(This is the third post in my recent series on FKR. I recommend reading the first one for a clearer understanding of this one).
My thesis here is that an arbitrary attribute of a ruleset like length or math crunch should not be used as determining factor regarding its utility to FKR play. To present it, I will go over three points: why freeform and ultralight are associated so strongly with the FKR, how so called “crunchy” rulesets can be used by FKR referees without any dissonance, and a direct example of a famous RPG abstraction being applied to hypothetical FKR play. I believe case studies greatly strengthen hypothesis.
On Freeform and Ultralight
Freeform and ultralight rules are associated with the FKR, and confused with inherent qualities or principles of it, because they offer two frameworks which can be used to understand FKR play.
Freeform offers the concept of principles and conversational patterns being the dominating tool for resolution within a table (which is true of all RPGs and freeform is the purest expression of this essence as shaped into superstructure). Freeform is also associated with many collaborative techniques, which help teaching the group to negotiate the fiction, although freeform exercises that share authority between members are immediately not FKR because the sole authority of the referee is essential for its many moving parts to cohere into a single object.
Ultralight rulesets meanwhile are read as ultimate blueprints that create a sensation of vastness to be filled, and therefore understood as ideal to FKR since their gaps are enticing for fictional principles and worldbuilding, while supported with very simple procedures. They serve as a symbol for the construction of a table-centric system and are rather simple to get across to players if the referee doesn’t desire to use a blackbox style of gaming (blackbox gaming being keeping all the abstractions and resolution mechanics besides conversation unknown to the rest of the table), without overwhelming players.
Both are used as tools for FKR play. Neither is FKR because FKR is not inherently freeform (or at least not more than any playstyle or play experience is) and because rulesets are not FKR, only the referee can proclaim their utility for the table. The outlined above are just the reasons they are so heavily associated (besides ultralight systems being classified as FKR). They are, however, objects that can be pointed out as carrying associations with certain practices that are relevant to FKR play.
My central theory about the confusion of automatic association hinges on an aspect: that people believe numerical abstractions don’t model the fictional world, or that they always do so poorly. To present this point, I want to offer the antithesis and demonstrate there is no contradiction between it and FKR, which I believe will sustain the argument that, while freeform and ultralight don’t contradict it, they aren’t more or less proper as tools for it as well.
(A good series of posts on how those tools can indeed be useful for the desired simulation by the referee is this).
The R in FKR is Rifts
Rolemaster. Harnmaster. Hackmaster. Palladium systems. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1e. Mythras (and BRP at large). Warhammer Roleplay (both fantasy and 40k). These and more traditional systems are known at large in the community, with fans and detractors as it’s natural. Detractors however may not be focused on a specific ruleset, but their shared position of “crunchy”. If someone refers to crunchy, one can assume what they mean is one or a combination of the following:
- The ruleset uses a “significant” amount of math for its procedures (although not necessarily math-focused, as diceless games can also be called crunchy, as well as games that follow the two next parameters with simple math).
- Those procedures are themselves extremely specific.
- The ruleset is too densely integrated between procedures to navigate without constant reference (although that’s not true of many, keep a note on this).
If we go from the perspective of FKR as being inherently connected to freeform and ultralight gaming, the idea of such rulesets being used by a referee (and having large chunks of them being used no less) seems absurd. I believe this is a misunderstanding of the relationship referees have to rulebooks. Rulebooks are to be used whatever way the referee sees fit to simulate their world.
This is a coherent idea to the definition of FKR, but why it isn’t emphasized? Several factors at play. First, again, the publication of “FKR rulesets”, all that tend towards having very few procedures, murk this point. Second, and this is mere speculation from watching many discussions go, some have a dislike for the crunchy systems (I share that aversion myself), which ends up being mixed though cross-wire conversation with the idea that they’re unfit for FKR as a concept instead of simply unfit for what each referee wants to use for their campaign.
Third, and this comes back to a misconception I pointed out in my first essay, there’s the impression that many codified procedures through abstract mathematics and rolls are against the “in-world” principle, despite abstraction in no way contradicting the fictional world a priori. Therefore, those crunchy rulesets seem to be a way of putting distance between the table and the fictional world, instead of a method the referee can use for consistency and to carry out situations expected to recur. While I also pointed out in my essay that simple direct statements are an important piece of FKR technology for many due to the way it maintains focus in certain conversational patterns and are easy to reference, this does not mean other technologies are illegitimate.
