my recovery process where I beat Chad the Douche Climber in the THE BIG CLIMB OFF" or "the douchey corporate lackey comes in to foreclose on the place with a big jerk smirk on his face but we all rally behind the salf-of-the-earth gym owners and raise money through car washes and lemonade stands and punt the corporate jerk to the moon afterward."



That last one seems like it should be a Masks downtime scenario? (Like Claremont was sick for the week and so some fill-in had to write that issue of New Mutants.)

But the most interesting, I think, is _the rising action should happen right before the crux and the ascent will be the denouement_. Whether the _successful climb_ is where the action is, or whether the _successful planning/prediction_ is where the action is (I'm thinking a climbing version of how Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes fights), will affect the feel of things quite a bit.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Why would it? I guess that's a fair question. Think of it in terms of D&D, although that isn't particularly my jam. If I have a +8 to climb, i have a pretty good handhold (har har) on my chances of climbing any given wall..



Not really. Your climbing ability is not related to the difficulty of the wall. You cannot suppose one from the other. You can assume or...


Fenris-77 said:


> especially when you add in that the basic spread of DCs is the same from DM to DM.



Look in the book for the answer. And once you have, you can then surmise your chances to climb a wall...except that the DM still sets the DC based on circumstances in the moment based on the fiction. So your +8 to climb could be spectacular (DC10 with advantage on the roll) or it could be meaningless (DC40 with disadvantage on the roll).


Fenris-77 said:


> Now that really isn't materially different than 'climby', I'll grant you, but is more grounded. By which I mean I'm comparing a number I know to a likely range of numbers.



I don't think grounded is the right word. Grounded would be grounded in...something. Like grounded in reality. I think comforted is a better word. At a guess, you're comforted by the knowledge that the books list DCs and the assumption that the DM will pick something within that range. Likely because you think that list of DCs limits the DM to that certain known range of difficulty, but that's simply not true. The DM is free to make it an automatic success, automatic failure, or a roll with a DC between 2 and 50+, and use advantage or disadvantage.


Fenris-77 said:


> Whereas with climby I'm comparing a less-well-defined number against a complete unknown.



Right. The unknown is scary. You're concerned that the DM might make a bad or unfair call. I get it. But there's nothing stopping a D&D DM from doing the same. The list of DC in the book doesn't stop the DM from doing any of the things I mention above. So it's a false sense of security.


Fenris-77 said:


> To grant another point, in both cases I can ask the GM "how climbable does the wall of the keep look?" which is perfectly reasonable question in the vein of _what are my chances_ rather than _may I_. However, the answer to that question in D&D provides me, the player, with significantly more information than it does in FKR.



It depends entirely on the particular FKR game and Referee. An FKR Ref is just as capable of telling you that you need to roll an 8+/2d6 as the D&D DM is of telling you the DC is 20. There's nothing preventing that from happening. You just assume it won't or can't. If it's an opposed roll you can see what the FKR Ref rolls with their 2d6 so you know exactly what you need to get. Also, in my experience, most DMs don't tell the player what the DC is before they roll the dice. The DM asks for a roll and the player does so and adds everything up and declares what they got. So the player generally doesn't know what DC they need to hit for success. Some things like the AC of a monster can be worked out in short order, but basically every other roll in the game is rolled "blind."


Fenris-77 said:


> The language of the answer in D&D indexes DC pretty precisely even if the DC isn't mentioned, which gives the player a very good idea what the PCs chances of climbing the wall are, which is solid emulation of a PCs fictional ability to decide that same thing for himself.



I don't know about that. You think a climber can look at a wall and deduce _precisely_ what their percentage chances of scaling the wall are? That seems more than a bit far fetched. The real-world climber might gauge a wall and guesstimate their chances. But not know exactly what they are. They may have done it a thousand times, but if their concentration falters or they misjudge something, they're still going to fall.


Fenris-77 said:


> A caveat: this isn't me showing my flag as a hyper-cautious player. I'm not. I drive characters like stolen cars, to borrow a phrase, but a big part of enjoying that is that the games I like don't surprise me on the mechanics side, just on the consequences and results side.



Sure. And we all have our preferences. But that's not what FKR games do. There aren't any "surprises" on the mechanics side. Most of them have "roll 2d6, roll high" as their mechanics. What's the surprise? Referee adjudication? You still have that same "surprise" with most other RPGs.


Fenris-77 said:


> To be clear, I bet this problem clears up with time played at the FKR table, and I'm really thinking about this as a new player trying to learn a system and figure out my character.



Which specific game are you trying to play? Check the discord server. There's a lot of more knowledgeable people there.


Fenris-77 said:


> I just see a lot of scope for FKR to feel like a shallow information environment with a lot of disconnects between GM and player knowledge sets and expectations.



All the same information is there, but instead of reading the rulebook you ask the Referee.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 14, 2021)

OK, I'm going to pull something out of the above post to mention first and shout about a bit. DCs are not picked out of a hat. It's not some magic could be 10 could be 40 proposition. That's nonsense, no one plays D&D like that. D&D isn't my favorite game, but I am intimately familiar with the rules, both current and previous. But go on I suppose, tell me how DCs range by 30 on the regular...

OK, got that out my system. Whew.

More generally, I find your readings of my posts somewhat uncharitable. For example, your lovely strawman built around the term precise. I didn't say that at all, and was actually pretty clear about what I did say. I said comparing a known mod to a known range of DCs was more grounded, in that I can, as a player, know what is likely. The word precise comes in because, in most D&D play, the movement from the DM thinking of a DC and translating that into a descriptor is pretty reliable. Words like easy, hard, or whatever all index a pretty narrow range of possible DCs. 

No surprises on the mechanics side? Really? How about the GM choosing my mods and the target mods in secret? And then applying them to my roll for me? Surprise! The mechanics are more than just roll 2d6, it's everything else that feeds in, and in FKR that part is a black box from the player perspective.

How do I make informed decisions for my character when I have to ask the ref_ everything_? I just don't see how those two bits fit together, and not for lack of trying.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> I don't have time to get to all of your post (I have to get one of my Blades' games Faction/Setting Clocks resolved and written up before tomorrow night's game..."playing the world" FitD style!), but I wanted to pull this out because (IMO) if this isn't enormously controversial, it surely should be.
> 
> I also think this hooks into my DC 30...DC 35(?) 5e post from 2016 where I specifically asked folks to discuss their adjudication process of endgame Mythic Tier action declarations (genre logic or naturalistic causal logic).  That was a train wreck of utter incoherency and I feel like what you're saying above (which IMO is problematic for player's intuiting how any given instance of action declaration will be ruled upon) is related.
> 
> What you're saying above (I, and everyone else, uses genre logic in real life) just makes no sense to me.  Why?  Genre logic is when a reader or a participant in a game has their orientation to a moment of fiction (either now or upon reflection or when making predictions about the future) anchored to/by the tropes inherent to that fiction.



What? No. Genre is a loose collection of tropes that we recognize and label as "space opera," "horror," "fantasy," etc. "Genre logic" is simply a gauge of whether a particular story is conforming to the expectations presented by those tropes. If you label something as an alien invasion story and there's no aliens and no invasion...you've successfully subverted genre expectations, but likely not in a fun and interesting way. If you label something as a zombie apocalypse story and there's zombies...but they're new and different in interesting ways...you've successfully subverted genre expectations in likely a fun and interesting way. As above, realism is a genre. What makes realism a genre? The collection of genre tropes related to realism. What makes them realistic? The fact that they conform to reality. Reality can be seen as just another genre.


Manbearcat said:


> Despite the fact that naturalistic causal logic (gravity and thermodynamics and muskuloskeletal systems and energy transfer and the impact of moral hazards on social fabric) might remain exactly the same, in Swashbuckling Space Opera we expect a very different set of tropes to emerge than we do in Sci Fi Horror.  As the reader or as the participant at a game table, your inferences, intuitions, and predictions are going to be entirely different from one another.



Right. But unless those tropes are specifically changed...there's no reason to assume they have been. So if there's something not covered by the sci-fi horror tropes, you can default to the realism tropes to cover everything else. To put that another way, the baseline is reality, then you pile the genre tropes you want to use on top of that. If there's any contradictions, the genre tropes win out against the reality tropes. So if you're playing swashbuckling space opera you'll expect physics to bend in places, break in others, and be exactly as we know it in the rest. FTL and pew pew noises in space. But having a 2 ton piece of metal land on you in full gravity is bad news.


Manbearcat said:


> So to land this airplane...no, I don't use genre logic in real life.  My intuitions, inferences, and predictions aren't governed by some kind of "trope coefficient" (lets call it) whereby its significantly more likely that some naturalistic causal logic defying instantiation of an event is apt to happen (because the world is anchored to genre tropes).



Conduct an experiment with me. Treating characters in the game / genre story as real people living in a real world is one of the goals of the FKR. If we treat them as real people inhabiting a real world...what would someone in the Star Wars universe say about genre logic and their lived experience? They'd likely say much the same as you are now. The genre tropes the characters live with _is_ their lived experience. They'd have no awareness of it from an omniscient outside perspective. They'd have no concept of their lived experience being "off" from "reality"...their lived experience _is_ their reality. We recognize it as genre tropes because we're outside observers. If we presented our reality to them, ours would be the genre story with an off-kilter reality.


Manbearcat said:


> When I look at a V4 Boulder (the upper boundaries of my capabilities...they go up to V17 by the way...so that should give you an idea of how utterly ordinary I am as a climber), I evaluate prospective routes based on a lot of parameters (many native to me and my abilities but many native to the nature of the nuances of the obstacle).  I have intuitions, I draw inferences, and I make predictions.



Exactly. You don't have a precise, concrete gauge of your percentage chances of making a climb.


Manbearcat said:


> But none of those 3 are anchored to/governed by "I'm the hero of my story so I really should be able to climb this" or "falling would be anticlimactic" or "the rising action should happen right before the crux and the ascent will be the denouement" or "that vent right above the boulder is where I expect a band of ninjas to drop out" or "is that a sniper at the top of that boulder across the way...of course" or "a fall and a broken arm and then cut to my montage of my recovery process where I beat Chad the Douche Climber in the THE BIG CLIMB OFF" or "the douchey corporate lackey comes in to foreclose on the place with a big jerk smirk on his face but we all rally behind the salf-of-the-earth gym owners and raise money through car washes and lemonade stands and punt the corporate jerk to the moon afterward."



Ah. You're conflating genre with story structure. That's not how FKR games work. There's no push for emulating storytelling. No act structure or denouement. No inciting incident or hero's journey. FKR games are solidly emergent storytelling, in my experience.


Manbearcat said:


> My intuitions, inferences, and predictions are all grounded by a world liberated from any "trope coefficient" (sadly I might add).  Hence, no genre logic.



Again, I think you're conflating genre with story structure. I'm not talking about story structure. I don't assume I will prevail after a dark  night of the soul...I expect another dark night of the soul. What I'm talking about is that there's no alien invasions or zombie apocalypses. There are no superheroes. Physics works a particular way and we can make predictions based on that.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> OK, I'm going to pull something out of the above post to mention first and shout about a bit. DCs are not picked out of a hat. It's not some magic could be 10 could be 40 proposition. That's nonsense, no one plays D&D like that. D&D isn't my favorite game, but I am intimately familiar with the rules, both current and previous. But go on I suppose, tell me how DCs range by 30 on the regular...



"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and _you_ are in charge of the game." 5E DMG, p4. 

"As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players. A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not, in some cases asking the player to make a die roll to determine success." 5E DMG, p5.

The rules of the game say the DM is in charge and free to change the rules. The DM is free to set the DC. The DMG gives guidelines that the DM is free to follow or ignore at their pleasure. The DM sets the DC and assigns dis/advantage.


Fenris-77 said:


> More generally, I find your readings of my posts somewhat uncharitable. For example, your lovely strawman built around the term precise. I didn't say that at all, and was actually pretty clear about what I did say. I said comparing a known mod to a known range of DCs was more grounded, in that I can, as a player, know what is likely. The word precise comes in because, in most D&D play, the movement from the DM thinking of a DC and translating that into a descriptor is pretty reliable. Words like easy, hard, or whatever all index a pretty narrow range of possible DCs.



Again, it's a false sense of grounded as the DM can set whatever DC they like. You assume they will set it within the specified range. But there's no guarantee. The DM can also assign advantage and disadvantage and also declare things automatic success or automatic failure.


Fenris-77 said:


> No surprises on the mechanics side? Really? How about the GM choosing my mods and the target mods in secret?



Most FKR games don't use modifiers of any kind. It's mostly a straight 2d6 roll, higher is better. If it's opposed, both sides roll 2d6, higher roll wins. There's no mods to hide from you. And again, the DM in D&D generally doesn't announce the DCs before the player makes a roll. So whatever modifiers they're using are secret, unless it's advantage or disadvantage for the player. You don't know the DC of a climb check...ever. You only know if you've succeeded or failed. You don't know the AC of a monster until you find out if you've hit or missed...then over the course of a fight triangulate what the AC actually is.


Fenris-77 said:


> The mechanics are more than just roll 2d6, it's everything else that feeds in, and in FKR that part is a black box from the player perspective.



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.


Fenris-77 said:


> How do I make informed decisions for my character when I have to ask the ref_ everything_?



You mean exactly like most every other game? You as a player only know what's on your character sheet until the DM informs you. If you want to know more...you have to ask the DM. How do you make informed decisions in D&D? You read the rulebook and assume the DM will follow those guidelines and further assume that you are now making informed decisions...then in the moment in play when a question comes up...you still have to ask the DM. So instead of reading the rulebook and having a few layers of assumptions...just ask the Referee. They're running the show anyway. They will know better than the book.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Ah. You're conflating genre with story structure. That's not how FKR games work. There's no push for emulating storytelling. No act structure or denouement. No inciting incident or hero's journey. FKR games are solidly emergent storytelling, in my experience.




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.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 14, 2021)

Re DCs, IMO the GM should always announce the DC in advance of the attempt, unless there is very good reason the PC would not know the difficulty of the task. I think Insight checks (which are a peculiar mechanic) should likely have hidden DCs. Wall climbing, almost never.

I remember seeing Lloyd/Lindybeige go further and argue that the actual climb-wall roll should be made before the character attempts to climb the wall, but he was thinking more of Runequest or pre-3e D&D with fixed platonic success %s.

Certainly in an FKR game where the GM rolls 2d6 as the opposed roll to player 2d6, the GM should roll their 2d6 before the player decides to make the attempt. The PC should be able to see if this climb is a 2, a 7 or a 12.

Edit: I find with 5e, my players seem to pretty well assume that any DC is 15 unless I say different pre-roll. They're always surprised to succeed on a 10.  If it's a Hard task DC 20, I'm pretty good about telling them. My son with his high level Rogue auto-hitting a 24 is always annoyed when I say some outlandish task is a 25, though.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I wrote the OP in this thread. It was not any sort of criticism of free kriegsspiel; it was an analysis.
> 
> And someone else turned this into a thread about FKR. Which is fine by me.
> 
> ...




Shadowrun, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Call of Cthulhu, AD&D, OD&D have been played FKR/freeform/ultralight over the years... as far as I know. I guess that's not much of a reaction against heavy rule-books, instead more of a love for those settings. 

