Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Does DnD Need Rules?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2021
- The Free Kriegsspiel Revival Discord: bit.ly/FKRDiscord
Playing at the World: amzn.to/2t9V0xv
Secrets of Blackmoor: bit.ly/Blackmo...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My RPGs (PDF): bit.ly/Questin...
My RPGs (Print): bit.ly/Questin...
Newsletter: bit.ly/TheGlat...
Patreon: bit.ly/QBPatreon
Amazon recommendations: amzn.to/3RwpZzU
Questing Beast merch: bit.ly/QBMerch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My blog: bit.ly/Questin...
Must-read blog posts: bit.ly/OSRposts
The best RPG blogs: bit.ly/OSRblogs
What is the OSR?: bit.ly/PrincipApoc
Send a review copy or advertise: bit.ly/ContactQB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTING KNIGHT PATRONS!
James Endres
Eric from Bloat Games
John Eternal
The Threshold Team
Dwayne Boothe
fikle
SonOfSofaman
Shannnon Lewis
Carl Flippin
That One Guy
Ricardo Sedan
Alex Dzuricky
Dan Webb
Minty
John Case Tompkins
Fil Kearney
RollStats
Aaron Seymour
Christian Lindke
Gianfranco Bux
Ken Parker
Paul Crosslin
Tim Pudoff
Ohr Gaming Network
Joe Rapoza
Ivar Framnes
Stewart Mohammadi
Jonathan Jung Johansen
Robert Fransgaard
Matthew Morris
Sigve Solvaag
Jonathan Hastings
Erich Tolbert
David York
Sage McLaughlin
Craig Marais
Jonathan Hastings
This is how I DMed my first game of D&D at around age 12. Some friends and I found (what I believe was) the Monster Manual for 2e AD&D in an older brother's closet while he was deployed. We all picked monsters to be our characters, and I looked at some more monsters in the book and started to tell them about a castle they were exploring. And we went from there. I remember it being a lot of fun. I did sadly kill the fun when I introduced my own DM party character / NPC that was more powerful than any of the player's characters.... at least I learned that lesson young!
This is incredibly funny to me, as I've been saying for years that the logical endpoint of the OSR "rulings, not rules" line of thinking would be the reinvention of freeform. Apparently I was playing "FKR-style" on fandom web forums back in 2009, when Roll20 and the like weren't as widespread so almost all online roleplaying was freeform. And we embraced it for all the same reasons OSR guys are now - when you have a solid group with high levels of communication and trust, why bother with rules at all?
The answer I came to - the same one a lot of indie designers came to in the early aughts - was that while freeform is great for immersive LARP and improv acting and such, it kinda sucks for telling collaborative conflict-driven stories. It's really really hard to push conflict and tension as a DM when you hold all the chips, as you're constantly fretting about messing up that delicate trust and collaboration that makes the whole thing work. That said, if your main goal is to simulate a world or scenario rather than have a gripping narrative, freeform works fantastically, as many people are now discovering.
So apparently I have been running FKR for years lol
This is cool. I didn't realize this was a movement lol. When I started DMing, I kept jumping from system to system trying to find a ruleset that everyone could enjoy (including myself). But after a while, I just started playing without rules. Every game I run is like being dropped into a new RPG video game as a kid. My players will have their backstory, I craft my world around them, but they will have no idea how this world's mechanics will work. They have to just try and learn everything as we go. It's great :)
That sounds awesome.
I did this without thinking. When I’d put my 3 year old to bed, our story time was actually an RPG. I would describe a situation and his character would choose what to do in the situation. Because he was 3, I removed all the “rules”, other than I’d roll a dice against a score I’d give him. It worked fantastically, and we had many adventures.
Interestingly, he had no interest in this if we played in the day, only interested in playing with miniatures and seeing the world!
I like the historical example. Makes sense that the “game” was a place for an “expert” to make judgements and novices to learn, either by comprehending the truths (rules) or by trial and error (in play) without dying.
TBH, i would question most people i've met in rpg's ability to accurately interpret anything resembling reality. they're not the most grounded bunch.
@@LordSathar Neither where the "experienced commanders" that ended up moderating rule less war games. It's instructive to read up on for example the Imperial Japanese Navy wargames were the rules were saying that they were going to lose the war, but the wise experienced commanders just brushed aside the rules as not factoring in important things like Japanese racial superiority.
When I GM, I frequently tell players that you don't need to strictly adhere to your character sheet, especially when it comes to magic and spells. If a spell description implies that it could be used for a certain function, I see no reason for a player to be restricted to what's stated (unless its totally bonkers), especially if a player comes to that conclusion on their own.
The first time a friend of mine played D&D, he was playing a wizard and had all sorts of ice-themed magic. He mostly stuck to what was written down, but then came a moment where they were trapped in a flooding room and were rapidly running out of room to stand on and potentially drown. So he used a Freezing Hands (a cold variant of Burning Hands, if you will), to create a jet of cold air that froze a platform for the party to stand on while they thought of their next move, which eventually led to the party escaping.
First... Thank you for been approachable on discord. Felt good to have words of interest in my hack of maze rats.
Second: I actually have played RPG as FKR, or a FKR as RPG.
We had a pseudo character sheets and we all thrusted this GM we had.
Was a highly magical world and every player could have more than one character, without any restriction.
and I must say, was one of the best experiences in game I ever had.
I wish I had the contact of that GM.
Rules-Light is definitely a popular style of game now. And there's a lot I like about it, especially as a GM. I'm a narrative-focused kind of person and I am perfectly at home with handling the complexities of how things should work in a realistic world while balancing that with a focus on the players' characters. I've been trying out a LOT of different systems lately, though I do find that the systems I try out are less about rules and more about aesthetic/theme/tone. Rules of the narrative, I suppose.
But admittedly I don't think there's a singular correct way to play these games and so I do enjoy a more rules-heavy game from time to time. I mean, not too heavy, but 5E or Call of Cthulhu type heavy.
The worst part about the rules heavy games (especially the majority of D&D editions) is the prep work needed. You'll always have people declaring that it's not really all that much prep work, but it is. You can fudge things, but to maintain a sense of verisimilitude and fairness you _do_ need to do proper prep work. And yet in Rules-Light games, you don't. Have some character motivations, a plot thread, and you can easily improv your way through while not ruining anyone's experience.