Let’s go back to the modularity issue. Many of the systems I mentioned above are, when analyzed with careful eyes, not as interconnected as one would think (Rolemaster itself is a result of gluing many supplements used for other rulesets, for example). They offer the FKR referee an easy collection to take one specific procedure and leave the rest behind. But the referee may also use most procedures together and in no way change the fact they’re running in a FKR style that follows all the tenants I established in my essay. This is achieved mainly by following the principle that the mechanics are not the lens that define the setting, but the ways the referee selected to communicate it in certain instances where they seem to be most effective. The emphasis there is also in setting, as always. If the procedures and abstractions don’t contradict the world or the shared understanding of the situation, they are conductive to use within the FKR style.
Which rules aren’t? Those that don’t conduct to understanding the world. This will vary with the world and referee. Metacurrency that represents a narrative convenience or an unjustified triumph of the PCs by nature of them being PCs will not likely be used, although it’s possible to find a theological or similar justification within setting. Other referees may consider certain experience systems disconnected from literal events, like the Mythras experience dice determined by the referee (while Runequest’s training is directly connected to fictional events), or gold-for-xp. Let me emphasize this is in no way me saying these procedures are bad, or that a game that includes them cannot also use selected FKR principles for everyone’s fun. I’m pointing out the in-world principle as an overwhelming feature, and that FKR is characterized by it.
Going through every single table from Rolemaster to determine the effect of an attack is not anti-FKR if it doesn’t contradict the logic of the event. But it’s probably best to analyze a very specific example that everyone is familiar with, and how abstraction can simply model the world.
Hit Problems (HP)
Hit Points are among the most controversial abstractions in TTRPGs Its controversy arrives both by being central to the most famous roleplaying game of all time and because it’s a number one example of an abstraction that breaks away from shared understanding of the fiction again and again, which makes it perfect for our purposes.
Let’s take a hypothetical FKR referee who’s preparing her fantasy adventure campaign. She’s interested in using a simple abstraction to help ruling combat situations and considers using Hit Points for it, since it’s broadly understood and easy. However, she needs to find a direct material justification for its use, something that it models consistently. She checks definitions of Hit Points used through history and ignores the ones that define it as meat points (since it raises the question of what kind of damage is being done and why the character keeps walking), and as luck (as her world connects luck to the gods, and HP seems like a poor abstraction for it).
She decides HP represents fighting skill to avoid lethal damage, and that 0 HP or less abstracts the moment of incapacity to avoid lethal damage. So far, so good. She’s aware of the constant contradictions in rulesets with HP that are caused by its game functionality being prioritized over the world, and she sketches down a few principles that bypass HP:
- Since HP only represents fighting skill, falling and such bypass HP and either mean instant death or fictional injury that gets in the way of actions. A roll to test skill in hanging somewhere may be justified if there’s a possible spot or tool to prevent falling.
- The fictional injury, if exploited by an enemy, bypasses HP and allows lethal damage.
- Attacks that can’t be defended reasonably without magic or extreme circumstances, like dragon breath, cause instant death. A magic shield may be used for example, and she decides to not consider elements such as heat even if the person successfully blocks or hides from the attack.
This seems satisfactory for her, so HP is included as an abstraction that easily represents one element of the world. She will likely think of other principles; a whole campaign’s “ruleset” doesn’t need to be created before the first session considering every possibility.
There’s other abstractions inherited from D&D she could use, sure. For example, a saving throw value to represent other instances of preventing damage in that case she may decide that the saving throw’s function as a Hail Mary that models heroism and luck, as described in AD&D 1e, is incompatible with in-world logic besides godly interference, and instead the saving throw is just a non-modular number used for some situations that don’t contradict the above. She may want level as a convenient abstraction to represent advancement in fighting skill (increase of HP), however only spending gold in training is acceptable to her logic. As a FKR referee, it’s her call and her world guides the choices.
Let’s consider a similar example if the referee, checking her rulesets for reference, thinks about some concepts from Electric Bastionland. HP (Hit Protection) as defined there matches her desired simulation (excluding the luck possibility), however she feels differently about the Critical Damage rule and bonus +d12 damage (which takes away HP) if the character can’t defend. To her principles and world, that seems to cause dissonance from events. She writes down that a helpless character is:
- Immediately killed (as a lack of defense or escape possibility implies a Save doesn’t make sense to her).
- Takes damage directly to STR and rolls for Critical Damage, regardless of still having HP.
She doesn’t know which of the two yet, and other FKR referees in the same situation may think different, come with other reasons, or not considering it an issue for their world and logic. Everyone is different.
Both examples above deal with the HP abstraction being strictly defined for a specific use within the referee’s campaign, and certainly other examples can be imagined or, even better, reported from experience. This is different from simple Rule Zero in a traditional RPG with a referee, because it doesn’t presume the ruleset as a primary object which the referee’s authority is interfering with. So yes, any tool for simulation is compatible with FKR, not simply ultralight or freeform principles. All of them can lead to a very enjoyable game.
Roll to Doubt 