Runequest FKR? I guess Yes, why not? 

Cubes to cloud: the most suggested cube is opposed 2d6. Then interpretation of results leads back to cloud. 
My take: 9 vs 10 both opponents do well but it's basically a tie. 3 vs 4 both perform poorly, again a tie. 

But the Gm could just use any type of resolution they prefer. Even full-on Rolemaster's Laws books altogether. As long as it is not player facing.

Justin H/Aboleth overlords blog
"When playing Pathfinder are you negotiating the fictional world, or are you making decisions out of a priority to game the numbers?" 

Highlighted stats in AW come to mind, as an example. 
As any player facing reward cycle. 

(Bracing for impact from fellow posters assault, now) 

[Edit to mitigate: Also XP and automatic advancement!]


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 14, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Justin H/Aboleth overlords blog
> "When playing Pathfinder are you negotiating the fictional world, or are you making decisions out of a priority to game the numbers?"



So is Pathfinder (i.e., the "D&D 3.75e") what FKR has in mind when it comes to the massively over-complicated systems? This would line up with @pemerton's earlier hypothesis. 

That said, I suppose a counter question for FKR would be, "When playing FKR are you negotiating the fictional world, or are you making decisions out of a priority to game the GM?" 

The more you get to know your GM, the more you get to know what sort of tricks, tactics, and such that they use and how to win their favor. Or what are the usual sort of magic words to get past the NPC. So there comes a point, IME, when some gameplay in D&D can be about playing the GM. It seems as if FKR would be more prone to such tendencies. The invisibility of the rules heightens the visibility of the GM. 



Numidius said:


> (Bracing for impact from fellow posters assault, now)


----------



## Numidius (Oct 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> So is Pathfinder (i.e., the "D&D 3.75e") what FKR has in mind when it comes to the massively over-complicated systems? This would line up with @pemerton's earlier hypothesis.
> 
> That said, I suppose a counter question for FKR would be, "When playing FKR are you negotiating the fictional world, or are you making decisions out of a priority to game the GM?"
> 
> The more you get to know your GM, the more you get to know what sort of tricks, tactics, and such that they use and how to win their favor. Or what are the usual sort of magic words to get past the NPC. So there comes a point, IME, when some gameplay in D&D can be about playing the GM. It seems as if FKR would be more prone to such tendencies. The invisibility of the rules heightens the visibility of the GM.



Ah ah! 

Pathfinder is an easy target for those sorts of arguments, anyway. 

Yes in my experience gaming the Gm is an art form at certain tables. 

Does that issue take us to the Neutral Referee thesis, then?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 14, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Ah ah!
> 
> Pathfinder is an easy target for those sorts of arguments, anyway.
> 
> ...



Sure. Why not? Referees in sports are ostensibly neutral, but a big part of sports is about drawing calls from the Ref. Are the Refs somehow less neutral in their arbitration of the rules because the players know how to draw calls from the Refs?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Sure. Why not? Referees in sports are ostensibly neutral, but a big part of sports is about drawing calls from the Ref. Are the Refs somehow less neutral in their arbitration of the rules because the players know how to draw calls from the Refs?



Ok. I see a difference, though, in Rpgs in general and particularly in FKR, since one can't really argue about rules, the discussion with the referee/Gm is central, is part of the game, I dare say The game itself. So, not something to be exploited, but to be engaged with fully. 

I would dare propose Discussion is the actual System. Gaming the fiction is the game.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Justin H/Aboleth overlords blog
> "When playing Pathfinder are you negotiating the fictional world, or are you making decisions out of a priority to game the numbers?"
> 
> Highlighted stats in AW come to mind, as an example.
> As any player facing reward cycle.



This is why I mentioned RQ and Prince Valiant, which don't have these sorts of features.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2021)

Numidius said:


> I would dare propose Discussion is the actual System. Gaming the fiction is the game.



This is what Jonathan Tween in Everway called _drama _resolution. It contrasts with _fortune _(dice, card draws) and _karma_ (fixed values get compared).


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 14, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Ok. I see a difference, though, in Rpgs in general and particularly in FKR, since one can't really argue about rules, the discussion with the referee/Gm is central, is part of the game, I dare say The game itself. So, not something to be exploited, but to be engaged with fully.
> 
> I would dare propose Discussion is the actual System. Gaming the fiction is the game.



Ideally? Sure. In praxis? I'm skeptical. This may end up being a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This is what Jonathan Tween in Everway called _drama _resolution. It contrasts with _fortune _(dice, card draws) and _karma_ (fixed values get compared).



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?


----------



## darkbard (Oct 14, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> So to land this airplane...no, I don't use genre logic in real life.  My intuitions, inferences, and predictions aren't governed by some kind of "trope coefficient" (lets call it) whereby its significantly more likely that some naturalistic causal logic defying instantiation of an event is apt to happen (because the world is anchored to genre tropes).  When I look at a V4 Boulder (the upper boundaries of my capabilities...they go up to V17 by the way...so that should give you an idea of how utterly ordinary I am as a climber), I evaluate prospective routes based on a lot of parameters (many native to me and my abilities but many native to the nature of the nuances of the obstacle).  I have intuitions, I draw inferences, and I make predictions.  But none of those 3 are anchored to/governed by "I'm the hero of my story so I really should be able to climb this" or "falling would be anticlimactic" or "the rising action should happen right before the crux and the ascent will be the denouement" or "that vent right above the boulder is where I expect a band of ninjas to drop out" or "is that a sniper at the top of that boulder across the way...of course" or "a fall and a broken arm and then cut to my montage of my recovery process where I beat Chad the Douche Climber in the THE BIG CLIMB OFF" or "the douchey corporate lackey comes in to foreclose on the place with a big jerk smirk on his face but we all rally behind the salf-of-the-earth gym owners and raise money through car washes and lemonade stands and punt the corporate jerk to the moon afterward."
> 
> My intuitions, inferences, and predictions are all grounded by a world liberated from any "trope coefficient" (sadly I might add).  Hence, no genre logic.



I don't have much time myself to contribute to this debate, but I will note that part of what @Manbearcat discusses here as genre logic falls under the umbrella of structuralist critique, a critical methodology applied to literary works and other cultural artifacts since the early 20th century to significant utility in the humanities, spawning offshoots and reactions like post-structuralism, deconstruction, and so on in the humanities. Such a critique has been applied to other realms of analysis in the social sciences (maybe @pemerton had more to say about this?) in analyzing other human endeavors (linguistics, social organization) to varying and controversial degrees of success, but makes no sense in describing human interaction with the nonhuman world, what I take Manbearcat to be referencing in his framing of naturalistic causal logic.

This is to say, of course there are many factors that contribute to human judgments about their surroundings and subsequent actions, but these are not subject to genre logic in the way Manbearcat has elucidated it in his examples above, except perhaps in the clinically delusional (and I don't intend this in any way as a dig at participants in this conversation here but rather to indicate a psychotic break with "reality"). For example, and to extend Manbearcat's example, a climber makes many judgments about how to execute a climb based upon handhold and such and chances of success of various moves (naturalistic causal processes), but only the delusional climber believes they can make a given climb because they are the reincarnated spirit of a doomed climber destined to be reborn again and again until they succeed at the climb (genre trope).


----------



## Campbell (Oct 14, 2021)

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.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 14, 2021)

Campbell said:


> 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.



If it was me, please excuse my poor choice of words.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 14, 2021)

A few thoughts on recent posts.

- The GM is, even in D&D, I would say not even remotely allowed to just do anything they want! Sure, I get the rules say this, but I think it’s clear that the idea is about not being beholden to the rules when they don’t seem to make sense for the given situation. It’s not about discarding or changing rules on a whim! That argument’s just not very compelling. Especially given that outside of D&D and some other traditional games, the GM is explicitly not granted such authority.

- DCs and similar are very useful. They’re a perfect example of a mechanic that can clearly translate fiction into game so that the player has a similar understanding as the character. If I have a +8 to climb and the DC is a 15, then I know my chances of success when I roll a d20. Compare this with the GM saying “It looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult; you can probably do it, but not certainly”.

It’s far more immersive for me to be able to assess the difficulty of the climb (the DC) compare it to my ability (my modifier) and then determine my chances. This maps pretty well to what the character would be doing in the fictional world. What they would not be doing is filtering their understanding of the situation through another person whose verbal description will be open to interpretation, and which won’t be anywhere near as accurate.

For this to work, yes, the DC should always be announced by the GM. I know many folks who play D&D this way, so the assertion that this never happens is purely anecdotal. 

- On the neutral ref in FKR. I’m not sure I see it, given the role as it seems to be designed. So much authority is granted to the GM, combined with the generation of the fiction and interpretation of the world…these two things wouldn’t seem to me to lead to a neutral GM. What makes referees neutral is that they are a third party, separate of the two that are competing. Not so in FKR. They are the opposition and the referee.

Now the same could be said of many other games, and that can certainly be true! What tends to either remove or at least mitigate that somewhat are clear rules and processes. Plenty of FKR games seem to have such, but the subset of those that don’t seem a bit problematic in this regard.

- On the accretion of rules as needed; this to me seems very much like the process that was used in the proto-D&D games. That rules were introduced as needed. But how they were designed was perhaps a bit arbitrary. Hence why early D&D has so many different resolution systems. I get the desire to address some of that arbitrariness…to find a simpler way to apply rules and make the game flow easier.

But this seems to specifically be about the rules of D&D as they’ve expanded and morphed in their early form, and then across editions. I think there have been several ways this particular problem has been addressed over the years, to varying degrees of success. What the FKR games seem to be doing, in my opinion (at least the subset that don’t have clearly established rules), is to basically be following the template that led to the problems they want to address. or, more accurately because I doubt that they’re setting out to do so, but they seem to risk it.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I am going to post some sincere responses.
> 
> 
> To me there seems to be a big difference between _playing Earthsea_ - which has been mentioned upthread, as an example (referring to this blog) - and playing _Greyhawk_. To the best of my understanding, Greyhawk as GMed by Gygax is not a fully-realised fiction like Le Guin's novels. It's a megadungeon with some associated stuff that includes an Alice in Wonderland pastiche, a King Kong pastiche, etc.
> ...




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.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> - The GM is, even in D&D, I would say not even remotely allowed to just do anything they want! Sure, I get the rules say this, but I think it’s clear that the idea is about not being beholden to the rules when they don’t seem to make sense for the given situation. It’s not about discarding or changing rules on a whim! That argument’s just not very compelling. Especially given that outside of D&D and some other traditional games, the GM is explicitly not granted such authority.



Well, the game books disagree with you. They quite explicitly give the D&D DM exactly that power.


hawkeyefan said:


> - DCs and similar are very useful. They’re a perfect example of a mechanic that can clearly translate fiction into game so that the player has a similar understanding as the character. If I have a +8 to climb and the DC is a 15, then I know my chances of success when I roll a d20. Compare this with the GM saying “It looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult; you can probably do it, but not certainly”.



I disagree. The skill bonus and DC don't really model reality or the fiction very well at all. The character wouldn't know "+8 vs DC15" they'd know "that looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult." And I see no functional difference between "+8 vs DC15" and "roll the dice, higher is better" except that it telegraphs the number needed first...which is explicitly a level of precision a person in the real world or a character in the fiction would not have.


hawkeyefan said:


> It’s far more immersive for me to be able to assess the difficulty of the climb (the DC) compare it to my ability (my modifier) and then determine my chances. This maps pretty well to what the character would be doing in the fictional world.



Except 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. "It looks like a fairly difficult task, but not too difficult; I can probably do it, but not certainly" is the closest we ever really get. You think you have a 100% chance to remember what you went into the other room to get...only to completely forget what it was you were after. You think you have a 100% chance to walk across the room without issue...only to trip over something you couldn't even see...or your own feet. You think the clever thing you thought of will 100% make a particular person laugh...only for them to be put off by what you said. 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.


hawkeyefan said:


> What they would not be doing is filtering their understanding of the situation through another person whose verbal description will be open to interpretation, and which won’t be anywhere near as accurate.



What they would not be doing is having precise measures of skill and comparative difficulty through which to filter their decision making. Accuracy is the crux. As gamers we're used to that kind of accuracy, but it's an affect of gaming, not something that's a model of the real world. At best we have comparative reference points...but never absolutes. So "that wall looks easy to me" not "I have a 75% chance to climb it."


hawkeyefan said:


> For this to work, yes, the DC should always be announced by the GM. I know many folks who play D&D this way, so the assertion that this never happens is purely anecdotal.



I didn't assert that it "never" happens. It generally doesn't. All the games I've played since DC was a thing, haven't ever seen it happen. None of the streams I watch announce the DCs up front. The plural of anecdotal evidence is not data. So sure, it's possible it does. But I've never seen it.


hawkeyefan said:


> - On the neutral ref in FKR. I’m not sure I see it, given the role as it seems to be designed. So much authority is granted to the GM, combined with the generation of the fiction and interpretation of the world…these two things wouldn’t seem to me to lead to a neutral GM.



So exactly like most other RPGs. Would you say the DM in D&D is neutral? They have the exact same level of control over the game as the FKR Ref.


hawkeyefan said:


> What makes referees neutral is that they are a third party, separate of the two that are competing. Not so in FKR. They are the opposition and the referee.



Exactly like most other RPGs.


hawkeyefan said:


> Now the same could be said of many other games, and that can certainly be true! What tends to either remove or at least mitigate that somewhat are clear rules and processes.



That...in D&D...the DM is free to ignore. Less so in other games, granted.


hawkeyefan said:


> Plenty of FKR games seem to have such, but the subset of those that don’t seem a bit problematic in this regard.



It's not problematic. It's counter to your preference. That's all.


hawkeyefan said:


> - On the accretion of rules as needed; this to me seems very much like the process that was used in the proto-D&D games. That rules were introduced as needed. But how they were designed was perhaps a bit arbitrary. Hence why early D&D has so many different resolution systems. I get the desire to address some of that arbitrariness…to find a simpler way to apply rules and make the game flow easier.
> 
> But this seems to specifically be about the rules of D&D as they’ve expanded and morphed in their early form, and then across editions.



This conversation is mostly about comparing FKR to D&D as it's the most easily assumed shared reference point, but the FKR isn't necessarily a reaction to just D&D. I actually like the "weird" non-standard way earlier D&D editions handled various things. If I have the option, I'd rather use the various polyhedrons I've collected over the years instead of just the d20 the vast majority of the time. If I have to use one die for everything, I'd rather use at least two that are added together so there's a bell curve to work with.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think there have been several ways this particular problem has been addressed over the years, to varying degrees of success. What the FKR games seem to be doing, in my opinion (at least the subset that don’t have clearly established rules), is to basically be following the template that led to the problems they want to address. or, more accurately because I doubt that they’re setting out to do so, but they seem to risk it.



Maybe. But the FKR designers and Referees have the benefit of hindsight and the 50 odd years of game design to draw from to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. They can see what stacking rule upon rule upon rule leads to.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 14, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> A few thoughts on recent posts.
> 
> - The GM is, even in D&D, I would say not even remotely allowed to just do anything they want! Sure, I get the rules say this, but I think it’s clear that the idea is about not being beholden to the rules when they don’t seem to make sense for the given situation. It’s not about discarding or changing rules on a whim! That argument’s just not very compelling. Especially given that outside of D&D and some other traditional games, the GM is explicitly not granted such authority.