That said, I do think constraints are needed to help creativity. With zero constraints there winds up being no challenge and no need for actual creativity or depth. In FKR style games (well, ones that lean in that direction anyway) setting/tone/theme can provide most of the structure and constraints necessary, and then a flexible and easy rules system can be layered over that to provide some interesting boundaries for players to push against.
I think there have been some very inventive and well made systems in recent times that do a fantastic job of mixing up systems that are light on rules but have enough rules _bite_ to them to still provide solid anchoring for a shared world of cooperative story telling.
Excellent discussion. I've never heard of KFR. I learned long ago that more rules doesn't equate to more realism, even if you made complex rules for every situation. So I looked to more narrative solutions and came to a similar conclusion about the GM in that style of play--you have to have a GM with a certain degree of knowledge that can make even-handed rulings. And one the players trust enough to run that way. While I like aspects of more narrative games, some of the narrative rulesets I've come across are just as complicated and confusing with clever narrative gimmicks.
My first experience with D&D c.1979, we didn't roll to find hidden things in the room, we asked about what we saw and described how we manipulated them as we searched. I was was proud that I found a secret cash via a description of a thin crack around a statue's head. And we took off boots to move more quietly.
As much as I love your reviews, I defintely love these videos about rpg mechanics and philosophy. Glad to see more of this stuff from you!
I feel like the rules have value in providing constraints to the DM. It allows everyone at the table to have a solid idea of what is likely to happen before they take actions.
This is one of the strongest arguments I've heard from my players as well. What important is, rules doesn't have to be detailed and complex. It just understanding of outcome what makes them valuable for players
(Imho) In FKR the DM should still give the players a solid idea of what's likely to happen before they take actions - but this is based on an assessment of the specific situation and action proposed on a case-by-case basis, not predetermined by an preexisting rule framework.
@@axbx7139 I don't think there needs to be any argument. FKR can be a fun and working form of play without invalidating or otherwise having any implication on the value of traditional RPGs with more concrete rules!
@@axbx7139 that's very well put. May I steal your quote next time I encounter this discussion?
@@sunamori sure
I first read about this approach in a piece written by Ed Greenwood, creator of the Forgotten Realms, in Dragon magazine around 1982. He was talking about the fact that you needn’t teach players the rules-that they just needed to play the world rather than the game so to speak. He was proposing this as a method to get players more easily into AD&D 1e (which could be a challenging system to get into). Rules could then be introduced as needed to players, and they wouldn’t be overwhelmed. HP, AC, and rest would be tracked by the DM-who would also do all the die rolling behind his screen. This isn’t exactly what the Free Kriegspiel movement is about, but it is certainly related. Both approaches take immersion as a very high priority. It also appears that this approach was largely used by Prof. M.A.R. Barker in his home games in his amazing world of Tekumel. He didn’t really use the Empire of the Petal Throne rules which he had written and was published by TSR. Those were really only consulted when it came to magic and spell casting. Most of the time his approach seems to have been very much in the vein of what you’re discussing here.
This is how we used to play, mostly by necessity. The rules to ADnD first edition were intense. I learned all the rules and told my players what to roll. After a while they learned the rules and I got to play in their campaigns.
You can run a lot of different games, esp trad games, this way. I’ve been running Call of Cthulhu “FKR style” for a bit and it’s been incredibly freeing.
Whoa that sounds fukkin rad, it would only add to the tension
Yeah, the essence of CoC is that the Great Old Ones have rules you can't understand without going crazy. And your rules don't matter.
This is how my online group ran CoC for years, I GM’d two arcs and never bothered learning the all rules tbh. It kept immersion on point but did have a downside as sometimes outcomes seemed arbitrary and one GM in particular lost player trust.
This was serendipitous. I wasn't aware of the trend but I've been prepping a game for my in-person group where among other things I've ditched the six attributes, slimmed down the classes to warrior and spellcaster, and made some other changes. On the other hand, I've also drawn elements from across a few editions.
I've played some rules-minimalist games, where the whole character sheet consisted of a list of things they were expert, good, bad, and terrible at. We resolved conflict by playing rock-paper-scissors. It was quite fun.
Goddamm Ben, this channel of yours feels like stepping through a hidden door. And the nuts thing is, your videos keep getting better. All blessings to you and your family, brother.
Thanks!
“It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, you campaign next and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.”
Gary Gygax
" The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. "
Gary Gygax
Consistency of rulings over conformity to rules - sort of.
@@VosperCDN That's about it .
If the rules get in the way of having fun I either make a situational ruling or if it's a major rule I'll wait untill after the game to explain the changes and get feedback from the players
Think a better way to put it is rules are what all players involve agree to play by. I use to play slot of free form RPGs and in the end the idea of an overall game master vanished. But if you have stats and dice like D&D some sort of mechanic is always involved. I also believe Gary Gygax also said at what point are you no longer playing a game if you did yourself of all rules. It's not a direct qoute. But it is true at one point your just roleplaying compared to playing a game.
We were doing this some with our local Champions group back in the early 1980s...1982-3 where we're calling it "free form". It is totally trust driven and about actually playing a role...not quite diceless. You captured the play style quite well. Getting "more powerful" was rarely the motivation...just exploring the world and making your place in it
Serious game vs slap stick play ?
If you are not play a horror game or something close to epic high heroic fantasy, you just have to have a good laugh now and then.
One old player, " I not going to roll for this just stating the action, my PC get a nat 20 and hit the warlord's helmet with his +3 hand throwing axe, since my PC over extended himself throwing, the axe just bounce off with no impact pressure,. Now I am going to roll Dex die to see how bad my PC fall on his face."
The scene was even funnier cause his PC was still cover in oil from the stair case bacon grease trap.
the freedom of this kind of play; especially in a player co-creative atmosphere; is very attractive. Puts me in mind of Amber diceless roleplaying game.
Gerard is the strongest. Brand is the magest. Benedict is the swordest. Dworkin is the grampest. These are the rules of Amber.
