On the Free Kriegsspiel Revolution

 

A new wave washes over the shores of role-playing games - the Free Kriegsspiel Revolution (FKR). While the concept itself is not new by any means, this Revolution follows the heels of the traditional OSR, brushing aside the stricter rule systems and granting greater freedom to players and Referees alike.

The name "Free Kriegsspiel" itself comes from 19th century Prussian wargames initially used for training military officers in battlefield tactics (the word "Kiegsspiel" simply means "Wargame" in German). Originally, there was Strict Kriegsspiel, a rules-heavy, high-complexity refereed Napoleonic tabletop wargame using a map, counters, and dice, first developed in 1824.

The rules, however, were of such complexity that many officers had to invest much time learning the rules, at the expense of playing the game itself and learning tactics. Thus, half a century later, in 1873, a new movement began - the Free Kriegsspiel Movement. This movement dispensed of most rules, in some cases of all rules, and replaced them with referee discretion. The game became a conversation between the players and the referee (often an experienced military expert), where the referee would adjudicate military actions based on his expertise rather than using complex table and dice (at least for the most part). This movement became highly popular among Prussian officers, as this permitted faster play, as well as allowed for expert referees to utilize their knowledge and experience in a more realistic manner rather than rely on tables.

A century and a half later, the term Free Kriegsspiel was adopted by role-players. While this was a translation of the principles from wargaming to role-playing games, the core idea remained - "ruling, not rules", and a Simulationist approach based on conversation between the Referee (or Game Master) and the players and the Referee's judgement of the situation, with dice kept in the secondary role of resolving dangerous situations where luck is of great importance.

This does follow the "rulings, not rules" approach presented by the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming by Matthew Finch. However, the new Revolution crystalizes the greater freedom and secondary nature of rules, presenting a strong case against the "new school" approach. "New school" being the spirit of post-2000 d20 and similar games, where it is customary to use dice to resolve many, if not most, in-game situations.

For example, in a (new school) D&D 5E game I am a player in, the Dungeon Master calls for ability or skill checks very often, sometimes even 5-10 times per scene or dungeon room. I find this fatiguing and distracting from the game world, especially when basic clues are "gated" behind linear 1d20 die rolls. This also makes characters feel incompetent, as even a high-level character may fail in relatively trivial tasks he or she should be an expert in.

In comparison, in an FKR game, the table resolves most exploration by conversation between the Referee and the players, with the players asking questions about their environment and the Referee answering them. The dice come out only where there is imminent danger and when luck plays a role even for competent experts such as higher-level player characters. There may be structured minigames with more die rolling (such as combat and character generation in Classic Traveller, for example), but the core game loop is conversational.

This seems to be the way Marc Miller, Traveller's creator, Referees his own game. Yes, even with the high-complexity Traveller 5th Edition rules, from what I understand. Outside of minigames, his games are often very conversational in nature, and with limited die rolls. This also explains why Classic Traveller has no clear "task system" outside of the minigames, as the game assumes such situations would be resolved by discussion between the Referee and the players, or, at most, that the Referee will improvise a die roll when needed, based on the situation and not on a rigid resolution mechanic.

Note, however, that FKR games are Simulationist and not Narrativist. The key here is exploring a living world and interacting with it, with the "story" being emergent, rather than explicitly weaving a story together or following the GM's pre-planned story. However, this simulation relies more on Referee judgement than on complex rules, except for specific situations where, again, there is danger and luck plays a part.

I am now in love with this concept of FKR, and it may inspire my future game design!