Except that there is advice from Gygax to  keep players from learning the rules and a prohibition in the AD&D 1E DMG on players knowing the DMG content... it's gygaxian hyperbole, for certain, but it is advice many GMs took to heart.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Well, the game books disagree with you. They quite explicitly give the D&D DM exactly that power.
> 
> I disagree. The skill bonus and DC don't really model reality or the fiction very well at all. The character wouldn't know "+8 vs DC15" they'd know "that looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult." And I see no functional difference between "+8 vs DC15" and "roll the dice, higher is better" except that it telegraphs the number needed first...which is explicitly a level of precision the character in the fiction would not have.
> 
> ...



You have a badly flawed view of how people do things, especially physical thing.  People who have experience with a thing can very quickly sum up how likely they are to succeed at that thing.  Do they put it in percentages or skill bonus numbers?  No, but a pro-athlete can nearly instantaneously gauge the likelihood of success of a given option -- this is the large part of what makes them pro-athletes!  Heck, an amateur climber has told you explicitly how they gauge their ability to climb something, in detail, and why they think those things (based on experience and study) and you dismiss it by saying people don't do these things, we only ever have a vague idea of what might happen.  It's pretty rough, and seems entirely set not on understanding how people actually do things so that you can model it in a game, but rather how you want to play a game so you imagine that people must do it this way in real life.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 14, 2021)

Speaking from the perspective of a GM here, first and foremost.

From my perspective one of the most important features of transparent mechanics is that they provide a precise language that helps us establish, communicate, reason about, and understand complex fiction.

In my experience with minimal mechanical systems like World of Dungeons, Lady Blackbird, Apocalypse World, Cthulhu Dark, et. al. they work well when the fiction is relatable, constrained, and scenario design is simple enough to keep inside my head. As a GM once I start running a game where I'm dealing with a host of NPCs with layered emotional lives, complex relationships and alliances, different arrays of resources and other abilities that can be hard to manage without tools. This is particularly true when we start entering scopes where we start leave our human experiences behind. Reasoning out the athletic prowess of a high level D&D character who faces down demon lords in a consistent manner for insistence. Masks is much harder for me to run from a fictional positioning standpoint then Apocalypse World for insistence.

Especially when we are dealing with things that are essentially made up, it can be useful to have tools that allow us to reason about things that are difficult for our brains to comprehend. Abstraction is an immensely useful tool, in real life and in gaming. It can help us focus on salient details and communicate complex things in simple ways.

*Aside*

When it comes down to our ability to assess difficulty that's somewhat variable. I have a very precise orientation towards difficulty in the gym. I measure and track everything. I know what my trail off towards the end of a training cycle is likely to look like. My intuition about how many reps of a given weight I can perform on a given exercise is incredibly precise. Down to the wire. When I do power lifting programming it's even more precise. Software development tasks are harder to measure because I am almost always performing novel tasks rather than doing something I have done before.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 14, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Except that there is advice from Gygax to  keep players from learning the rules and a prohibition in the AD&D 1E DMG on players knowing the DMG content... it's gygaxian hyperbole, for certain, but it is advice many GMs took to heart.



Yeah, that's kinda terrible advice.  I appreciate and respect Gary and crew for what they did.  Great stuff!  But, like many visionaries that invent a new thing, the ideas they have when it happened are very rarely going to be the best approaches for all time.  Just saying "that's what Gary did," is not going to be a good answer.  If it's a good approach, you shouldn't ever have to mention Gary to show this.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 14, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Speaking from the perspective of a GM here, first and foremost.
> 
> From my perspective one of the most important features of transparent mechanics is that they provide a precise language that helps us establish, communicate, reason about, and understand complex fiction.
> 
> ...



This.

@overgeeked -- if humans are incapable of accurately gauging ability, why isn't the mountain-climbing hobby/sport plagued by high death/traumatic injury tolls from people who couldn't gauge their ability against a climb?  Why aren't pro-football matches mostly failures all over the place as players fail to understand how likely actions are to result in progress?  How do software companies manage to stay afloat if they cannot estimate how likely they are to be successfully at completing a contract for a customer?


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Speaking from the perspective of a GM here, first and foremost.
> 
> From my perspective one of the most important features of transparent mechanics is that they provide a precise language that helps us establish, communicate, reason about, and understand complex fiction.
> 
> In my experience with minimal mechanical systems like World of Dungeons, Lady Blackbird, Apocalypse World, Cthulhu Dark, et. al. they work well when the fiction is relatable, constrained, and scenario design is simple enough to keep inside my head. As a GM once I start running a game where I'm dealing with a host of NPCs with layered emotional lives, complex relationships and alliances, different arrays of resources and other abilities that can be hard to manage without tools. This is particularly true when we start entering scopes where we start leave our human experiences behind. Reasoning out the athletic prowess of a high level D&D character who faces down demon lords in a consistent manner for insistence. Masks is much harder for me to run from a fictional positioning standpoint then Apocalypse World for insistence.



Of course. But those tools don't have to be rules. They can be notes. Random tables. Reaction tables. Etc.


Campbell said:


> Especially when we are dealing with things that are essentially made up, it can be useful to have tools that allow us to reason about things that are difficult for our brains to comprehend.



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. So the scale of Aunt May to the Hulk is right there. That's all you need. Plus fictional positioning, things like automatic success, automatic failure, etc. If Aunt May punches the Hulk...you don't need to bother with dice. Likewise, if the Hulk punches Aunt May...you don't need to bother with dice. You don't need to roll to see if Spider-Man can climb a wall, he has an ability that explicitly lets him just walk on walls. And that ability doesn't need specific game rules to cover it. Fictional positioning already does. Spider-Man can climb walls. But whether Aunt May can climb a wall is another story. But do you need specific rules for climbing just because someone might try to climb a wall? I don't think so. You can use the rules or not. Maybe dice, maybe automatic failure. My point is that we don't need complex systems to help our brains comprehend. Simple, abstract systems work just as well, if not better, and they have the benefit of fitting in our heads.


Campbell said:


> Abstraction is an immensely useful tool, in real life and in gaming. It can help us focus on salient details and communicate complex things in simple ways.



Exactly. Which is why FKR games push for fewer, more abstract rules that cover everything instead of many precise rules that work on specific things in specific circumstances. Less cognitive load and more utility.


Campbell said:


> *Aside*
> 
> When it comes down to our ability to assess difficulty that's somewhat variable. I have a very precise orientation towards difficulty in the gym. I measure and track everything. I know what my trail off towards the end of a training cycle is likely to look like. My intuition about how many reps of a given weight I can perform on a given exercise is incredibly precise. Down to the wire. When I do power lifting programming it's even more precise. Software development tasks are harder to measure because I am almost always performing novel tasks rather than doing something I have done before.



Yes, but would you consider your work out something that, in game terms, you had to roll for? Is it something you think you have a reasonable chance of failure doing? Or would that be in the realm of an auto success? If there is a roll at all, it would likely be a d100 and on a 1 you hurt yourself or drop something heavy. You wouldn't have to roll for workout, as it were. It's the things that aren't in our control that _roughly_ match up with things we'd roll for in a game. Outside variables, like how someone else reacts to what we do. As you get to know someone you learn their habits and sense of humor and likes and dislikes...but even someone you're intimately familiar with over the span of a lifetime can surprise you. You drive the same route to work every day, but don't need to make a drive roll until that one day when it's raining and the car in the next lane swerves.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 14, 2021)

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.

I have played 3 different super hero games - Masks, Marvel Heroic, and Mutants and Masterminds. They have different specificity.

In Masks fictional positioning is every thing. We might know you have elemental control as a power. That's it. No details are given.
Mutants and Masterminds dives in deep (not as deep as HERO obviously).
Marvel Heroic sits in the middle.

Each game provides something different, focuses on different salient details about the fiction. I would gladly play any with the right group. I think there are a lot of cases where specificity is helpful, especially games that are essentially defining a genre of play unto themselves. Games where the source material is the game. Games like Legend of the 5 Rings, Exalted, Vampire - The Masquerade, and Pathfinder Second Edition are specific because they are defining a genre for us all to experience. That has real value. So does something like Dune, Cortex, or World of Dungeons which are more abstract.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 14, 2021)

To quote Coco Chanel, "before your rpg leaves the house, it should look in the mirror and take one rule off."


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 14, 2021)

Campbell said:


> 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.



I disagree because one of the explicit goals of FKR is minimalism. So the question of what is needed, what is essential, as opposed to what is wanted or preferences is incredibly useful and relevant. It's not a judgement of games with more rules. But 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. Drop either and you drop the word "roleplaying" or "game" from the description. It certainly might not be the best, and it's certainly not everyone's preference, but where the absolute minimum needed to qualify as an RPG is a valid topic.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Well, the game books disagree with you. They quite explicitly give the D&D DM exactly that power.




Yes, I realize that. But it's not one that any group expects to be used all the time. It's not meant to be applied willy nilly. The spirit of that rule is that you should alter things to suit the situation or the specific group of players as needed. There's no need to be slavishly loyal to the rules as written. 

If a GM used this in the manner you're implying....where he's just usurping the rules and the players' expectations without valid reasons for doing so....that's just bad GMing.

And then again, there are many games that specifically don't allow this. 



overgeeked said:


> I disagree. The skill bonus and DC don't really model reality or the fiction very well at all. The character wouldn't know "+8 vs DC15" they'd know "that looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult." And I see no functional difference between "+8 vs DC15" and "roll the dice, higher is better" except that it telegraphs the number needed first...which is explicitly a level of precision a person in the real world or a character in the fiction would not have.
> 
> Except 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. "It looks like a fairly difficult task, but not too difficult; I can probably do it, but not certainly" is the closest we ever really get. You think you have a 100% chance to remember what you went into the other room to get...only to completely forget what it was you were after. You think you have a 100% chance to walk across the room without issue...only to trip over something you couldn't even see...or your own feet. You think the clever thing you thought of will 100% make a particular person laugh...only for them to be put off by what you said. 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.
> 
> What they would not be doing is having precise measures of skill and comparative difficulty through which to filter their decision making. Accuracy is the crux. As gamers we're used to that kind of accuracy, but it's an affect of gaming, not something that's a model of the real world. At best we have comparative reference points...but never absolutes. So "that wall looks easy to me" not "I have a 75% chance to climb it."




There is no certainty. It's an approximation. The dice are what makes it uncertain. I think you're underestimating peoples' ability to know the odds of success for a given task. 

But even still.....the numbers are doing the same job that the GM's verbal description is meant to do, right? The PC wants to climb a wall...that's the stated goal. Whether we use numbers or words to convey this to the player....really, what's the difference? 

For me, the numbers are more accurate, and closer to correlating with how the character would feel about the task.



overgeeked said:


> So exactly like most other RPGs. Would you say the DM in D&D is neutral? They have the exact same level of control over the game as the FKR Ref.




I think it depends on the game, and even the edition of D&D. In modern iterations of the game my answer would be no, the DM is not neutral. Not in the sense that the term had been used earlier on. 

I think most editions of D&D hew closer to the level of control by the GM that FKR games seem to, but probably not quite as far. FKR seems to take the already authority heavy role of the GM in D&D and increase it. But that's generally speaking; I would expect some variance among specific FKR games.



overgeeked said:


> Exactly like most other RPGs.
> 
> That...in D&D...the DM is free to ignore. Less so in other games, granted.
> 
> It's not problematic. It's counter to your preference. That's all.




No, it's problematic plain and simple.

Let's say our party of PCs runs into a dragon. Oh no, we're all gonna crap our pants! Oh ho, not me.....I made my save!

If the DM then tells me "You did....but the dragon fear still affects you. You can't take actions other than to flee!" I see that as a problem, and I expect most folks would agree. Yes, he is technically allowed to do this as you've pointed out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is problematic.

It's crappy GMing. And taking this over to FKR, the main difference to me seems to be that the players would simply not be aware that this BS was going on, where as in D&D they very well may. And in many other games, it would be immediately obvious, and at least poor form, if not outright cheating. 

Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules? To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?



overgeeked said:


> This conversation is mostly about comparing FKR to D&D as it's the most easily assumed shared reference point, but the FKR isn't necessarily a reaction to just D&D. I actually like the "weird" non-standard way earlier D&D editions handled various things. If I have the option, I'd rather use the various polyhedrons I've collected over the years instead of just the d20 the vast majority of the time. If I have to use one die for everything, I'd rather use at least two that are added together so there's a bell curve to work with.
> 
> Maybe. But the FKR designers and Referees have the benefit of hindsight and the 50 odd years of game design to draw from to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. They can see what stacking rule upon rule upon rule leads to.




Sure, this would be very similar to what I'd say about all game design over the past few decades. They've seen a lot of the mistakes in action and can design with the intent of avoiding them.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> It's crappy GMing. And taking this over to FKR, the main difference to me seems to be that the players would simply not be aware that this BS was going on, where as in D&D they very well may. And in many other games, it would be immediately obvious, and at least poor form, if not outright cheating.
> 
> Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules? To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?



You're thinking of it from a trad view, where they GM is bypassing rules.

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, since the lack of clarity generally drive further wedges.
And a GM in D-head mode very quickly becomes evident, and players lose trust.

In other words, a jerk GM usually loses players in FKR or ultralight games because their players feel either persecuted or being Monty-Halled...


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I realize that. But it's not one that any group expects to be used all the time. It's not meant to be applied willy nilly. The spirit of that rule is that you should alter things to suit the situation or the specific group of players as needed. There's no need to be slavishly loyal to the rules as written.



Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.


hawkeyefan said:


> If a GM used this in the manner you're implying....where he's just usurping the rules and the players' expectations without valid reasons for doing so....that's just bad GMing.



I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.


hawkeyefan said:


> There is no certainty. It's an approximation.



If you know that you have a 75% chance to accomplish a task, that's certainty...in your chances to accomplish the task. Not certainty that you will succeed. It's a level of precision in knowledge that simply doesn't exist in the real world for most things that would require a roll in a game.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think you're underestimating peoples' ability to know the odds of success for a given task.



Depends on the task. If you're suggesting that you can look at a wall and know down to the percentage point how likely you are to climb it, then yeah, I call BS. If you're suggesting that you can look at a car swerving out of its lane and into yours on a rainy night and claim that you'd know down to the percentage point how likely you are to avoid a collision, then yeah, I call BS. Some things are certain. Some things are uncertain. Some things are right out. But for those uncertain things, you're not going to know a percentage chance of success or failure in the real world.


hawkeyefan said:


> But even still.....the numbers are doing the same job that the GM's verbal description is meant to do, right? The PC wants to climb a wall...that's the stated goal. Whether we use numbers or words to convey this to the player....really, what's the difference? For me, the numbers are more accurate, and closer to correlating with how the character would feel about the task.



No. The numbers provide a level of specificity that's unrealistic for the character to know.


hawkeyefan said:


> No, it's problematic plain and simple.



No, it's not. It's your preference. Plain and simple.


hawkeyefan said:


> Let's say our party of PCs runs into a dragon. Oh no, we're all gonna crap our pants! Oh ho, not me.....I made my save!
> 
> If the DM then tells me "You did....but the dragon fear still affects you. You can't take actions other than to flee!" I see that as a problem, and I expect most folks would agree. Yes, he is technically allowed to do this as you've pointed out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is problematic.