I hadn't heard of Kriegsspiel... fascinating to learn how far back war gaming actually goes. When it comes to TTRPG, I liked to envision a spectrum with 'Simulation' on one end and 'Story' on the other, with nearly all RPGs existing somewhere along that spectrum. Chainmail, Rigid Kriegsspiel, and the like would exist on the Simulation end, and games like 7th Sea or Dread would be far closer to the Story side. Certainly a 'no rules' method would be on that end.
I found it helpful in my campaigns to make sure that everyone playing was in agreement as to where on that spectrum they wanted to play, and choosing a game that fit accordingly.
I must say, what a amazing video! Concise and informative, as most videos should be. It was a nice history lesson that I wasn't expecting, and I got to know a game genre that I never heard before. I watched and didn't even feel the minutes passing. Nice work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Best content, love it. Finding myself more and more drawn to OSR, gritty, low magic and narrative centric games
I love the direction you move in; QB. You and Dungeon Craft are my go to for innovation.. retro-innovation... retrovation?
OMG! This is a great video! I'm working on my own TTRPG called "Dream of the Dragon," which started when my childhood friend Noah and I reminisced about playing D&D without rules when we were kids. It was the most vivid gaming I've ever done. I don't know how we did it, though. Kids are magical. We adults need some rules. So, I'm trying to make a TTRGP that has just enough rules that it provides structure without so many that they get in the way. I'd love more videos like this one. Great topic!
FKR style was how my friends and I played "DnD" back in 2001. Another class mate described what he heard that DnD was and we invented our own "rules free" RPG based on that. It was all about inventing a character and trying to explore the strange world the GM was describing. We played for months like this before we even thought of having a video game style character sheet to keep track of things. None of us even knew that there were actual RPG rules until a year later. Our entire experience was about creating an interesting world that your friend's characters could interact with and explore. The fun was about letting others into your imagination, not about having a mechanically rigorous game. The GMs who created the best worlds and made the fairest rulings were the best to play with.
Seeing Ben describe one of my key childhood memories as a formal game type was quite strange and interesting. I really liked this video. I highly encourage people to give FKR a try, even just for a one-shot.
Great material. Very inspiring. I listened to half of it, stopped, spent half an hour developing rules for my homebrew and only then watched till the end :D
Great video! Many gaming systems have collapsed under the continuous updating and rules additions- creating increasing editions that are for rules “enhancements “ and increased sales of a game
I want maximum immersion, so at first this sounds good to me, but I go back to heavier rules for 2 reasons:
(1) Consistency. It's impossible for even the best most experienced DM to rule consistently without clear rules. Inconsistency kills immersion.
(2) Knowledge. A great rule system will inform ignorant players and DMs as to what is most believable and grounded, adding to immersion. No one at the table has the time to become an expert on everything, so it's much more efficient for a rule book and/or setting to do the research to suggest believable grounded mechanics for things. Obviously believability increases immersion too.
But I definitely see that the less time taken out of gameplay to interact with rules, the more immersion there will be, so I want a system of very efficient elegant rules that get out of the way as fast as possible.
One of my favorite campaigns was me running a game for my wife and kids, entirely rules free.
Telling a story, off the cuff, in collaboration with three other people was exhilarating!
Keeping it challenging but not overwhelming was exhausting.
I believe having a neutral form of conflict resolution( rules) liberates a game master/story teller, allowing them to be as suprised by outcomes as the players.
For players, rules can offer a way to triump that isn't dependent on one's social skills or standing.
I think there is a place for both free-form and rules adherence in a single game.
I also think that is best determined on a table by table basis, preferably as a series of conscious choices.
Great video, Ben.
Thais exactly how I like to DM. When you mentioned chess, it hit home. That's how I feel about rules-heavy gaming in TTRPGs. It's like I'm tied by ropes to a chair.
If I'm playing D&D, I want to live the reality of another place and time. All those rules break the suspension of disbelief.
Thanks so much,
V
I created a system I call the 'narrative system'. A character sheet has no numbers on it. It has boxes with descriptions of their education, work experience, hobbies, background, personality, goals, etc. There is one 1d6 die for everything. If an uncertain situation arises, the GM declares whether is it: very unlikely (6), unlikely (5+), even odds (4+), likely (3+), or very likely (2+). Players can make a case for having an advantage based on elements from their character's background. So, if all the players are shooting something and GM says it's unlikely to hit it, the one with military experience gets to roll as likely (bumped up 2 levels). The GM might say the old man is very unlikely. Character experience happens by adding descriptions of your experience in game play to your sheet. This gives you more justification to get adjustments on rolls in the future.
Nice, I like that.
I remember finding a ttrpg somewhat recently that pretty closely resembles a video game I like that I'd been wanting to try finding some way to run tabletop, and after looking at the ttrpg, I was thinking "the one thing this lacks is a crafting system" but then I thought on that for a bit and realized, lacking any crafting rules actually made it work better. The video game, by nature, needs all the mechanics and (hundreds of) options of crafting specified, otherwise you just can't do those things, but in tabletop, you can just say "I'm going to break that chair and make a cudgel out of one of its legs by whittling it with my knife" and that can work, referee/GM just needing to come up with how long it takes and maybe what might happen meanwhile. If it seems reasonable that somebody might do it faster because they're an experienced woodworker, then there you go, they do it faster, or if the knife being used is poorly suited for whittling, that can have some effect. Both of those could fall under rules like skills and tools/equipment, but there could always be something else that factors in that rules don't cover, like being tired, being in a rush, being under pressure (maybe zombies are right outside the door and the best you can do at the moment is a barely passable handle on an otherwise standard chair leg).
I'm still not sure if FKR would be for me, but I agree with it somewhat in that sometimes not having rules for something can be a good thing.
That’s pretty much how I’ve always GM’d. I had no idea it was a movement.
So in the above question put by this creator, the answer is yes. But, as always, when one plays D&D use the rules that work for you and yours. The point of any game is to learn and enjoy. FKR sounds like the right rules for anyone and everyone. I like it.
I really enjoy and prefer when you cover subjects like this.
I ran D20 Call of Cthulhu this way when it came out back in the day and it ran better than any game i've ever played before or since.
imo the less rules the better.
I've been playing a similar way to this for a time, so I'm not shocked to discover it's a movement. Thank you for giving me reference material to look into.
Reading Dungeon World blew my mind when I first read it and it reminds me of this.
The realization that, "Wait, we don't need initiative if we agree we can imagine time pretty consistently and fairly."
Love it!
I’ve had so many arguments with D&D folks about this. They think it will descend into chaos without initiative. “Everyone gets a turn!”
Yep! If a game has trust you don’t need initiative for that.
Isn't the difference between a child's game of make believe and an RPG the recognition that there will be disagreement quite often and not consensus, even among friends?
I've played in a game run by Dave Wesley. It was a re-creation of his original Braunstein game (the ORIGINAL role-playing game). It was a great experience.
I just discovered this channel, and these RPG philosophy videos are fantastic! Thank you!
I think this is common to many disciplines... To learn karate you need kata, to learn bass or guitar you need scales... You need "rules" in the beginning. But when you've been gming for 35+ years you are a walking, talking rulebook.
Pro tip to get into what I now understand to be kriegspiel.
Start with either FAE or Dungeonworld.
After completing the adventure
Play FAE without fudge dice, just a straight "your character could reasonably do that" or "your character could very well fail and there's consequences, spend a fatepoint (we call it drama) to succeed or concede to fail and gain a fatepoint.
Over time limit the number of uses of fp and just adjucate.
The table will be free-form roleplaying with a built in and reinforced feeling of how it should go
ooh, me likey - stealing this, thanks!
I love everything about this! Lately I've been loving the lasers and feelings and Cthulhu Dark style ultra minimal rules. Definitely looking into this...
This was really interesting! I've definitely found myself already adopting more and more of this style (albeit slowly) over the last few years without knowing it had a specific name or core ideology behind it. I could see this being a great way for worldbuilders to enter DM/GMing in a much smoother way than most do now (where they feel like they are never enough of an expert on a game's rules to participate). Definitely not for everyone and depends on the table but I could see incorporate a lot of ideas from this even with a more concrete, tactical system for some things (maybe combat).
In Israel we had a small movement kind of like that called "חופשיטה" which translates to systemless, it's slightly less common now (sadly) but it used to be pretty much the standard for most con games to either run dnd or no system at all. and they were pretty good tbh, they were also unconstrained to most classic game tropes: it was just as common to play in a fantasy, historical, or completely modern and mundane world, also the only truly scary horror games I ever played in were systemless, systems give you something to hold on to, without them it's much easier to feel unprotected, and unsure of what is unfolding before you. but I've seen the genre used for a bizarre exploration of characters through a ritual poisoning which explores mortality, what is life worth, and Trauma. I've heard of it used to go to camp as Children in Russia and exploring the Nostalgia that brings to people, systemless games can go anywhere, explore anything, it doesn't need a direct conflict, it doesn't need a win-state, it doesn't need to be a wargame.
I think there's much to gain in playing games without systems, it opens up a lot of doors. as much as I love me some rules, the lack of these rules is also a valid decision.
Isn't חופשיטה more like "freeform"?
@@yochaigal I just thought freeform is a bit to generic.
I guess systemfree would be the most accurate translation wouldn't it? literally speaking.
Imo a major purpose of having rules is to spark the player's imagination. Ideally the rules give the players ideas about what they want to do and what they might expect. If I only say "you can do anything", you don't know what you can do. This is especially true the more the game setting diverges from reality. For example, the more magic there is in the setting the more the players will benefit from having magic-related rules.
Rules are only .. guide lines, besides rules are meant to be bend and broken.
I've been using Black Hack for the last year and that is close enough for me. Basically one rule (roll under your stat) covers 75% of game play.
You can basically take or leave the rest of the rules in the book.
I mean, it's obvious that in some cases the game would take longer to resolve than a real battle. Doesn't take a lot of time for a bullet to travel.
...but it takes a lot of time for an army to travel. The Prussian Kriegsspiel was very much a mass battle system with numerous units across large landmass. So yeah, it shouldn't really take longer than a day-long (or multi-day) battle it tries to simulate :)
I think this is better for roleplaying and it certainly reminds me about roleplaying forums that used to be very popular around the 2000s. They were often rules-lite and different "players" would mediate the storytelling between themselves. There were no rolls and no maths - both people were expected to encourage good storytelling and drama. So whether an attack "works" or not is dependent on what would be best for the story instead of any dice roll. Likewise for "gaining more power" - no level ups or skills to manage.
But I think this approach is ultimately better for roleplaying and not for a game. From a game design standpoint, rules and systems encourage gameplay and mastery. I actually don't think this is about realism or fairness. I agree that a "rules-lite" or "no-rules" approach can achieve verisimilitude much better. Instead, I think a good rule system exists like a good videogame exists - it encourages fun gameplay. Nothing more, nothing less.
Interesting! But I have a hard enough time convincing anyone to play a different edition, so I doubt I'd get this going.
You also have to trust the players. I see players bully, cajole, distract, or otherwise undermine the GM often. It really throws me whenever it happens in games I play in, and I just have a rotten time when it does.
Really enjoyed this. This is something I’ve been pondering and exploring for years. Really wildling down to what is actually needed at the game table.
I find that when I run solo sessions (available on my channel if anyone is interested) it hews closely to this style of play. In FKR, it sounds like simple opposed die rolls are the bread and butter of adjudication, and in solo you use oracles and random tables to determine what happens - it feels like the cosmos is the DM and I usually proceed by what is most likely to happen, or whatever is most intuitive and interesting to me. It's great - I can't wait to try FKR with my current group, who already seem to get bored when I start looking up rulings... thanks
Trust is what is most important as players need to trust DMs to act as an antagonist, adjudicator, referrer, and plot-smith in a manner that makes the game fun and enjoyable for everyone. Rules are an easy way to establish that trust. When D&D is played "by the rules," there's a level of implicit trust that's established out of the gate.
Rules are merely a means to the end of enjoyment for everyone at the table, but they are a reasonable, and simple, way to help people establish the trust necessary to achieve that enjoyment. This can be particularly important if you're playing with strangers. It's a lot easier to establish trust by saying "we're playing by the rules" than to suggest a rules-free or rules-light game if the players are not familiar with the DM, other players, or just unfamiliar with playing D&D generally. Of course, many people may prefer to play with people with whom they have established trust already, and that's great!, but I might suggest that it's by playing with strangers and by playing with people new to the hobby that we grow the hobby.