Ah. Right, so that's your example of what you're talking about and what you're objecting to. But that's not what I'm talking about, at all. I agree, the above example is problematic. But that's still not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about, in that example, would be the DM setting the DC for the save. That's it. The DM is free to set the DC, but that includes automatic failure, automatic success, dis/advantage, and any number. The DM does not have to report that DC to the players. So the players make the roll, then the DM reports success or failure. If the DM sets the DC...then changes it so more people fail _or_ pass...that's a jerk move and bad DMing. The DM, and Referee, should be a fair and neutral arbiter. Set the challenge and let it play out. Let the dice fall where they may. But it's beyond ludicrous to assume that if the DM doesn't report the DC ahead of time then ipso facto they're cheating.


hawkeyefan said:


> Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules?



Why do DMs and GMs the world over use house rules?


hawkeyefan said:


> To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?



There are no hidden rules in FKR. All the rules are right there. Roll 2d6, higher is better. You mean the "DC" of a given task. Why hide that? Because the character would not have the level of precision of knowledge about their chances of success.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.
> 
> I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.
> 
> ...



I covered this.  The human brain, in the moment, doesn't put things into percentage points, but the ability to actually judge and make choices based on that judgement is extremely strong.  I am not my character, though, I am not in the same situation, with the history and experience and training my character has.  There is nothing you as GM can describe to give me the innate understanding of the chances of success I would have in real life -- this is impossible as you cannot convey that information in a way my brain will able to process into that innate knowing.  An approximation of that innate knowing is the skill bonus or % of success.  You're arguing that because I don't think in percentages when I'm making a choice -- like when I played goalkeeper in soccer and knew very precisely how my throw distance affected my accuracy (I could throw to midfield from the top of the 18, but my accuracy was poor, I could hit a cone with almost perfect accuracy about 15 yards shy of midfield, and put any spin you'd want on the ball there).  It wasn't in percentages, but I knew, very closely, my capabilities.  Hit a sprinting midfielder by putting the ball at their feet with topspin so it runs in front of them?  I knew where I could do that and where I couldn't and where it was iffy.

Since you cannot impart this knowledge in an innate way, this is what the percentages and mechanics do -- they root me in understand what my character just knows they can do but you couldn't possible explain to me, especially in that iffy area where things are rapidly shifting from all the time to can't do.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> You're thinking of it from a trad view, where they GM is bypassing rules.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...




Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing. 

I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount. 

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.

Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game know if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions? 

How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Right. But it does exist. It is there in black and white. It's not revelatory to point to it. I never said it would or should be used willy-nilly or all the time. Simply pointing out that the exact same level of control for the DM exists in D&D as people are vehemently objecting to when it comes to the Referee in FKR games.
> 
> I haven't suggested any specific uses for it beyond setting the DC of tasks. Only pointed out that it exists.




Right, but it's not used in the way you're saying. Or it's not meant to be used that way, and when it is, most would classify it as bad GMing. And although it may be overlooked or forgiven here and there, the more often it's used, the worse most would say play will be.




overgeeked said:


> If you know that you have a 75% chance to accomplish a task, that's certainty...in your chances to accomplish the task. Not certainty that you will succeed. It's a level of precision in knowledge that simply doesn't exist in the real world for most things that would require a roll in a game.
> 
> Depends on the task. If you're suggesting that you can look at a wall and know down to the percentage point how likely you are to climb it, then yeah, I call BS. If you're suggesting that you can look at a car swerving out of its lane and into yours on a rainy night and claim that you'd know down to the percentage point how likely you are to avoid a collision, then yeah, I call BS. Some things are certain. Some things are uncertain. Some things are right out. But for those uncertain things, you're not going to know a percentage chance of success or failure in the real world.
> 
> No. The numbers provide a level of specificity that's unrealistic for the character to know.




Let me approach this differently. I don't want to seem like I'm advocating specifically for the DC/Modifier system in and of itself. It does the job, but it's not my favorite or anything. What's important to me is not the specifics of the rule, but more that the rules are known in some way to the player so that they can then make an informed decision.

What is the point of the GM describing the situation to the player? The PC has come to the wall and they need to climb it and there's some risk of failure. What is the point of describing the wall and its features?

The point is to inform the player, right? I would think we can agree on that. I hope we can.

What rules like the DC system can do is make that information clearer. The goal is not so much about giving precise numbers as it is summarizing the situation in a precise manner. So that nothing gets lost in translation when a GM says something like "pretty difficult" or some other phrase that could be interpreted by the player in a significantly different way than the GM intended.

It's about letting the player know about the situation more accurately, to bring their understanding more in line with the character's.



overgeeked said:


> No, it's not. It's your preference. Plain and simple.
> 
> Ah. Right, so that's your example of what you're talking about and what you're objecting to. But that's not what I'm talking about, at all. I agree, the above example is problematic. But that's still not what I'm talking about.
> 
> What I'm talking about, in that example, would be the DM setting the DC for the save. That's it. The DM is free to set the DC, but that includes automatic failure, automatic success, dis/advantage, and any number. The DM does not have to report that DC to the players. So the players make the roll, then the DM reports success or failure. If the DM sets the DC...then changes it so more people fail _or_ pass...that's a jerk move and bad DMing. The DM, and Referee, should be a fair and neutral arbiter. Set the challenge and let it play out. Let the dice fall where they may. But it's beyond ludicrous to assume that if the DM doesn't report the DC ahead of time then ipso facto they're cheating.




I think the DC is likely set by the monster stat-block. Now, maybe there is some reason to increase or decrease it based on the fiction....this is a unique dragon who's particularly fearsome or has been empowered by magic or some other thing.....and that's fine, but again in my opinion, should be disclosed to the players. This way, they make the roll, and they know the results.

Why not let them know? Why keep it secret?



overgeeked said:


> Why do DMs and GMs the world over use house rules?




House rules are a bit different than overriding the rules in the moment. There's (ideally) some review that has taken place where a house rule was determined to be necessary, or preferred. In my 5E game, if a PC drops to 0 HP they gain a level of exhaustion. This is something we decided as a group, after seeing enough whack-a-mole in combat that it became annoying. So we discussed the situation and added something to incentivize not dropping to 0 HP.

That's quite different thing than changing the rules mid-play.



overgeeked said:


> There are no hidden rules in FKR. All the rules are right there. Roll 2d6, higher is better. You mean the "DC" of a given task. Why hide that? Because the character would not have the level of precision of knowledge about their chances of success.




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?


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing.
> 
> I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount.
> 
> 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?



You never truly do.


hawkeyefan said:


> 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.



It's a matter of feel.  If a player's getting shut down more than the others, or the players as a whole are getting frustrated... or, as I noted, if the GM's giving you monty haul level treasures to hide that he's directing the story strongly...


hawkeyefan said:


> Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game know if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions?
> 
> How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?



If they're only mildly so, you probably can't, at least right off. It's the case of asking yourself, "Are the decisions making sense? Are the rolls being called for appropriate? Am I being singled out (for better or worse) more than the others? Am I getting enough screen time? Is the GM spending too much time narrating?

It's all the same stuff that you watch for as a player at a trad game, except for "is that how the rules say to do ___?" 

Also, remember, some people don't care about fairness, so for them, the GM being fair is irrelevant; only whether they're enjoying the story.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

Numidius said:


> 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.



Campbell said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> 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.



overgeeked said:


> 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.



overgeeked said:


> 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.



overgeeked said:


> 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.



overgeeked said:


> 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.



Campbell said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> 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.



aramis erak said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Oct 15, 2021)

S'mon said:


> 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.



S'mon said:


> 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.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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.



Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".

It's been a long time, but I can remember this being a problem once - a 1990s semi-free-kriegsspiel type fantasy game, I created the rules system but eventually we let another player, Janne, GM - the guy who invented the moniker "Little Devil S'mon" for me.  There was an excellent player who was a very experienced US military type, maybe Army Rangers I think. I loved how he'd engage with the fiction using his RL knowledge of sword combat, ambush tactics etc. Things went sour when Janne the new GM was GMing and the army guy organised a PC ambush of some bad guys. The GM Janne's bad guys slaughtered the PC ambushers, in a way that broke everyone's suspension of disbelief. Janne did the same in a duel, where he ignored army guy's brilliant tactics, and his bad guy NPC knight with OP stats carved up army guy's Ranger PC. Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2021)

S'mon said:


> '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.




I'm not sure if FKR overall would not be good for me. There were a few games labeled as FKR on Itch that were linked earlier that I thought were pretty cool, and would likely be willing to play. 

But I think you're right that I don't trust the process as it's been generally described here and in some of the blogs that have been linked. However, I don't think it's a case of not being able to trust the process: I think it's quite possible that I could. However, I want to actually understand the process before deciding to trust it. I don't really see the need for blind trust in this regard.



S'mon said:


> 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 think the idea of this being a "high trust game type" is a bit misleading. Because every game proceeds with the expectation that the participants can be trusted, or at least every game should. You generally don't expect people to cheat or to subvert the rules. 

Where the trust seems to be needed in FKR style games is that players need to trust that the GM will abdicate fairly and with integrity, but that the means of doing so are either unknown, or are more nebulous than they may be in other games. Just about every game calls for the GM to abdicate fairly and with integrity, so that's not the concern. Instead it's the lack of specific tools at the GM's disposal to help do so. 

It's like if I'm in a burning building and two firemen are coming to help me. One is decked out in his jacket and harness with airtank and all the associated gear....and the other is in sweat pants. I don't mistrust either of them, but I expect one to be able to do the expected job better.



S'mon said:


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




I definitely agree there.



S'mon said:


> Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".
> 
> It's been a long time, but I can remember this being a problem once - a 1990s semi-free-kriesspiel type fantasy game, I created the rules system but eventually we let another player, Janne, GM - the guy who invented the moniker "Little Devil S'mon" for me.  There was an excellent player who was a very experienced US military type, maybe Army Rangers I think. I loved how he'd engage with the fiction using his RL knowledge of sword combat, ambush tactics etc. Things went sour when Janne the new GM was GMing and the army guy organised a PC ambush of some bad guys. The GM Janne's bad guys slaughtered the PC ambushers, in a way that broke everyone's suspension of disbelief. Janne did the same in a duel, where he ignored army guy's brilliant tactics, and his bad guy NPC knight with OP stats carved up army guy's Ranger PC. Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.




This to me seems less about trust than it is about expertise. I don't think that players should have the expectation that the GM will always know more about a given topic than them, and so will always be able to portray a scene/obstacle/situation with enough accuracy to be plausible and acceptable to the player. GMs aren't experts at everything. This is where I think the label of FKR is a bit misleading because it evokes the referee from the Kriegsspiel games who actually were experts at the subject matter of their games. 

Janne in your example was not doing anything wrong from his perspective. He was proceeding with integrity. In that sense, he didn't betray the trust of the participants. It was not about integrity, though, but about ability. Where Janne failed, if we can describe it as such, was to be as knowledgeable about combat as an actual trained combatant. Why would we ever expect that of a GM?

Correlating actual military experience and tactical knowledge to referee a wargame with basic genre logic to referee any scenario is a bit simplistic. Should players really trust the GM in a FKR RPG in the same way that players in a Kriegsspiel game could trust their referee? 

In this case, the trust is not about adherence to rules and processes and refereeing with integrity.....but more about accuracy. About actual knowledge or expertise, about their ability to convince all players that what they've just made up is reasonable and fair.

I think that's why saying it's about trust is a bit odd. I expect the GM to mess up, I don't expect them to be experts on every topic they may need to portray in a game. I want them to involve me in that process. I want to understand and be involved in establishing the process the GM will use when running the game.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think the idea of this being a "high trust game type" is a bit misleading. Because every game proceeds with the expectation that the participants can be trusted, or at least every game should. You generally don't expect people to cheat or to subvert the rules.



As I mentioned upthread, trust might not be the most accurate word for what they are trying to describe.  To me what they are trying to describe is what the table references when there is uncertainty.  So if you are playing chess, there are clear legal and illegal moves.  If you are learning how to play, you can reference the rules and see a pawn can only move forward, or diagonally to replace an opponent's piece.  So in that sense you have "trust" in the rules: as long as we follow the rules the game will be fair.  "Trust" is not about your chess opponent not cheating, though incidentally it's easier to verify whether they are or are not.  Free Kriegspiel wargames, to my understanding, replaced the rulebook with a referee.  So now instead of "trusting" the rules to adjudicate your position and actions, you "trust" the referee.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, the example I gave was from a trad game, so yes, that's how I explained it. *Bypassing the rules to get the outcome you want is lousy GMing*.



No one here but you is suggesting this is how it's done.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that simply removing those rules so that the GM can just decide things makes that significantly different. It just removes the element that makes it obvious that they're calling the shots.



The fact that they're the DM/GM/Ref makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. They're in charge. It's their game to run as they see fit. High DM/GM/Ref authority.


hawkeyefan said:


> It takes the elements of D&D that lean into the GM authority and force and makes them paramount.



That's your mistaken assumption about how it works. It's no different than D&D except that there's no rulebook for you to try to gotcha the DM with.


hawkeyefan said:


> *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.



You don't assume bad faith. You assume good faith. When you actually at the table run into an instance of bad faith, you walk. Simple as.


hawkeyefan said:


> Now, maybe the group has been playing together for years, and so trust already exists. But what about a new game? How does a new player in a new group playing such a game *know* if they're playing with a GM who's doing things as they should be (however that may be) and one who's just making arbitrary decisions?



They don't until the rubber meets the road. Just like in every other RPG experience. That's why you have to assume good faith and trust the Referee.


hawkeyefan said:


> How can you tell the jerk GMs from the non-jerk GMs under those conditions?



You assume good faith and trust the Referee right up until they show you they're not worthy of that assumed good faith and trust. What you don't do is assume, without ever actually trying, that the Referee must be a cheater and must be out to get you...simply because they run a game in a style you clearly have no interest in.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> As I mentioned upthread, trust might not be the most accurate word for what they are trying to describe.  To me what they are trying to describe is what the table references when there is uncertainty.  So if you are playing chess, there are clear legal and illegal moves.  If you are learning how to play, you can reference the rules and see a pawn can only move forward, or diagonally to replace an opponent's piece.  So in that sense you have "trust" in the rules: as long as we follow the rules the game will be fair.  "Trust" is not about your chess opponent not cheating, though incidentally it's easier to verify whether they are or are not.  Free Kriegspiel wargames, to my understanding, replaced the rulebook with a referee.  So now instead of "trusting" the rules to adjudicate your position and actions, you "trust" the referee.




Yeah, that I follow, and I think it goes toward what I said about integrity/ability in my last post.

The trust for a Kriegsspiel ref seems to stem from a few things:

their expertise in matters of war and tactics
their position as a third party separate of the game’s participants

One I’m less sure of, but which I expect was often if not always the case is: 
-they were not involved in establishing the conditions of the scenario

My understanding is that actual combat records were used to reenact a specific battle, or generic situations were established ahead of play, of which the participants were aware. Even if my understanding is accurate, I would expect that there would still be exceptions to this.