Thanks for the awesome video. Great, as always.
I did this for years as a kid long before I even knew that games like dnd existed. It’s interesting to see a “movement”
LOve it. I’ve been moving towards more and more simplified rules after trying to run Hackmaster 5e legit! I love dice randomness so I gotta keep that but I’m definitely all for a character having one or even no “class abilities”, and I’m in favor of capping “level progression” at 3, and after hearing this, maybe getting rid of it altogether! and forcing the player to just engage with the world
Also I love the idea of players having a pool of dice for a day and they have to ration that as they see fit
I do almost free Krieg since I discovered Dungeon World and the PbtA, all my games have been no stats, you have 2D6 with "no but" for 6 or lower, "yes but" for 7 to 9 and "yes and" for 10 and more, +3 if players are doing smart things or have the right tools for the job, -3 if they try stupidly hard things.
My players are so happy to not even have player sheet anymore, nor inventory managing or skill managing or things like that.
Highly recommend anything that is "as light a system as possible" so it's a big yes to FKR on my part.
Sounds great. How do you differentiate between say a noob wizard and a powerful wizard PC? Is there a system for progression that reflects PCs' progressively growing ability?
@@PeterKoperdan The player just get more option, not more powerful ones.
The magic system is the closest to a "becoming better" one : you have spells, that you can use one then have a cooldown (based on the usage die from the Black Hack), and you have Magic Components who are elements that you can blend together to do something, like "Blood + permeation + solidification = do defensives spikes of blood out of your skin without piercing your skin (thanks to the permeation element)".
Players get exp on fails, great ideas and end of event, and they need as much exp as the number of elements (Magic element, spells, items) they carry to get a level. Leveling gets you a spell, a magic component or an fighter equivalent like a technic or a stance or something.
They can only level up at breaks or between parties because we discuss together 3 options they'd like to get, and they rank them before rolling 2D6 to get them (6-, 7 to 9, 10+)
I also break their stuff or hurt their mind (make them forget spell or component) once in a while because ICRPG made me realise how good an idea it can be to make the progression feel more organic and less linear
@@prinnydadnope5768 Very interesting. Do you have any of this posted anywhere? Also which games/systems do you recommend?
For a very long time now I've been looking for the perfect ultralight system, but I always found some mechanic/philosophy that I didn't like.
Incidentally, I really like the 2d6 system of DW + yes/no/but/and approach that appears in a few games. I am all for a high level of abstraction, because any simulation approach falls apart unless it's crazy complex. I just need to find the kind of abstraction that seems good to me :-)
@@PeterKoperdan
I'm very glad you enjoy what I'm sharing here. I didn't posted more or this anywhere yet, but I'd like to eventually.
I recommend Dungeon World, but you already know why, ICRPG (the timer die, breaking player's stuff and spells as a loot are great concept for me) and the Black Hack for the usage dice. I prefer ICRPG 2e version of Magic, I think the new edition is a little too streamlined
I also recommend some other UA-camrs : Dave Thaumavore, Matt Scottvile, and Runehammer (the dude from ICRPG) often talk about how less is more and how too many rules can break more than make. Maze Rats and Knave from this channel's author also have nice ideas.
The "Return of the Lazy DM" book is also great to keep focused on what you want and know what you want.
I also have a few diceless system to recommend, but most are in French so I'm not sure it might be of use.
Also, the best recommendation I have is to listen to your players and what they want out of the game. My players are allergics to numbers, so I had to take that in count. I started with a system like DW (6-, 7 to 9, 10+) where you where throwing dices like this :
Very hard : 2d4
Hard : 1d4 + 1d6
Normal : 2d6
Easy : 1d6 + 1d8
Very Easy : 2d8
But switching dice ended up being hard and not fun for them, so I found a way to make the 2d6 works with the advantage/disadvantage system of DnD5e, even if I wanted to explore the switching dice mechanic further.
I hope it helps :)
2d6+modifier is king. This is all that's needed. This 'system' places you into the worlds you're playing. I can't understand how a person could play with this method and return to anything else.
I know the video is a year old at this point, and I certainly don't expect a response, but it struck me how there's a lot of overlap between FKR and some diceless systems. Amber Diceless TTRPG comes to mind. The character sheet is check-boxes for whether a power is acquired and available, and a points rating for the four attributes. The GM arbitrates based on whether attributes are close to equal or not, and resolution is grounded in description of the in-game physical and metaphysical effects. Players take tactical advantage of the environment because not doing so leaves the advantage to the opposition to take for themselves. The GM never shares opposition stats, apart from "you think you're faster" or "He's definitely stronger than you" or such.
Anyway, excellent video, some good food for thought, and thank you.
I have played many sessions with my son by just sitting down and diving into a dungeon. We decide on our "powers", class, etc. as we delve. Sometimes I run it, sometimes he runs it. We once played for almost an hour before I realized we hadn't even rolled our stats, ha ha! Then, other times, we will sit around for a while planning things out and rolling things up, and coming up with cool rules, and not even actually play a session.
Hey, by the way, have you seen the The Ultimate Micro-RPG book? I just found out about it, so I don't know if it is cool or not yet, but it seemed like something you might be into. Apparently it has over 40 "two-page RPG systems". If I read it, I will let you know! If you get to it first, let us all know what you think!
This would be a great game style for Boot Hill (19th century Western states) and Gamma World (post nuclear war with Mutants).
That bit on fairness reminds me of my personal favorite way to describe roguelikes, "it's not UNFAIR, it's FUNFAIR."
I was reading through the comments and thinking "why do all these people focus so much on the (supposed) lack of rules, when (as clearly stated in the video) that's not the main point of FKR?"
Then I read the title of the video again. Sigh. Quite misleading click-bait, I genuinely think it made the conversation worse than it could have been.
Also, many people are looking for reasons to not read/learn rules because they lack the proficiency to do so, and want to find anything to add legitimacy to their lack of proficiency. They see this as historical and thus legitimizing, not realizing the reason the GMs in Kriegspiel could ignore the rules is because they had so much battlefield experience they knew how things would turn out. No one running such a game now has that kind of actual experience to accurately simulate in that same fashion; it was a game only played by the nobility and elite back in that era.
@@mightystu49 No one needs "legitimization" (or "proficiency", for that matter) for liking or not liking reading rules. We do this for fun, if someone doesn't want do deal with tedious rules, it's their right to do so without anyone saying them they're "doing their fun wrong". Their table, their game, their rules.
Also, the fact that we aren't experienced generals is irrelevant. The game designers aren't experienced generals either. Most rules fail at "accurately simulating" pretty much anything anyway. And it's OK, that's not the goal.
@@emarsk77 It's no more someone's right to not be told a way to do things than it is is my right to not have you call structure and good game design "tedious." By participating in the online forum of ideas that is the internet you inherently invite criticism; it is part and parcel to discussion. You are doing the same thing I am, but couching yourself as the virtuous one. Your appeal to some greater morality is quite shallow.
The fact also matters greatly. The designers don't need to be generals because they have the luxury of time. They can spend years developing a system, playtesting it, and pulling from all sorts of credible sources to create robust rules. As a GM running the game, you have at most a couple minutes (and even that is generous) before the flow of play is ruined. You must make these decisions quickly, and without that level of experience your quick decisions will more often than not be unsatisfactory to your players. Now, this is not to say all printed and developed games are of equal merit; in fact many such games are quite poorly designed. They are generally, however, a representation of more total time and thought investment than the average spur of the moment rule manufactured at the table. Thus the paradox of "rulings, not rules" comes to fruition: to have rulings, there must first be rules for those rulings to be made against.
@@mightystu49 I think it really depends on what you want from a game. Extensive rules may serve a purpose for some people and be appreciated, but at the same time light rules may serve a purpose for other people and also be appreciated. One is not better than the other, just like the color blue is not better than the color green.
However, there are many people that find crunchy games tedious yet they are not aware that rules light games even exist. Due to this it is good to spread the word ;-)
@@PeterKoperdan The thing is rules-light or rules-heavy are both rules systems. What is being proposed is no rules at all. Rules light is fine; I have no issue with it.
I argue that part of the fun of RPG's is the abstraction of certain mechanics. Dice, combat rules, charts - isn't learning all of these rules and structures are part of the fun? I believe that setting limits breed creativity, and always striving for realism will eventually lead to the _game_ to become a simulation, where every single interaction will either need to be improvised by the DM on the fly (that would be taxing, to say the least) or a micromanaging hellscape. We look for games to voluntarily and temporarily escape reality, not burden ourselves with a replication of it. That's what miniature trains are for, not RPGs, right?
I think if you tried an FKR game your experience might be different then these assumptions. I know mine has been.
(1) Yeah, learning combat rules is fun, for some people (including myself, to some extent). Not for everyone.
(2) Limits don’t have to come from the rules, they can come from the setting and from the basic constraints of the game (you are one person and you have X number of players who control Y number of characters with Z resources).
(3) Improvisation, so long as you’ve prepped a solid setting as your foundation, isn’t nearly as hard as you seem to think.
At the moment I'm dm'ing a homebrewed version of the solo game Micro chapbook for all my players. It's fast, gets everyone into play not trying to anticipate or lead the game with overly specific character creation options. This is merely a roll under system that's primarily d6, but it gives players enough freedom and choice to keep the theater of the mind's eye the star of the show for people that otherwise wouldn't take the take to get into a system but want to get into dungeon-crawling and roleplaying.
People may not realize that someone like me found AD&D too strict when it came out. I actually quit playing D&D and opted for other systems rather than play AD&D. These debates on strict rules vs. Interpreted rules are very old and keep getting regurgitated with every new generation. I would say that the no rules RPG is just play acting and make believe. There is a sweet spot in low rules play that is best exemplified by OD&D with lots of home ruling, and of course, Blackmoor. - Griff
Secrets of Blackmoor is a fantastic documentary. I've watched it twice already.
Great video. I have been wanting to run a medieval Braunstein-style game for a while.
I've often thought this. But even moreso about statistics.
I just think you need players who are ready and mature for that sort of game.
If a ruling becomes consistent is it no longer just a ruling, but a rule?
Extremely well done and informative video! A very concise history lesson at the beginning and I enjoyed the dialogue near the end as well.
Thank you. I prefer this style of play but did not know there was a name for it.
This whole time, I'd thought FKR was just people taking an OSR approach to wargames--like Warhammer but with a stripped down OSR ruleset. Sounds like there's more to it that I'd dig than I'd originally realized. Great video!
This just makes me miss the Amber RPG even more. There, you even throw out the dice!
For many years, every time I play a new ttrpg, I DON'T tell the player the rules. I find the experience much more enjoyable because they interact with the game world without thinking about rules. Unfortunately, this fades away after 2-3 sessions as they start understanding the rules. FKR might fixes this issue, although I'm not sure I'd like something too free-form.
The counter argument is that some sort of rules offer a framwork on what that game wants to put to the forefront.
For example, OSR rule of XP for gold and low HP pushes forward the idea that combat is dangerous and reward players for finding alternative solutions to murderhoboism.
I didn't knew about FKR, my head just exploded!
Even if you are attracted to the structure that rules bring to the game, there's a lot to be gained by incorporating some of these ideas into your DMing style. I've been operating like this for quite a while and it's absolutely made my games more fun for both my players and myself.
I like the idea of jettisoning a lot of unnecessary rules for roleplaying games.
These ideas have been around a while - check out Tracy and Curtis Hickman's "XDM: X-treme Dungeon Mastery" which includes their own homebrew minimalist rpg. They even have a magic system where magic-users are free to invent and cast their own spells subject to the DM's approval & jurisdiction.
Not crazy about the phrase "Free Kriegspiel Revival" or FKR, which to me means war games, not rpgs. Maybe we should think of a more descriptive name before everyone starts using FKR.
FREEnD
I like the mantra "play worlds, not rules". It certainly doesn't make a good acronym, but it's a great way to describe the concept. But as far as a name goes, everyone is already using FKR, so that's it I'm afraid.
Rules Free RPG? Too long.