So for Kriegsspiel referees, the foundation for trust is established. They are trustworthy because they are experts in the area, they are not invested in seeing a particular side win, and they are ruling about a scenario that has been established with minimal input/design from them.

What would be the corresponding factors that would serve as a foundation of trust for a FKR GM?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 15, 2021)

One of the questions I have _because it's something that really weighs on me generally_ is how FKR referees deal with the inherent tension between playing NPCs in actor stance and having to make neutral calls about those NPCs? Maybe I just get too close to NPCs, but having rules in place to help determine what happens helps me to like stay in the pocket during scenes where NPCs are involved.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right, but it's not used in the way you're saying. Or it's not meant to be used that way, and when it is, most would classify it as bad GMing. And although it may be overlooked or forgiven here and there, the more often it's used, the worse most would say play will be.



You're still assuming that your ultimate bad faith out-to-get-you DM is the same thing as what I'm talking about. They're different things. As I've said. A few times now.


hawkeyefan said:


> Let me approach this differently. I don't want to seem like I'm advocating specifically for the DC/Modifier system in and of itself. It does the job, but it's not my favorite or anything. What's important to me is not the specifics of the rule, but more that the rules are known in some way to the player so that they can then make an informed decision.



And again. The rules are known. The rules are: roll 2d6, higher is better. In most FKR games that's literally the entire game system right there. There are no rules that are hidden. What you're railing against is that the Referee has the authority to set the difficulty of a task _without_ precisely explaining exactly how they come to that decision in every moment and telling you exactly what your odds of success are _before_ you make a roll. What you assume is bad faith player from the Referee and you expect that they owe you an explanation up front. That attitude is untenable in the majority of games, but especially in ones with high DM/GM/Ref authority. This style of play is clearly not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their preferences. But if this is how you think things should be, you're never going to be comfortable enough with the style to give it anything approaching an honest chance. At the table or in discussion.


hawkeyefan said:


> What is the point of the GM describing the situation to the player? The PC has come to the wall and they need to climb it and there's some risk of failure. What is the point of describing the wall and its features?
> 
> The point is to inform the player, right? I would think we can agree on that. I hope we can.



Yes. Exactly so. To inform the character of the obstacle before them and thus inform the player (as much as is relevant and possible) what their chances of success are.


hawkeyefan said:


> What rules like the DC system can do is make that information clearer. The goal is not so much about giving precise numbers...



But that's exactly how it's achieved. The goal is to inform the player..._*the means of delivery is precise numbers*_...which the character wouldn't have. I've no problem informing the character and player of what's before them. That's the point of describing things. My objection is solely with the means of delivery. Precise numbers break immersion. The character wouldn't have those precise numbers. It puts the game mechanics front and center instead of the character and the world. Getting back to the FKR and their mantras, "play world, not rules," is often repeated. This is part of that. The world isn't going to spit out a display informing the character that they have 57.9% chance of accomplishing a task...unless you're playing in a world that does. But the majority won't have that. So, since the world isn't going to do that...there's no reason to do that at the table. You want the game mechanics to be centered. That's the opposite of what the FKR is after. They want the play, the character, the world to be centered. What you want and what the FKR want are opposites. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you're literally accusing DMs/GMs/Referees of bad faith play and cheating...simply because they're playing in a style different than what you expect. They're not having badwrongfun, they're having not-for-hawkeyefan fun. There's nothing wrong with that. So why are you so insistent? Just accept that it's not a style for you.


hawkeyefan said:


> House rules are a bit different than overriding the rules in the moment...That's quite different thing than changing the rules mid-play...



You are literally the only person here claiming that is what DM/GM/Referee authority is about. Just you. No one else. I've already agreed that changing the rules after a result would otherwise be known is bad form. Yet you still insist that's what I'm after. It's not. I don't know how many other ways or times I can tell you that.


hawkeyefan said:


> 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.



Yes. Exactly like most other high-GM authority RPGs.


hawkeyefan said:


> 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.



Yes. Exactly like most other high-GM authority RPGs.


hawkeyefan said:


> But when it is a 2d6 highest wins, does the GM roll in front of the player? If not, why not? If so, why?



When I've seen opposed rolls used, it's in the open. But here's the thing. From your posts, I would assume that you would demand that the Referee roll first so that you know exactly what your chances are. It's entirely up the the Referee when to roll. If they insisted that the player rolled first what would you do and why?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 15, 2021)

@overgeeked 

Can you please refrain from telling people what they want and what their play is like? Please discuss your own play.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 15, 2021)

The idea that the rule book exists to gotcha DMs is arrant bloody nonsense. I thought about sugar coating that but decided against it. It is nonsense.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> What would be the corresponding factors that would serve as a foundation of trust for a FKR GM?



Not necessarily super relevant for this thread, but I am a teacher, and sometimes I think about how I might use roleplaying games to teach genre.  Previously I do things like writing exercises ('write in the style of...), but I wonder if I can do something more collaborative, supplemented about discussion about what would 'count' or not count as expected for a given genre and why/why not.  So all the stuff around invisible rulebooks, even the pedagogic context of FK makes some intuitive sense for me...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 15, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Not necessarily super relevant for this thread, but I am a teacher, and sometimes I think about how I might use roleplaying games to teach genre.  Previously I do things like writing exercises ('write in the style of...), but I wonder if I can do something more collaborative, supplemented about discussion about what would 'count' or not count as expected for a given genre and why/why not.  So all the stuff around invisible rulebooks, even the pedagogic context of FK makes some intuitive sense for me...



Funny, I used the basic PbtA mechanics to teach 6th graders about conflict and consequences in framing scenes for fiction. It worked really well.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 15, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that's why saying it's about trust is a bit odd. I expect the GM to mess up, I don't expect them to be experts on every topic they may need to portray in a game. I want them to involve me in that process. I want to understand and be involved in establishing the process the GM will use when running the game.




I generally don't like most GMs, so I consider myself a poor player. The two type of GMs I'm ok with are (a) the ones who are willing to take advice from the players and (b) the ones who actually know their stuff. Type (b) is pretty rare, type (a) is less rare. But the most common type at least traditionally are (c), the incompetent viking hat types. Don't know their stuff, don't take advice or direction. I don't do well with them - many players do.

I try to be a (b), or failing that to be an (a).


----------



## S'mon (Oct 15, 2021)

Campbell said:


> One of the questions I have _because it's something that really weighs on me generally_ is how FKR referees deal with the inherent tension between playing NPCs in actor stance and having to make neutral calls about those NPCs? Maybe I just get too close to NPCs, but having rules in place to help determine what happens helps me to like stay in the pocket during scenes where NPCs are involved.



I just don't have that feeling. I'll always kill my darlings. I'll not even feel bad.
It is _far_ harder to kill some cool PC the whole table loves. Then, I'll feel bad. I still kill them. For the good of the game.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 15, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I just don't have that feeling. I'll always kill my darlings. I'll not even feel bad.
> It is _far_ harder to kill some cool PC the whole table loves. Then, I'll feel bad. I still kill them. For the good of the game.
> 
> View attachment 145314




I meant it more in terms of shifting mindsets. For me to shift into that character space takes a lot of effort. For me to shift back to referee headspace also takes effort. When I keep having to shift back and forth I can get exhausted.

Probably just coming at it from a different angle because I'm also a LARPer and theater nerd.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 15, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I meant it more in terms of shifting mindsets. For me to shift into that character space takes a lot of effort. For me to shift back to referee headspace also takes effort. When I keep having to shift back and forth I can get exhausted.
> 
> Probably just coming at it from a different angle because I'm also a LARPer and theater nerd.



I dunno, I just find it easy to shift from internal-aspect to external-aspect. I can fully identify with an NPC when I'm speaking as them, but that never threatens to bias my GMing.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 15, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Eventually the group rebelled. Trust had broken down.



I understand the rebellion. To me, the overarching problem doesn't seem unique to FKR. The systems where I've been part of rebellions for similar reasons (ie poor GM management of the fiction) have been AD&D and RM.



S'mon said:


> Yes; if you know how to jumpstart a helicopter and I don't (and I don't) then it's not going to work me making jumpstarting helicopters a focus of FK play. If I'm GMing I either have to say "no, you can't use your real world knowledge - let's roll a d6" or "OK, sounds plausible, the helicopter whirrs to life".



That makes sense. You should hire yourself out to some of the FKRer blogs!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No one here but you is suggesting this is how it's done.




No one at all is suggesting this is how it's done. My comment here was in response to your continued mentioning of rule zero in D&D, and how that makes D&D no different because the rules can simply vanish at the GM's whim.

I refuted that point by explaining no one likes or expects rule zero to be used that way. I also cited the many games that don't grant the GM such authority. 




overgeeked said:


> The fact that they're the DM/GM/Ref makes it obvious that they're calling the shots. They're in charge. It's their game to run as they see fit. High DM/GM/Ref authority.
> 
> That's your mistaken assumption about how it works. It's no different than D&D except that there's no rulebook for you to try to gotcha the DM with.




I mean, that's a pretty telling statement right there. 

I do think that in a game, players of all kinds should be bound by rules. The rules can be different for different types of participants. When kids play tag, there are different rules for the kid who's "It" than for everyone else. 

The idea that the rules are there to thwart the GM is, to me, a huge red flag. 

Do you think that the rules exist to thwart players?




overgeeked said:


> You assume good faith and trust the Referee right up until they show you they're not worthy of that assumed good faith and trust. What you don't do is assume, without ever actually trying, that the Referee must be a cheater and must be out to get you...simply because they run a game in a style you clearly have no interest in.




But players? Assume bad faith toward those dirty gamers immediately, right?



overgeeked said:


> You're still assuming that your ultimate bad faith out-to-get-you DM is the same thing as what I'm talking about. They're different things. As I've said. A few times now.
> 
> And again. The rules are known. The rules are: roll 2d6, higher is better. In most FKR games that's literally the entire game system right there. There are no rules that are hidden. What you're railing against is that the Referee has the authority to set the difficulty of a task _without_ precisely explaining exactly how they come to that decision in every moment and telling you exactly what your odds of success are _before_ you make a roll. What you assume is bad faith player from the Referee and you expect that they owe you an explanation up front. That attitude is untenable in the majority of games, but especially in ones with high DM/GM/Ref authority.




It's absolutely tenable. There's absolutely nothing stopping a GM in D&D from sharing every single DC with his players before they roll. It's a perfectly tenable way to play the game. I know this because I've seen it first hand. And D&D is a very high GM authority game. I actually would have put it just about at the top of the list, until this thread.

There are also games where there's nothing hidden from the players. Apocalypse World has a known resolution mechanic. Blades in the Dark is all negotiated clearly before a roll is made. Alien and Mutant Year Zero and the games that use that system, roll a pool of d6s, if you roll a 6 at all, you succeed. Spire and Heart use a pool of D10s, with tiered success based on the highest roll. All of these games are not only perfectly tenable, but I think they also largely address a lot of the concerns about D&D that the FKR seems to be attempting to address.

To me, these processes and means of determining outcomes....these are rules. They're fundamental to how the game plays.



overgeeked said:


> This style of play is clearly not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their preferences. But if this is how you think things should be, you're never going to be comfortable enough with the style to give it anything approaching an honest chance. At the table or in discussion.




It's possible that it may not be for me. Certainly, some examples are not for me. That "diceless combat" example that was posted seems like the opposite of what I'd like an RPG to be. But there were some games linked on Itch that have the FKR tag that seemed fun or playable....or at the very least wouldn't make me smash my face into the table. 

But for discussion, I'm giving it an honest chance. I'm asking questions. I'm poking at it. I'm actively interrogating it. I see some of the appeal, but others I'm just not seeing.



overgeeked said:


> Yes. Exactly so. To inform the character of the obstacle before them and thus inform the player (as much as is relevant and possible) what their chances of success are.
> 
> But that's exactly how it's achieved. The goal is to inform the player..._*the means of delivery is precise numbers*_...which the character wouldn't have. I've no problem informing the character and player of what's before them. That's the point of describing things. My objection is solely with the means of delivery. Precise numbers break immersion. The character wouldn't have those precise numbers. It puts the game mechanics front and center instead of the character and the world. Getting back to the FKR and their mantras, "play world, not rules," is often repeated. This is part of that. The world isn't going to spit out a display informing the character that they have 57.9% chance of accomplishing a task...unless you're playing in a world that does. But the majority won't have that. So, since the world isn't going to do that...there's no reason to do that at the table.




I get that you don't like the precise numbers. My point was that being precise wasn't the goal so much as trying to give the player as accurate an assessment of the situation as possible to that of the character. The GM is going to use certain words when doing this. Those words are very often going to fail to convey as clear a picture as needed. 

So codifying them in some way....with a DC or some similar means....actually serves to help me immerse. My character is going to know the situation that's facing them. I want my knowledge as a player to be as close to that as possible. I don't want there to be misinterpretation based on the specific words chosen by the GM. That's far more likely to break my immersion. 

Now, this I will say is largely a matter of preference. You don't like precision, and it's more important to you to risk lack of clarity in order to avoid too much clarity. However, as many others have already posted, I think perhaps you're underestimating the human mind and how it's doing these kinds of calculations and determinations all the time, and how accurate people can be, especially with tasks they've trained for. Precision in that regard doesn't seem problematic at all.



overgeeked said:


> You want the game mechanics to be centered. That's the opposite of what the FKR is after. They want the play, the character, the world to be centered. What you want and what the FKR want are opposites. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you're literally accusing DMs/GMs/Referees of bad faith play and cheating...simply because they're playing in a style different than what you expect. They're not having badwrongfun, they're having not-for-hawkeyefan fun. There's nothing wrong with that. So why are you so insistent? Just accept that it's not a style for you.




I don't need nor necessarily want the mechanics to be front and center. I just think they should be known. 

And no, I'm not saying that anyone running FKR is cheating or having badwrongfun. My concern is how running an FKR game in a principled manner must be very difficult. 

In an attempt to move things forward a bit, do you have any examples of what you do or how you remain principled in your GMing when running FKR style? I know the basics of like "lean on genre", but do you have an example of play that you could share?



overgeeked said:


> When I've seen opposed rolls used, it's in the open. But here's the thing. From your posts, I would assume that you would demand that the Referee roll first so that you know exactly what your chances are. It's entirely up the the Referee when to roll. If they insisted that the player rolled first what would you do and why?




So why does the GM roll in the open? Why not roll behind a screen and then just observe the player roll, and then let them know what happens?

For an opposed roll, no I wouldn't demand the GM roll first; why would I do that? There's no impact on my decision making at that point, and the odds are known to me because we're both just rolling 2d6 and seeing who gets higher. Unless there are modifiers in place; then I'd like to know that.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

Campbell said:


> It does have guidelines for designing new characters, but not in the way most people expect. Characters are not created from a pool of points or options you pick. There are more detailed instructions, but you design the powersets that fit the character you want to play. Characters are not designed with balance in mind. Instead the game is designed so that if you are playing Ant Man you should have an impact even if Thor has a superior power set.




I suspect the answer will always depend on how someone views the loadbearing word "system" in the question.  If viewed broadly enough, the answer is virtually tautological.  That's rarely the usage of "system" people complaining about that feature of MHR are using, so the discussion ends up going nowhere because of semantic issues.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That you think it was a gotcha is telling. Best of luck. Cheers.




When constructed that way, its either a gotcha or Socratic, and the distinction is invisible without having a great degree of faith in the person asking the question.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> The idea that the rule book exists to gotcha DMs is arrant bloody nonsense. I thought about sugar coating that but decided against it. It is nonsense.




I've argued the primary purpose of rules to me is so that the decisions I make will show a pattern to people who I'm GMing for that doesn't require having known me for years, and more, that what decision I make in three months is likely to be similar to the decision I made yesterday in at least the broad.

If that's a "gotcha" I'm not sure what to say about that.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 16, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> As I mentioned upthread, trust might not be the most accurate word for what they are trying to describe.  To me what they are trying to describe is what the table references when there is uncertainty.  So if you are playing chess, there are clear legal and illegal moves.  If you are learning how to play, you can reference the rules and see a pawn can only move forward, or diagonally to replace an opponent's piece.  So in that sense you have "trust" in the rules: as long as we follow the rules the game will be fair.  "Trust" is not about your chess opponent not cheating, though incidentally it's easier to verify whether they are or are not.  Free Kriegspiel wargames, to my understanding, replaced the rulebook with a referee.  So now instead of "trusting" the rules to adjudicate your position and actions, you "trust" the referee.



But the only RPG I can think of which sits on the _chess_ side of your example is 3E D&D and its cousins, or very vanilla combat encounters in a rules-heavy RPG like HERO, 4e D&D, RM, RQ, etc.

Consider AW. Your PC _goes aggro_ and gets a total result of 5. Now the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. What should they actually say? I've played with plenty of GMs who I wouldn't trust to GM AW, not because they're cheaty types without integrity but just because they don't have a good imagination for dramatic fiction.



hawkeyefan said:


> So for Kriegsspiel referees, the foundation for trust is established. They are trustworthy because they are experts in the area, they are not invested in seeing a particular side win, and they are ruling about a scenario that has been established with minimal input/design from them.
> 
> What would be the corresponding factors that would serve as a foundation of trust for a FKR GM?



I did offer some conjectures about this in the OP.

In S'mon's response to the helicopter problem we got _say 'yes' or roll the dice _as a way of plugging gaps in expertise.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

Of course, even "roll the dice" requires some sort of intervention to establish probability; its just not a deterministic pass/fail.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 16, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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.



It's not. A low trust play is quite doable in narrative-heavy games - especially, as is the case with AW, where the rules specify exactly what the GM's allowed to do. AW as written presumes players understand the GM's role. THey don't need high trust, as they can say, "Hey, not cool!" when the GM crosses the line. 
FKRing an AWE/PBTA game pushes it to needing high trust.

I used to have high trust in players. somewhere around 200 of them past my table, and lost that inherent trust.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 16, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think the idea of this being a "high trust game type" is a bit misleading. Because every game proceeds with the expectation that the participants can be trusted, or at least every game should. You generally don't expect people to cheat or to subvert the rules.



After over 200 players playing at my table, I do expect about 1 in ten players to cheat if they think they can get away with it; usually lying about dice rolls.
I expect another 1 in ten to be unable to function reliably in a rules context. 
And about 1 in ten who will not abide genre restrictions. 
About 1 in 20 will ignore the comfort of others at the table.
So, I generally don't trust players at start.  If they turn out to not be one of those roughly 20 of 100... (there are strong overlaps), sure... they earn that trust. It's not been automatic in 20+ years for me. About 80% hit that.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 16, 2021)

It sounds a lot to me like 'high trust' is being used as a synonym for not having meaningful expectations of what play should look like or never setting boundaries as a player. From my perspective trust is about the expectation that you will do something. I trust you to watch my dog or balance my checkbook. There is no general trust beyond the general sense of expecting ethical conduct, but that's just implied expectations based on the society we live in.

Apocalypse World requires a tremendous degree of trust in the sense it leaves a lot in the GM's hands. Not just to stay within the lines, but also to perform your responsibilities thoughtfully. There's a tremendous degree of latitude the game affords the GM. Like the game says make as hard a move as you like, but you should not be making the hardest moves that make sense all the time. The game tells you to build PC-NPC-PC triangles, but you need to do so carefully.

That's like saying B/X does not require a high degree of trust because it expects the referee to fairly lay out a dungeon.

In both games as presented there is a tremendous amount of GM judgement required. Like pretty much every second of play involves judgement calls.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I used to have high trust in players. somewhere around 200 of them past my table, and lost that inherent trust.




My own take on this--and it applies even more to GMs than players simply because I'm mostly involved in trad games where GMs have a lot more power, but it applies to both--is I have fairly high trust in the majority of GM and players _intentions_.  Some selfish motivations slip in, but few people are actively planning things to make things worse for others, and those people show their true colors pretty quickly usually.  (Not that those selfish motivations can't cause problems with people who can't step back and look at it from others POV and understand that's partly their responsibility too, but its at least easier to address).

But people's _judgment_? Nothing in my experience has taught me that's to be trusted on a consistent basis in, well, anybody.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 16, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> After over 200 players playing at my table, I do expect about 1 in ten players to cheat if they think they can get away with it; usually lying about dice rolls.
> I expect another 1 in ten to be unable to function reliably in a rules context.
> And about 1 in ten who will not abide genre restrictions.
> About 1 in 20 will ignore the comfort of others at the table.
> So, I generally don't trust players at start.  If they turn out to not be one of those roughly 20 of 100... (there are strong overlaps), sure... they earn that trust. It's not been automatic in 20+ years for me. About 80% hit that.




Well we’re all going to be influenced by our experiences, so I can’t say I blame you. Of you have a new player, do you generally give them the benefit of the doubt until they display some behavior you think is problematic?

That’s generally my approach with either a player or a GM. I expect everyone is going to play fairly and with respect toward each other until I see evidence otherwise.

The trust I’m more concerned about in a practical way is more along the lines of judgment, as @Campbell and @Thomas Shey have just mentioned.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Of course, even "roll the dice" requires some sort of intervention to establish probability; its just not a deterministic pass/fail.



Not if if it's 2d6 vs 2d6, or some other coin-toss mechanic.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 16, 2021)

@Campbell has explained why I think AW requires trust, in the sense that it put a heavy burden on the GM which I would not expect a number of GMs I've played with to be able to discharge.

Burning Wheel is very similar.

A GM adjudicating a typical AD&D 2nd ed module, where I have no expectations except to move from encounter to encounter and do my bit in the fights and occasionally joining dots, is a completely different thing. That said, I once ran a many-player tournament-style club game, on a modified AD&D chassis, with very clearly defined parameters for each encounter area, and one of my subordinate GMs managed to violate everyone's trust in his GMing of his section - no players who made their way into that part of the set-up had a chance of making it through to a win . . .


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 16, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well we’re all going to be influenced by our experiences, so I can’t say I blame you. Of you have a new player, do you generally give them the benefit of the doubt until they display some behavior you think is problematic?
> 
> That’s generally my approach with either a player or a GM. I expect everyone is going to play fairly and with respect toward each other until I see evidence otherwise.



Very limited benefit of the doubt.

New players' characters are audited. And not just at start.
I keep an eye on dice rolls for players, and I roll resolutions in the open as well. If a player complains about another's rolls, I require rolls to be checked by me - no touch until I read. I've had to impose that only once in the last few years... but due to the player, it was every roll he made until his death. (He dropped of cancer early this year.) I just asked other players to read his dice for his "bad vision" (which was bad).
I require players to tell me what triggered use of the X-card - not in front of the others... because I've seen it abused.
I had a player abuse the x-card before. He used it to cancel scenes where his character was at risk.
I've had another player who used the fade to black to prevent her ex-so from succeeding at social actions by objection at the start of his announcing a social action.

I do presume lack of malice by players, but keep an eye out for several issues.
I do keep an eye out for players dictating others' actions.
I do keep an eye out for players intentionally preventing others from play.
I occasionally have to relocate players to prevent excess table talk


----------



## S'mon (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Of course, even "roll the dice" requires some sort of intervention to establish probability; its just not a deterministic pass/fail.




When the outcome seems in question, defaulting to 50-50 does work pretty well.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 16, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> After over 200 players playing at my table, I do expect about 1 in ten players to cheat if they think they can get away with it; usually lying about dice rolls.
> I expect another 1 in ten to be unable to function reliably in a rules context.
> And about 1 in ten who will not abide genre restrictions.
> About 1 in 20 will ignore the comfort of others at the table.
> So, I generally don't trust players at start.  If they turn out to not be one of those roughly 20 of 100... (there are strong overlaps), sure... they earn that trust. It's not been automatic in 20+ years for me. About 80% hit that.




Yes. It does not seem wildly implausible to suggest that 80% of players are basically trustworthy. IME for GMs it might be higher, but again not implausible to suggest that around 20% of the time a GM will do something at least one player feels is violating the perceived social contract. The GM I played Savage Worlds with, he applied the rules system fairly*, but he tended to ignore my female PC, which I started to suspect was because he didn't much like a male player playing a female PC. Or the 4e GM who fudged wildly to keep the PCs alive in his ridiculously OTT encounters, also lost some trust.

If there are 4-5 players at the table and 1 GM, it's far more likely that at least 1 player is not trustworthy. So it can be rational to - by default - not fully trusting players, while trusting the GM until proven otherwise. And since the game likely needs player trust in the GM to function, it's also necessary to play at all.

Edit: I pretty much trust all my current players, but they're a curated bunch. I stopped playing with the ones  I didn't trust! When you run a lot of public open-access games, I think you do get a roughly 80-20 ratio. Although it seems to vary a bit by rules system. When I switched from 3e to 4e, there suddenly seemed to be far less player bad behaviour. 5e seems good for engendering good behaviour too. Something about 3e (& PF) seems to bring out the worst in some people. :/ I had a bit of a bad experience running a BECMI/Classic campaign too, but that was just one couple so not a meaningful data point.

*Actually, I recall him ignoring my female diplomancer PC's attempt to dissuade the biker gang from capturing the PCs, while letting the rather munchkiny male fighter PC's attempt succeed. I had built the PC for exactly this kind of situation, even knowing it likely wouldn't come up much in a zombie apocalypse game, so I was pretty p*ssed off.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Something about 3e (& PF) seems to bring out the worst in some people.



Hmmmm.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 16, 2021)

Campbell said:


> 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.
> (...)
> Each game provides something different, focuses on different salient details about the fiction. I would gladly play any with the right group. I think there are a lot of cases where specificity is helpful, especially games that are essentially defining a genre of play unto themselves. Games where the source material is the game. Games like Legend of the 5 Rings, Exalted, Vampire - The Masquerade, and Pathfinder Second Edition are specific because they are defining a genre for us all to experience. That has real value.
> (...)
> In both games as presented there is a tremendous amount of GM judgement required. Like pretty much every second of play involves judgement calls.




This, I agree with, even if I'd look at it from an FKR perspective. 
I could use your exact words to pitch an FKR game to people. 
I probably will


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Not if if it's 2d6 vs 2d6, or some other coin-toss mechanic.




Well, its true there too, but only once (when its established that's how it'll be done going forward).  Same as if you use a fixed target number like 7, say.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> When the outcome seems in question, defaulting to 50-50 does work pretty well.




Well, its certainly functional as a default depending on the effect one generally is trying for.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Yes. It does not seem wildly implausible to suggest that 80% of players are basically trustworthy. IME for GMs it might be higher,




Is there a particular reason to assume this?  It seems based in some unstated prior assumption.



S'mon said:


> but again not implausible to suggest that around 20% of the time a GM will do something at least one player feels is violating the perceived social contract. The GM I played Savage Worlds with, he applied the rules system fairly*, but he tended to ignore my female PC, which I started to suspect was because he didn't much like a male player playing a female PC. Or the 4e GM who fudged wildly to keep the PCs alive in his ridiculously OTT encounters, also lost some trust.
> 
> If there are 4-5 players at the table and 1 GM, it's far more likely that at least 1 player is not trustworthy. So it can be rational to - by default - not fully trusting players, while trusting the GM until proven otherwise. And since the game likely needs player trust in the GM to function, it's also necessary to play at all.




Though note my distinction.  I wouldn't play with a GM who's motives I questioned, but I've done so with ones who's judgment I didn't completely trust on a consistent basis (in fact, I take that as pretty much a given).


----------



## S'mon (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Is there a particular reason to assume this?



That the 80-20 rule applies? Only that it seems to fit my experience with open games, which is extensive.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> That the 80-20 rule applies? Only that it seems to fit my experience with open games, which is extensive.




I suspect that's because you haven't been exposed to environments where there's a sharply limited amount of GMs, and as such, the ones present can get away with things that wouldn't fly where its easier to shop for a better GM.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> I suspect that's because you haven't been exposed to environments where there's a sharply limited amount of GMs, and as such, the ones present can get away with things that wouldn't fly where its easier to shop for a better GM.



Or run in an environment where it's easier to shop for better players.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> I suspect that's because you haven't been exposed to environments where there's a sharply limited amount of GMs, and as such, the ones present can get away with things that wouldn't fly where its easier to shop for a better GM.



Hm, yes I'm most familiar with the London D&D Meetup, and my own Meetup I ran for a few years. Lots of GMs & lots of players, but number of GMs always the limiting factor. Certainly weaker GMs can struggle to keep a steady group in that environment.

Edit: Do you think bad/untrustworthy GMs are more common than bad/untrustworthy players? While I won't play with most GMs, I've always taken the view that's because my standards are unreasonable, not that most GMs are objectively terrible.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Or run in an environment where it's easier to shop for better players.




Since we were talking about the frequency of GMs with problems, I fail to see how that relates at all.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Hm, yes I'm most familiar with the London D&D Meetup, and my own Meetup I ran for a few years. Lots of GMs & lots of players, but number of GMs always the limiting factor. Certainly weaker GMs can struggle to keep a steady group in that environment.
> 
> Edit: Do you think bad/untrustworthy GMs are more common than bad/untrustworthy players? While I won't play with most GMs, I've always taken the view that's because my standards are unreasonable, not that most GMs are objectively terrible.




I don't have any sense they're _more_ common than bad players, just that they're able to get by longer because in many places the GM/player ratio is such people will put up with problems with a GM where a player, barring specifics of the social setup (someone's relative or the person who supplies the play location) would be more likely to get the boot.  

If you think about it, there's no particular reason the willingness to GM is going to make one less likely to have problems (though it might select for different ones or where they express themselves in different kinds of ways.)


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Since we were talking about the frequency of GMs with problems, I fail to see how that relates at all.



We were talking about the frequency of GMs having problems...with players. So, you know, kinda relevant.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> We were talking about the frequency of GMs having problems...with players. So, you know, kinda relevant.




No, _I _wasn't.  I was responding to S'mon's ratio question statement and disagreeing that there's any intrinsically better issue with random players or random GMs.  How easy or not it is to dump players could not be less relevant to that.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 16, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Hm, yes I'm most familiar with the London D&D Meetup, and my own Meetup I ran for a few years. Lots of GMs & lots of players, but number of GMs always the limiting factor. Certainly weaker GMs can struggle to keep a steady group in that environment.
> 
> Edit: Do you think bad/untrustworthy GMs are more common than bad/untrustworthy players? While I won't play with most GMs, I've always taken the view that's because my standards are unreasonable, not that most GMs are objectively terrible.