I like the concept of FKR however I do think the gm should be a little consistent, and there should be minimal structure (like damage, hp and spell effects, but only for what it does and damage if used on a thing with hp, pretty much everything else can be done via dice contests and you'd be good)
Narativism and rules lite systems existed for as far as I can recall (mid 90s).
I don't see this as a movement.
Rules help ppl interact with the worlds in a consitent way. It's a way for players to understand what is and isn't possible in a world where magic or exceptionnal strength is accessible to their character.
A system without rules can be pretty intimidating. Game masters might need some guidance (especially in field they don't have personnal expertise) and requiring constant creativty from players might end up kinda gatekeeping or elitist.
I really like Ben work. And I like that game designers now keep usability in mind and limit rules bloat. But the goal is to use those rules. I don't know any one who use the full AD&D PHB. OSE is praised and loved because it's B/X but easy to use (not lighter).
I think some ppl (especially inexperienced with TTRPG) watch those videos and create in their mind a perfect game. A rule lite sandbox focused on player agency with faction play and non-combat encounter sprinkled in. And that's not how most good games are actually played. Every DM has his own strong suit and create a different experience. DM progression should be finding his own way. What's work for Ben and/or other RPG influencers might not be the best at your table.
D&D suffer from major rules bloat. But the focus isn't on creating a coherent rules set. It's a mix between keeping the most of traditionnal play while catering to the broadest public possible. In a way WOTC designed the perfect gateway to OSR.
Kriegspiel is a nice piece of historical trivia. But it's RPG in a professional context. I'd rather focus on recreational simulation. I could argue some form of martial art are RPGs.
I think that he was relatively clear that this FKR playstyle isn't for every player. However, it would be pretty easy to try and some players might discover that they like it. It would be much easier to try than some RPG with complex rules (of which there are many).
Very informative, and clearly presented as usual. Keep up the great work!
As a DM who runs an OSR inspired and rule-light campaign I have mixed feelings on this. While I despise super crunchy and inefficient systems, I think the rules actually can enhance immersion,.They are precisely what makes a roleplaying game a "game" and not just a room of people writing fan fiction. Mechanics give a sense of concreteness and objectivity that makes the world feel like something outside of both the player's and the DM's control. Also, no human is going to be consistent enough, even when they are trying their hardest, to give that many rulings on the fly. As a player I would feel like I had little real input because at the end of the day it is the DM alone who decides and I have no way of knowing if my actions could succeed (especially in a fantastical setting we can't always use "intuition" or "common sense" reliably). It just feels like a choose your own adventure book with some dice. There seems to be a trend towards hyper-minimalism in some parts of the OSR community and I'm not a big fan of it, at some point you are not trimming the fat but making gameplay more shallow While I hate having to do quadratic equations just to know if my attack landed, just rolling a d6 a few times a session isn't much fun either. It reminds me of being on the playground as a kid and you say you have a lightsaber, but the other kid says he has a double-bladed lightsaber that is better than yours and it just becomes a verbal back and forth. Of course you should never be constrained by the rules as they are guidelines and unique situations will come up, but it is exactly having a pre-established protocol that makes those situations easier to solve in a way that is both fair and fun. I think the trend should be towards more efficient and concise rules that can be added to a game in a modular fashion rather than just gutting them to the absolute minimum, but that's just me. I also like designing games and seeing what makes different systems tick and the elegance of their mechanics so there's that...
Modular fashion, meaning if you want specific sailing mechanics, buy this expansion? I agree about having rules. Both as a player and a GM, I want some solid rules. There are some things I don’t mind hand waving as a GM, but I need rules sometimes or my game will become mushy. I’m with you on more concise and efficient, too. To me, that is absolutely a must.
@@Vedexent_ I probably just need to see an example of play because we might be talking about two different things here. I think we can agree that any rules should be based in the setting, but if you're like me and have an avant-garde homebrew one, than it is not always clear what is implicit to the player and constant explanation can take about as long as explaining rules once. No rpg should become too "gamey" in that min-maxing mechanics takes precedence over thinking in a logical manner. But at some point you're going to need to abstract away something, because this is game played on a tabletop and not merely a literary exercise or a real-life encounter. Of course no DM has to be 100% consistent to run a great game, but what I was trying to get at is if we are going to talk about what is implicit in the narrative then it is just going to put too much pressure on the DM. It ends up being the same situation as you described in rules systems which are too complex and they end up forgetting things and being arbitrary on the fly. Ultimately it should be about having fun, but as both a DM and a player I like it when I at least have a precedent for what to do, and even if you just talk it out that will set a precedent for later situations and you have just created an abstract ruling that goes outside the narrative. My playground example was me just joking around, but if you want to see how that logic can apply then look at magic. I don't know if FKRs have a prepared spell list, but if it's like some games where there are none and the effects of spells are improvised then you have problems. Magic by its definition breaks what is normally defined as possible in any setting and even more so when the player could come up with spells on the fly. Then the DM can respond with an equally arbitrary, "well actually that's not how magic works in my world" or "there is a secret anti-magic barrier on the door". This is already broken enough in very standardized systems, I could only imagine what it would do in extremely free-form ones (there is a reason why magic is such a cliche literary device to make anything you want happen in a plot.) However, what you described to me seems to depict FKRs as different in degree rather than kind from most rpgs, which I can get behind but then I guess I wouldn't necessarily feel the need to categorize them differently. But yet again, I'll just have to play one myself sometime as these were just my immediate thoughts based on the video...
@@strawpiglet Sadly most gaming companies interpret it that way lol but I get it they need to keep the game alive by adding more content. I was more getting at a ruleset that allows you to pick and choose parts of it without it all standing or falling together. That way (especially with new players) you can keep it simple at first and then gradually add depth over time because everything is just building of the same basic mechanics. For example let's say you're like me and running a modernized version of basic dnd and you just start off by giving your players the basic combat rules, then one of their fighters reaches level three and you tell them they can now do things like try and disarm enemies etc and explain how that works. It keeps things from getting stale without front-loading people and making character creation take hours.
@@Vedexent_ Thanks! I'll definitely look into it.
@@sauronrodriguez4583 I like that idea. It reminds me of early ADnD when cool ideas would show up in Dragon magazine that you could add where you want. I played 1st edition and would use the supplemental books and 2e when I saw a rule expansion that I liked.
Honestly the line between ultra-light rpg and this self labelled FKR seems so thin it starts coming across as a distinction without a difference.
Totally agree. I prefer "ultralight" over "FKR" because the former is descriptive and the latter is yet another onerous acronym that floods our niche-within-a-niche as it stands.
When looking at it from "how does it play" angle, yeah the Venn diagram between the two is *almost* a circle, but FKR is as much about the theory as it is about practice. It is a different approach to playing and running RPGs, and having a label for this thing alone is worth a distinction.
And also really fucking humbled to see Hubris I then background. Thank you dude 🥰, seriously.
Good discussion. I remember a friend of mine in the late 80s describing games he ran in essentially this style.
The tricky difference between Free Kriegspiel and rules-free D&D is that Kriegspiel was based in this world--and in a very limited context. The referee was assumed to be a very knowledgeable senior officer who could accurately assess whether or not a strategy would work on a real battlefield. Players could likewise draw on their knowledge of actual combat to devise strategy and tactics.
D&D is a world filled with magic. How exactly that magic works is not something one can intuit. There's no commonly shared frame of experience to base that on. So exactly what the characters can do and whether or not anything they do succeeds becomes extremely arbitrary.
For that matter, most DMs are not experts in actual combat. I'm not either, but I've often run into the problem of thinking about D&D strategy based on how things would work in more realistic settings: for instance, supposing that a fighter doesn't sleep in his armor with his helmet on. (It turns out that some forms of D&D have a rule that sleeping in magic armor is totally comfortable. Having only worn regular armor, I can express my doubts about that likelihood, but *magic* can explain anything.)
And then let's consider that DMs can't possibly be an expert in everything that the D&D world encompasses.
Yes, rulings are needed; no ruleset will cover every eventuality. But rules are a handy tool to keep RPGs from devolving into "I hit you" followed by "nuh-uh!"
Great vídeo , the biggest issue is on 5:40 .
According to a certain definition a game of baseball without rules become just people playing, a play. Light rules RPGs with even less rules effectively becomes an activity with infinite inconsistent rules, or a toy. Not a bad thing in itself but it is not a game anymore according to this definition.
Yep, FKR is much more about *playing* than *gaming* - but it is far from a pure chaos of inconsistency you describe. It's just a different approach to telling stories with the help of dice and not to everyone's taste.
So long as you’ve prepped a solid setting as a foundation, making consistent rulings (with or without rules) is far easier than you seem to think.
@@Vedexent_ "Why do so many people assume FKR is a) rule less and b) inconsistent. " ->
because of heuristic
@@Vedexent_ Why we assume it is rules less? Because it is rules less for once.
All I’m saying is ; the more you remove rules the less a game it becomes by definition. You can still have good plays but its consistency now depends on an individual.
@@Vedexent_ Well said.
Thanks for the explanation! To me it sounds strange that, still in the 2020s, hobbyists consider that rpgs rules and wargames rules serve the same purpose. In a wargame, we need rules to model a military clash with realistic plausibility. In a rpg we need rules to drive conversations about fictional events.
I'd say that wargames frequently drive conversations about fictional events! You might be surprised at the degree of crossover between the two hobbies, especially when playing narrative-focused wargame campaigns. In a lot of ways it can be like an RPG where you control lots of PCs instead of 1.
@@QuestingBeast Conversations happen whenever people meet. However, aren't wargames first and foremost about tactical combat? It think that the main point of wargames is very different from TTRPGs when taken as a whole. That said, many players do enjoy engaging in tactical combat in their TTRPG sessions.
We could have conversations about fictional events with something like a theater game. The director assigns the participants roles and them tells them what the scene is going to be, and they take it from there. What separates a theater game from an RPG is the desire to model clashes and conflicts with at least some verisimilitude and some chance that the outcome of the scene isn't merely something that everyone agrees to.
I do think that any game involving roleplaying someone other than yourself, with different capabilities and experiences than you, is going to require some kind of framework for tracking personal attributes, skill in combat and non-combat abilities, and training in weapons, tools, or jobs.
I would really love to see an actual session of an FKR style game being played.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be anything on youtube.
Or, at least, I could not find anything myself.
The way I see it, is that if you're not using the rules then you're not playing D&D. You're playing something else entirely. It's like if I took a chess set and then just started throwing the pieces trying to knock down my opponent's king. It's not chess at that point.
That said, I don't think it's an invalid way to experience an RPG. I just wouldn't call it D&D. I lean towards more rules than less because I enjoy having an actual fixed game in there instead of it just being role playing.
I think that the connection with D&D is Dave Arneson's playstyle - which used to be FKR-like. Arneson is the father of RPGs with Gary Gygax. Since Arneson was at the birth of D&D, his style of freestyle could have won over Gygax's love of ever expanding rulesets...
Any idea how to find Playing at the World anywhere? Its out of print everywhere.
Wow, you're right. Hopefully it gets reprinted soon.
@@richmcgee434 sadly I’m in the UK so no luck. Here’s to hoping I find a pdf i can buy somewhere!
Been there done that :)
Great video mate!
I’m curious how you would insert magic into such a world. If you used Vancian magic, how would you have a character train their magical skills without levels? Moorcockian magic definitely fits a bit better with a FKR-style world
D&D5e would have been even better IF WoTC had simply adopted the Proficiency system for all of the task resolution. Setting a DC and rolling over it is a very basic and flexible resolution system that can be used for virtually anything.
D&D3.5e had skill ranks and you rolled high to get a positive result, AD&D2e had proficiency where you had to re under a given ability score to get a positive result.
Yes, but today if you disagree about encumbrance you can't resolve it with a duel.
Yes. Dnd needs rules so we can play the roleplaying game. If theres no rules then we're just roleplaying and not playing a game. Roleplaying without a game already exists.
I didn't realize this was a thing but it's great because I'm always torn. On the one hand I like to craft my worlds around this type of play, but on the other I like the rulesets because they help the players see the potential of what could be done so I try to incorporate the rulesets. It doesn't always work but at least this video explains what it is I'm doing in a more logistical sense. Maybe now I can solve my gaming conflict.
Interesting video.
I knew of this playstile but had no idea it had a specific name, nor that is was an explicit movement.