With GM's, I think bad due to inexperience is VERY common, and bad due to general maleficence/misanthropy is fairly rare (maybe 1 in 30?)... I've played under less than 20 GM's...
3 sucked from inexperience. Not counting them in the other categories
2 had story train syndrome, with the story on rails outside organized play.
2 arbitrarily changed rules on a whim. Some don't consider that an issue, it was the issue I walked over.
1 was out to kill all the PCs while running rules as written and restricted himself to balanced encounters. I hated it. Mostly minis play.
1 was upset I was dragged along; player hadn't cleared it with him. He made his displeasure clear... and added my character naked and strapped to a carry pole. (I've wound up working for him and with him down the road... I'll never again belly up to a table he's running, tho. I'd rather have been told "No" than what happened.) 
3 were competent and fun.
4 more were playable and sorta-fun.
1 was annoyingly monty-haul...


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 16, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> With GM's, I think bad due to inexperience is VERY common, and bad due to general maleficence/misanthropy is fairly rare (maybe 1 in 30?)... I've played under less than 20 GM's...




There's a third case: lacks talent for the job but insists on doing it anyway.  Less malevolence (and experience doesn't always help; Dunning-Kruger is a thing) than just not knowing when to quit.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 16, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> There's a third case: lacks talent for the job but insists on doing it anyway.  Less malevolence (and experience doesn't always help; Dunning-Kruger is a thing) than just not knowing when to quit.



There are different areas of incompetence. It only takes one area to grind a game to a halt.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2021)

My impression of GMs is that many are not as good as they think they are! (I'll leave others to judge that in my case.)

The biggest issues I've encountered are (i) a carelessness about rules in circumstances where other people at the table care, and (ii) weak dramatic imagination. Practice is the cure for both, I think, but there has to be some diligence to the practice. Just repeating one's bad habits won't lead to improvement!


----------



## Campbell (Oct 17, 2021)

I can't really speak for the open game experience. All my gaming has pretty much been within social groups because I pretty much only feel comfortable gaming with people I enjoy spending time with. If I would not want to chill with you we're not gaming. I haven't really experienced in GMs or players I would consider bad. Plenty of people who wanted different things out of the experience, but no one I would call bad.

I can't imagine gaming with people I did not have great relationships actually. It sounds awful.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 17, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> There are different areas of incompetence. It only takes one area to grind a game to a halt.




Sure, I was just noting there's a case that's neither inexperience nor malevolence.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 17, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I can't imagine gaming with people I did not have great relationships actually. It sounds awful.




While your gig is your gig, I have to suggest some pretty big parts of the hobby game with people they do not know outside of gaming.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 17, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> While your gig is your gig, I have to suggest some pretty big parts of the hobby game with people they do not know outside of gaming.




I meet people through gaming. It's just usually through some larger social group. Either from a LARP or some other sort of gaming community. I'm part of a couple gaming clubs here in Denver. That's usually where I pull players from. Just did a meet and greet with some lovely people today from a Discord server for local gamers.

I like to mostly stay within communities and peer groups because we can set standards for behavior. 

I believe most poor social behavior tends to stem from a lack of accountability. It's why I don't play Magic anymore.

I definitely understand my experiences are pretty far from normative. I try to always make sure that I only speak for myself, but I know I slip up sometimes.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 17, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I meet people through gaming. It's just usually through some larger social group. Either from a LARP or some other sort of gaming community. I'm part of a couple gaming clubs here in Denver. That's usually where I pull players from. Just did a meet and greet with some lovely people today from a Discord server for local gamers.




I've met gamers through gaming communities, but, honestly, that didn't make me better connected with them than if I'd picked them up from an ad at a game store.



Campbell said:


> I definitely understand my experiences are pretty far from normative. I try to always make sure that I only speak for myself, but I know I slip up sometimes.




Its a thing.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 17, 2021)

I have a bit of a unique experience when it comes to GM data.

I've done nothing but run games since I was 7 except in 3 instances; 2 * Pawn Stance D&D and 1 * CoC.  Both of those GMs were very good (the 2 * Pawn Stance D&D was the same GM and the CoC was someone else) at the game they were GMing.

Outside of those 2 GMs, my access to GMing was as follows:

* 5 GMs (from ages 13 to 27) granted me access to their games (GM prep, GM table handling/behind the screen, and sit in on their games) for a few sessions when I was very young (7-10 years old for me).  This was all D&D.

* From age 16 - 33 I was granted access to 20+ other GMed games from variations of D&D to Traveller to d6 Star Wars to VtM.  Like above, I discussed the GMs' prep, sat with them and watched them GM, talked to their players after the games.


Out of those 25 + that I sat with and talked to their players, these were the notable features:

- The Traveller GM was trivially the best...but that game was brutal in its pacing and banality.  The GM followed the rules, functionally exploited their prep, and the game held together.  But it was rough to sit through, the cognitive workload the GM gleefully took on was crazytown, and the players were just north of tolerating the game.

- As for the rest of them?  To a GM, they all used Force, overwhelmingly covertly.  They fudged dice, they ignored rules/made them up, changed rules at their discretion.  The results at the table were basically Ouija Board play with the players putting their hands on the planchette but the GM being the volitional force that actually moved the planchette (BUT WE'RE TALKING TO GHOSTS MAN!).  About 1/3 of the players knew it and hated it, about 1/3 knew it and didn't care (or expected it because that was all they knew), and about 1/3 were passive and oblivious.

- About 1/2 of the games were brutally paced, got bogged down in this or that (from rules referencing - that was mostly irrelevant because the GM would just ignore a result at their leisure...to catastrophically long exposition dumps by the GM and GM : GM conversation where the NPCs would banter...to filtering every bit of "would my character know this" through the GM) and the imposition of story was not for the betterment of play!

- The bulk of the tables featured 1 or 2 players (sometimes more) who were well south of "happy to be there."  They either couldn't find another game/GM or were held hostage by being friends/relations with the GM or some other connection (game is hosted at their house and why not play?).

- There was an overwhelming feeling of hostility and dysfunctional adversarial relationships at the table.  The GM thought the players were gaming the system, weren't following their carefully placed bread crumbs/plot hooks, intentionally breaking their settings, and generally not engaging in good faith.  This was absolutely true some of the time.  The players that weren't passive often (though not always) had a similar sense of hostility with the GM (born of either bad experiences under this GM or being haunted by GMs they had been under in the past).

- The GMs overwhelmingly had no clue just how poor the dynamic was at their tables.  They thought they were much better GMs than they actually were, they though their players were absolutely enjoying their games, they had no clue about the simmering bad blood beneath the surface of their game sessions.

Oh, and they nearly all thought that "players (and their bad tendencies and negative impact on play) are obstacles to be overcome!"  I thought it was a pretty miserable outlook when I was extremely young, thought it was a miserable outlook in my 20s and 30s, and, at 44, I feel much like I did when I was 7!  "Why would you subject yourself to some thing and some people that you are clearly conflicted about (at best)!  If players are obstacles to be overcome...you probably need to do something else with your time!"

EDIT - Oh, quick thought.  And the bulk of those later GMs thought my Pawn Stance D&D (they never played under me...we merely had conversations about my games when I was in my teens and early 20s) was "roll-playing...not roleplaying."  I got that a lot back then!


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 17, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Sure, I was just noting there's a case that's neither inexperience nor malevolence.



I disagree. If the person is unwilling to learn, and isn't mentally disabled, that's within malevolance as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 17, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I disagree. If the person is unwilling to learn, and isn't mentally disabled, that's within malevolance as far as I'm concerned.




I think you're being extremely uncharitable to suggest that "incapable" is only possible with mental disablement.  Most people have blindspots, and many never manage to overcome them.  In some cases with GMing it requires developing skills they simply have no aptitude for.  Even with the best of intentions, all they'll do is minimize the problem areas.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 17, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> I think you're being extremely uncharitable to suggest that "incapable" is only possible with mental disablement.  Most people have blindspots, and many never manage to overcome them.  In some cases with GMing it requires developing skills they simply have no aptitude for.  Even with the best of intentions, all they'll do is minimize the problem areas.



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


----------



## S'mon (Oct 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My impression of GMs is that many are not as good as they think they are!




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.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I can't imagine gaming with people I did not have great relationships actually. It sounds awful.



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.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2021)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2021)

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 (Oct 17, 2021)

Numidius said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2021)

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 (Oct 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 17, 2021)

Numidius said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Oct 18, 2021)

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.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 18, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> 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.



Well, I don't have any at hand. I can ask for a detailed bit... 

One thing: I understand you, and others, don't like that freeform combat play excerpt; I do personally, but anyway keep in mind it was an impromptu exchange via chat to show the other person how they managed that. 
I don't wanna reopen the debate on the above, though. Just my two cents.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 18, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Well, I don't have any at hand. I can ask for a detailed bit...
> 
> One thing: I understand you, and others, don't like that freeform combat play excerpt; I do personally, but anyway keep in mind it was an impromptu exchange via chat to show the other person how they managed that.
> I don't wanna reopen the debate on the above, though. Just my two cents.




To be clear (and I tried to in my post critiquing it), do you understand why I don't like it? 

If you don't understand why I don't like it, its because of the following:

There is no discernible skilled play happening here.  The player is given some kind of fiat to just describe their character after a situation is already encoded onto play (its like doing chargen after each specific scene you're facing is framed).  Then, the player has nothing to anchor them/orient them to the fiction outside of a few bits of scene tags.  It appears that they have absolutely no understood (by them) mechanical architecture to interface with and leverage in their OODA (observe > orient > decide > act) Loop.  So they don't know what they can do outside of "I'm shaolin guy and I'm on a plane with angry big dude" and then they try to ask orienting questions and they get rebuffed by the GM. 

Whatever comes out of their mouth next is completely arbitrary...just like the inputs that would form those mouth utterances.  They can't model the situation that they're in because there isn't enough substantive qualities about either the gamestate or the fiction or their dramatic need within this conflict (neither constraints nor things to leverage nor things to make predictive inferences by), or if there even is one!  So whatever they say next is overwhelmingly arbitrary!

And the conversation (as I said before) points toward some hybrid of Calvinball (whereby an apex arbiter of play gets to dictate the inputs of play, the resolution process of play - if any -, and the outputs of play pretty much entirely at their discretion...and change the nature/medium of play at their discretion as well) and Conch Passing (you talk > I talk > you talk > I talk...each of us bound by the prior talking ad infinitum).


The lack of anything resembling skilled play and the Calvinball + Storytelling Conch Passing inherent to that excerpt makes for a play paradigm that (again, I don't mean to be a dick) I couldn't imagine being less palatable.  Unstructured freeform where one participant gives arbitrary authority to someone else...invests the game with arbitrary structure...but the structure doesn't do any heavy lifting to inform/orient/anchor the players such that they understand the constraints of their movespace/what they can leverage and then they get rebuffed when they try to probe about those very things (so they can make an informed action declaration and not behave like a mostly sensory - including proprioception - deprived actor who doesn't know how to impact the gamestate)...well, its _something_. 

And it appears that this _something _isn't beloved by all FKR-ers either (nor do they hold it as representative of their play).


----------



## Numidius (Oct 18, 2021)

Yeah, I got it. I find your replies very informative and punctual. 
As I pointed out, that was AFAIK an off the cuff, improv, spur of the moment exercise between those two Gms. 

What I can offer you, in response, is just a different, maybe simple, basic, idea to counter your analytical mind. 
Sometimes things are just what they are, and they flow, nonetheless. 

I imagine a Wachowsky's Matrix game situation starting like that:
You wake up in an airplane seat next to an aggressive Mr. Something Agent. You are dressed like a shaolin monk and have uploaded appropriate fighting style. 
Fight! 

Anyway I just asked your question on discord


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 18, 2021)

From reading these last few pages, I think FKR games need a section on identifying and weeding out untrustworthy players...


----------



## S'mon (Oct 18, 2021)

Is anyone here familiar with the Simming communities of (mostly) the 1990s? Freeform roleplaying, sometimes with a GM in charge? The Star Trek Sims were huge. They never had any mechanics for task resolution, but seemed to manage.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 18, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Is anyone here familiar with the Simming communities of (mostly) the 1990s? Freeform roleplaying, sometimes with a GM in charge? The Star Trek Sims were huge. They never had any mechanics for task resolution, but seemed to manage.




If I may bring in something peripheral, but possibly related?

Many years ago I was involved in mechanics (though not definition) free MUSHes, most of the superhero based.  Most of these were consent based; much of what was going on that involved conflict involved other players, and while you could declare whatever action you wanted, it was up to them what result (directed at them) you got.  In addition there were oversight individuals who, when operating in that mode, could intervene under some circumstances.

It was, to me, extremely instructive about the strengths and weakness of such freeform (at least semi-) roleplaying.

At its best, it could produce extremely interactive and interesting combats and events where all participants understood how each other's characters were defined (usually with various sorts of benchmarking), and had at least some concept both how combats in the genre and to some extent reality worked, you could get a nice narrative interactive scene that was honestly a lot of fun.

That was the best of the situations.

At its worst, you have people who were unwilling or incapable of engaging with how each other's traits worked, had an overblown idea of what the benchmarking meant, were carrying around questionable ideas of how combat worked, or otherwise were extremely unlikely to engage properly, the scene would go, well, terribly.

Now, you might say "Well, that's the problem with the lack of a gamesmaster."

But the question is, would a gamesmaster (which would be present for bigger, more plot driven events on occasion) necessarily be any better than the second group of people?  If they weren't, instead of simply ruining the experience for a small number of people, they could ruin it for a large number.

Because there was an overall group administrative structure, there were things that could keep this down to a dull roar, but that created its own levels of controversy (questions of favoritism, accusations that the admin didn't understand the characters and genre and more).

Now, this is not exactly equivalent to true freeform text or chat roleplaying, it wasn't far from it, and my observation was while they "managed" a lot of the time, that was because they people who didn't have a particular group they were interacting with that were on the same page would either go limp and not do much, or leave.  It hardly seemed to suggest the approach was, overall, a resounding success.  And I stuck with MUSHing for a number of years before I gave it up.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 18, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Is anyone here familiar with the Simming communities of (mostly) the 1990s? Freeform roleplaying, sometimes with a GM in charge? The Star Trek Sims were huge. They never had any mechanics for task resolution, but seemed to manage.



My wife was into the Pern Weyrs of similar construction, a former roommate was active in Alt.Callahan in the early 90's, and I used to read several of the Battlestar Galactica ones. (That was before nBSG even was in the works...)
I never participated in them myself, tho'.
The BG ones I followed had a vague skill system...


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 19, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> To be clear (and I tried to in my post critiquing it), do you understand why I don't like it?
> 
> If you don't understand why I don't like it, its because of the following:
> 
> ...



A couple things

- this is not my understanding at all of what, for example, OSR/AD&D people mean when they say "skilled play."  I understand "skilled play" not to be about leveraging mechanics, but rather leveraging the fiction of the world.  This often this means using in-fiction elements to stack things in your favor--taking along hirlings, making elaborate traps, using subterfuge or out of the box thinking.
for example:








						Old Games
					

Let’s talk about old tabletop roleplaying games - specifically the kind of games played in the 1980’s and recently depicted in the nostalgia...




					alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com
				





> *Game Ethos:* The ethos of a game is a set of expectations about how players will approach it. Does play revolve around clever articulations, combinations and application of written rules or intuitive solutions that may not be specifically built into the rules and require GM intervention or ad hoc decision making. Do players engage in combat with enemies with the expectation that these combats should be fair challenges or are combats extremely risky and players expected to avoid them or tilt the odds in their favor through extrinsic means such as allies, scouting and trap creation. Game ethos is important and distinct from Mechanics or Design Principle because it describes the players’ expectations and the norms of how they are to interact with the mechanics.



Of course both examples there require different kinds of "skill."  My point is that I imagine people who are trying to play a pre-OD&D "Arnesonian" game (where the rules were not player facing) would describe skilled play as manipulating the fiction as described by the DM, not thinking through any particular set of rules or mechanics.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

- the other thought/question I had was this: what about players who don't know, to one extent or another, what the rules are?  Are they playing a game where they are just saying arbitrary things seeing what will work?  I'm actually thinking here of 5e: adult players who don't read the rules and don't really care, or, perhaps especially, child players who can't yet read all the rules?  As described upthread I play with my nephew; he rolls the dice and I do all the math and tell him what happens.  He knows that it's better to roll high, that's about it.  Everything else is just him responding to what I describe in the game world.  And he probably comes up with more creative solutions to things than any of my adult players!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 19, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> A couple things
> 
> - this is not my understanding at all of what, for example, OSR/AD&D people mean when they say "skilled play."  I understand "skilled play" not to be about leveraging mechanics, but rather leveraging the fiction of the world.




Though (and I realize this is cynical, but there it is) I've never been able to get any real kind of answer to how that's distinct from "leveraging understanding of the GM involved."


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 19, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Though (and I realize this is cynical, but there it is) I've never been able to get any real kind of answer to how that's distinct from "leveraging understanding of the GM involved."



It probably is similar to some degree.  Hence some DMs getting the "killer dm" reputation.  But maybe it's like the relationship between a pitcher and the umpire


----------



## Thomas Shey (Oct 19, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It probably is similar to some degree.  Hence some DMs getting the "killer dm" reputation.  But maybe it's like the relationship between a pitcher and the umpire




I just think the presentation that its interacting with the world without letting mechanics get in the way, when instead it intrinsically involves having to one degree or another, knowing the GM rather than the world is either hypocritical or kind of un-self-aware.  If someone said "Yeah, it only works if you and the players are well onto the same page" I'd at least respect that.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 19, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> this is not my understanding at all of what, for example, OSR/AD&D people mean when they say "skilled play."  I understand "skilled play" not to be about leveraging mechanics, but rather leveraging the fiction of the world.  This often this means using in-fiction elements to stack things in your favor--taking along hirlings, making elaborate traps, using subterfuge or out of the box thinking.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I imagine people who are trying to play a pre-OD&D "Arnesonian" game (where the rules were not player facing) would describe skilled play as manipulating the fiction as described by the DM, not thinking through any particular set of rules or mechanics.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.



I think it would help this discussion to provide examples.

Here are two, both taken from AD&D module S2 White Plume Mountain.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

In WPM, there is a frictionless corridor with pits in it. The pits are spiked with blades that cause anyone landing on them to be infected with near-intantly fatal super-tetanus. The frictionless surface means that PCs will slide into the pits. The module says (p 11):

The trick here is to get a rope strung through this room and fastened securely at both ends. Once this is done, a party can pull themselves across, regardless of the surface. A clever party may even be able to come up with other methods. Ingenuity is required.​
The most famous example of ingenuity I know of, here, is taking doors from elsewhere of the dungeon and surfing them down the frictionless corridor (they are too long to fall into the pits).

That is skilled play. It depends upon the fiction being (1) clearly established, and (2) being amenable to transparent and consensual reasoning. If in doubt, the GM probably needs to say "yes" - eg notice that no checks are required for PCs to traverse the rope, even though we could imagine in "real life" that a tired PC might slip and fall from the rope down onto the frictionless surface.

We could also imagine doors that are long enough to slide over a pit nevertheless tumbling down into one, rather than sliding across it, if there is too much weight on its front compared to its back when being used as a "surfboard". But the game is not really meant to be an exercise in calculating rotational forces operating on sliding doors. If anyone thinks to ask the question, it surely should be enough for the players to say "we sit at the back of the surfing doors".

Now, a second example. The magic sword Blackrazor is guarded by the ogre mag Qesnef, who - when the PCs encounter him - is polymorphed into a halfling. We are told (p 12) that Qesnef "lost a bet with Keraptis and as a result must guard his treasure for 1001 years". What happens if the players decide to try and persuade Qesnef to abandon his commitment to Keraptis? To begin with, what exactly is the force of the _must_? Does it mean Qesnef is Geased? Or otherwise magically bound? Can the PCs lift this binding with a Remove Curse spell? Or some other magic-negating effect? And if so, which one? (AD&D has many such effects, and for reasons of character level apart from anything else the players won't have access to all or even any of them.) Or does the _must_ just mean that Qesnef is bound by his promise and prefers not to break it?

In this context, what would skilled play - _manipulating the fiction as described by the GM_ - look like? There is no established fiction that the players can leverage. The GM's scope for decision-making in response to any particular action declaration is close to unlimited, given that the GM will _have _to author additional explanatory backstory in the moment, and the AD&D system puts basically no limit on what that might be.

I think that @Manbearcat's point about the example of the fight on the plane is that it is much more like the Qesnef example than the frictionless corridor example. The player is not "manpulating fiction" that is clearly established and supports transparent consensual reasoning. The player is making things up, and the GM is making things up in reply.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 19, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> A couple things
> 
> - this is not my understanding at all of what, for example, OSR/AD&D people mean when they say "skilled play."  I understand "skilled play" not to be about leveraging mechanics, but rather leveraging the fiction of the world.  This often this means using in-fiction elements to stack things in your favor--taking along hirlings, making elaborate traps, using subterfuge or out of the box thinking.
> for example:
> ...




@pemerton answered this sufficiently, but I just want to throw some words at this.  

"Skilled Play" (in the D&D sense) would mean both.  You need to leverage mechanics (eg exploration turns + rest + wandering monsters (clock), loadout if you're a spellcaster, HP pool and attack matrix + chokepoints to ensure engagement if you're a fighter, potions, carpets of flying, etc) but you also need to be a good Pictionary and Wheel of Fortune player.  You've got an emerging picture as you delve/engage with denizens and you need to draw inferences from the stocked/mapped/keyed/themed setting and come up with a solve for each problem as you poke and prod and probe and extrapolate via guts and guile.  

Both of those are Skilled Play when it comes to D&D dungeoneering.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 19, 2021)

@Manbearcat Here we go. I understand it's not exactly what you asked for, but there's that?

---I tend to approach most sessions, regardless of system or rules, with a big handful of d6 tosses. I interpret the results as seems appropriate. It is entirely arbitrary given the approach. 

(Re: random circumstances, like bad weather)
Usually a d6 roll. High = good for the party. Low = bad for the party.

I'd frame the scene with anything anyone could reasonably know, whether that's overall general information or something a specialist in the party (say, Ranger, or Botanist, or Quartermaster) might know.

Bad consequences, for me, are more often established and adjudicated by description and context than rolls.---

-----------

Another poster, not a blogger I believe, offered a point of view (@Manbearcat won't be happy, I know  ), that I find interesting from a "Play worlds..." perspective:

--Depends how much prep I did. I don’t roll much at the table. 
If there is consequence. You can plan it, or make a roll that is weighted…if it is just window dressing, just keep it in mind I guess.

By weighing I mean that most days are foggy mornings, followed by overcast, clearing up in the afternoon as the wind picks up at 3 and fog rolls back in by late supper time.
So on the roll, it about the changes to that typical day. So on a D8 you might have 1 clear sunny, but 6 types of rainy weather.

Makes hiding easy, but miserable. 
Makes searching miserable…specially knowing you have a nice warm house waiting for you. Most animals hunker down during a rain…so foraging is a pain.
You need to stay away from rivers and streams during a storm, so oddly you have make a plan to gather water. 
Keeping a fire is a pain. Unless you build a shelter. And starting a fire is harder. 
So consequences…if searching…sucks to be you. If hiding, a lot of choices, but big consequences. 
If hiding and keeping on the move, dangerous terrain, not much to forage, sickness and injury is likely.
If hunkering down….comforts might get you discovered. And local foraging is still bad.---

(Now, before unleashing the indomitable fury of caps-lock, please consider these are persons answering to me, not engaged in this thread, expressing personal playstyles in a relaxed manner)


----------



## S'mon (Oct 19, 2021)

@Numidius I do that too, but I think it's closer to procedural content generation, not the examples of action resolution Manbearcat was looking for.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 19, 2021)

S'mon said:


> @Numidius I do that too, but I think it's closer to procedural content generation, not the examples of action resolution Manbearcat was looking for.



I guess the bit of resolution lies in:

"adjudicated more by description and context than rolls"


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 19, 2021)

Numidius said:


> @Manbearcat Here we go. I understand it's not exactly what you asked for, but there's that?
> 
> ---I tend to approach most sessions, regardless of system or rules, with a big handful of d6 tosses. I interpret the results as seems appropriate. It is entirely arbitrary given the approach.
> 
> ...






S'mon said:


> @Numidius I do that too, but I think it's closer to procedural content generation, not the examples of action resolution Manbearcat was looking for.




Yeah, I very much appreciate the effort Numidius, but S’mon has the right of it here.

This is basically just a rumination on procedural content generation (rather than an actual excerpt of play). An actual excerpt of play may indeed include an instance of procedural content generation though. What I’m looking for is an instance of actual play:

procedural content generation (method + why) >

player orients themselves to situation via conversation and whatever mechanical means at their disposal >

action declared >

action resolution (method and why) >

derived consequences/gamestate change (what and why)


----------



## S'mon (Oct 20, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Yeah, I very much appreciate the effort Numidius, but S’mon has the right of it here.
> 
> This is basically just a rumination of procedural content generation (rather than an actual excerpt of play). An actual excerpt of play may indeed include an instance of procedural content generation though. What I’m looking for is an stance of actual play:
> 
> ...




I've been thinking about this, but all the 'free play' action resolution examples I can think of from my own games are social interaction - PC talks to NPC. They have a goal such as persuasion, investigation, intimidation, occasionally deception, and we roleplay it out. I think most of us intuitively understand how conversation works, so it's rarely an arena for disputes.

Edit: Oh, I remember a few secret door & puzzle door type things in OSR games where the player has to work out how to activate the door. Those have clearly set success conditions.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 20, 2021)

I remember when my son was very young (3?), playing FK style with him. He encountered a dragon and I remember how he used the cave wall to avoid the dragon's breath, it sounded reasonable so I gave him a success.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 20, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I remember when my son was very young (3?), playing FK style with him. He encountered a dragon and I remember how he used the cave wall to avoid the dragon's breath, it sounded reasonable so I gave him a success.



Seems legit


----------



## S'mon (Oct 20, 2021)

Numidius said:


> Seems legit




He's a super powergamer now!


----------



## Numidius (Oct 20, 2021)

S'mon said:


> He's a super powergamer now!



Oh, no!! Ah ah!


----------



## Numidius (Oct 21, 2021)

Ook. One official FKR, and I mean it, session under the belt, D&D '81. 
Will elaborate on play loop tomorrow. 

Was... A... B L A S T, by the way.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 21, 2021)

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.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 26, 2021)

Model UN and FKR.

Model United Nations: the Most Popular FKR Game


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 26, 2021)

Rounding up some more blog posts about FKR and came across the above and the following...

FKR Rifts.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 28, 2021)

I don’t recall anyone answering a question that I had earlier. If they did, maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but… 

What elements of OSR are dissatisfying to some prior OSR adherents such that FKR is seen as an improvement? Why migrate?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 28, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Model UN and FKR.
> 
> Model United Nations: the Most Popular FKR Game



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 (Oct 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> What elements of OSR are dissatisfying to some prior OSR adherents such that FKR is seen as an improvement? Why migrate?



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.


----------



## Malmuria (Oct 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I don’t recall anyone answering a question that I had earlier. If they did, maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but…
> 
> What elements of OSR are dissatisfying to some prior OSR adherents such that FKR is seen as an improvement? Why migrate?



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.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 28, 2021)

Skilled use of fictional positioning is a very important to OSR play, but so is skill at playing the specific game (and fundamentally viewing it as a game to be played well). Most of the FKR material I have seen reminds me more of like the Amber Diceless crowd who largely do not seem to value the fact that they are playing a game. In fact the game of it all almost seems beneath their notice.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 28, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Skilled use of fictional positioning is a very important to OSR play, but so is skill at playing the specific game (and fundamentally viewing it as a game to be played well). Most of the FKR material I have seen reminds me more of like the Amber Diceless crowd who largely do not seem to value the fact that they are playing a game. In fact the game of it all almost seems beneath their notice.



In so far as the mechanics of the game don't accurately emulate the world, yes. FKR tends to reject mechanics that push or focus play away from emulating the world.


----------



## overgeeked (Oct 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> 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.



Yeah. Another way to put it is the dichotomy of combat as war vs combat as sport. FKR takes that and turns it up to 11. The goal is to engage with the world, not the game's mechanics. If you want to make something easier, have your character do things that will stack the odds in their favor in the world...don't go hunting for +1s in the rulebook then decide to do all those things to get the +1s. If you want to pick a lock, tell the Referee and describe your character picking the lock. The Referee then makes a determination about whether it's auto success, auto failure, or needs a roll. And you move on from there.


Malmuria said:


> 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.



For what it's worth, that sounds right to me.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I don’t recall anyone answering a question that I had earlier. If they did, maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but…
> 
> What elements of OSR are dissatisfying to some prior OSR adherents such that FKR is seen as an improvement? Why migrate?



This year we wanted to play an old module and I picked up Lost caverns of Tsojcant. Didn't really care about 1e, so I chose OSE with the advanced options. Then it became a streamlining process from the procedures of B/X, to a loose framework of proficiency/advantage/stances dice added to D20 to beat TN, criticals on 1 and 20 even for casting spells, etc. After speaking to FKR bloggers, I opted for a Braunstein-like session and let players run the various NPC factions, monsters and personas, against each other. In the aftermath we returned to the PC party, and continued playing FKR style. 
I made custom character sheets to suit that. 

I frame scenes as encounters, not much of backstory, and improvise as we go as players declare actions and intentions, not really "map & key", so original procedures felt clunky and disconnected. I also prefer diegetic, fiction first narrations, and FKR relies on that, since numbers are gone. I can also push, put pressure, on players as I see fit; they can rebut, ultimately agree for partial success, success at a cost, or fail forward, without adhering to rules, numbers, or adding meta stuff to achieve that. 
Pacing, also, it's up to us, if we want to describe blow by blow, talk entire conversations, or resolve quickly a conflict with an opposed roll. 

At the moment it is working just fine. Players who used to argue with me about rules or rulings, now they argue about the fiction, instead, and I'm fine. From game stoppers, they became game movers.


----------

