Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Play Advice: where does freeform begin?

Bottom of Page

1 to 50 of 50

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 1
    Some time ago, there was a discussion on rpg.net about what freeform is.

    This is my favorite reply from that thread:
    Without even looking at other answers to the thread, I'd say it's some kind of RPG utopia: no rules at all.

    Of course, without rules there would be no need for a GM, either. So, no GM. Just a bunch of players who get together to tell a story, based on a given setting.

    That would be HEAVEN.

    Unfortunately, all the players would have to agree most of (or all) the time, or else it wouldn't get past the first scene...


    But cj.23 who started the thread came up with an actually useful set of definitions:

    "Freeform can mean
    1) a particular style of 'one off' live action game with no physical combat, but often with rules, very often run at conventions. (See uK Freeforms list, and say CJ sent you!)

    2) a rules light or systemless tabletop rpg where the story evolves from the group without much recourse to dice. Often was synonymous in the 80's with diceless or systemless tabletop rpg.

    3) a PBEM often fanfic style narrative rpg game."

    So is it just the lack of dice that makes something free form?

    I ask because I had an argument with Jonathan Walton the other day about whether a game I am working on counted as freeform. The game is set in Iraq and deals with those who have died due to the war. Each player is issued beads to use to enter a scene to narrate how some faction, such as the US military, the press, insurgents, affects the life of a person involved in the war or living in Iraq. When a person uses the last bead in a scene, the character who is being focused on will die in the next scene.

    His point was that since there was a currency mechanic that determined when a character dies, it is not freeform. For me, I saw the beads as a simple pacing mechanic. A way of creating a loose structure for allowing people to introduce elements into the story, rather than simply making one person the antagonist of another, as in Shock: or Polaris.

    But that raises another question, Polaris is not freeform. But not because of a lack of dice--they are used only as a last resort. But why? Or is it freeform? Where is the line?

    best,
    Emily
    • CommentAuthortimfire
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 2
    Do you want a practical or theoretical response? Theoretically, I don't really believe "free form" exists. (Well, I do, but it's pretty rare.)

    But, practically speaking, freeform implies a lack of overt, formal, or pre-conceived structure. Which means content is largely created through raw player judgment, with a heavy dose of "yes, and..."

    Personally, I would differentiate between "diceless" play and "freeform". What you're working on sounds like "diceless". You're imposing external guidelines outside of player judgment.

    And does anyone actually call Polaris "freeform"? I find that funny, it has all sorts of mechanics.
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 3
    Ambiguous. Your game is not mechanic-less, but it lacks resolution mechanics. It has a very minimalist "who gets to say what when" structure, but it has one. I think the true "freeform" in the sense the term is used most frequently is envisioned as having absolutely no overt, consistent, repeatable structure - it's all improv, all the time.
    • CommentAuthorMike Holmes
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 4
    [edited to note cross-post with Mark... cool]

    CJ has pretty good definitions. For number 2, however, I always put it that freeform has no "mechanics." Where "mechanics" is further defined as "an algorithm by which certain input is put through a hard-coded process that produces certain end effects."

    All "dice mechanics" are a subset of mechanics. But so are Amber's "Diceless" mechanics such as the rule for adjudicating who wins a contest.

    Now, to avoid confusion, note that most or all RPG mechanics have in their implementation some player judgment at some point - often in terms of when to use the mechanics, for instance. This "squishiness" in a mechanic doesn't prevent it from being a mechanic. The rule in Everway about interpreting a card is a mechanic, even if there is a participant who is adding a lot of input.

    Which is to say that a RPG is only "Freeform" if there are no such methods - where the "rules" are that the participants use judgement alone to decide how the narrative proceeds.

    Is that rigorous?

    Mike
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 5
    Great topic, Em. I just worry that the responses are going to be all over the place.

    A few suggestions:

    "Freeform" doesn't really have an established definition, more like a general understanding (see also: "roleplaying").

    Dividing things into "freeform" and "non-freeform" is not very helpful once you start really getting into the details of things, especially if you're ultimately trying to get at the kind of stuff that you and I have been talking about. There are lots of games, like Polaris, that use a mixture of techniques. And there are many things that lie somewhere in between the "freeform" and "non-freeform" continuum. Take Once Upon a Time, which has fortune all over the place with the card-drawing, has a fair bit of structure, but is also feels largely "freeform."

    Things I like to think about in terms of freeform:
    1. Are their fortune mechanics (dice, cards, other random things) involved?
    2. Are their resource distribution mechanics involved?
    3. Does the game require players to make other strategic decisions (using the right skills/feats, choosing the right maneuver) in order to achieve what they want in the narrative?
    All of these feel, to me, like things that pull games towards "non-freeform" for me, though the amount of strategic thinking, resource management, randomness involved matters a lot.

    On the other hand:
    1. Does the game require players to consider things in terms of appropriateness to the narrative?
    2. Do players negotiate outcomes instead of maneuvering strategically to achieve them?
    3. Is there a focus on building consensus?
    These things feel more "freeform" to me, even if there are loads of mechanics. Again, of course, the amount of this, relative to the strategic stuff, matters.

    Finally, Tim says Polaris isn't freeform because there are loads of mechanics, but most freeform games I know also have loads of mechanics, mostly in the form of unwritten social rules that people are socialized to follow during initiation and over the course of play. Some groups even write these rules down (those are the basic rules for World Weavers, who I created the website for). I don't think that stops them from being freeform.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatthijs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 6
    (In a recent thread about freeform on Knife Fight, "What's your reaction to the word 'Freeform'", I ended up with the understanding that "freeform" carries with it so many negative connotations that I don't really want to use it online anymore.)
    • CommentAuthorRoger
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 7
    Hmmm. "Freeform" does imply "free from form", and I think it's tempting to equate "form" to "mechanics" of all sorts.

    It might be helpful to think of what the extreme opposite of "freeform" might be. I'd suggest it's basically a play -- the characters' actions and dialogue are all predetermined. But that is also mechanic-less, so I might be barking up the wrong tree here.

    If an RPG is "Say yes or roll dice", a freeform game is "Say yes or go home." Maybe.

    I'm sorta rambling all over the map here. I'm not entirely sure an argument over whether a game is freeform or not really has any value, I guess.



    Cheers,
    Roger
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 8
    Posted By: Matthijs(In a recent thread about freeform on Knife Fight, "What's your reaction to the word 'Freeform'", I ended up with the understanding that "freeform" carries with it so many negative connotations that I don't really want to use it online anymore.)


    I've seen that a lot, too.

    Depending on the context and participants "Freeform" is either a high compliment or a damning indictment.

    To further skew things, how much of this is about evolved, unwritten mechanics version written, engineered mechanics?

    Also, how much does it mess with the discussion if evolved, unwritten mechanics are then written down and formalized/re-engineered? ( A ton of S-Gs strike me as fitting that second category).
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 9
    I think it might be valuable to define freeform not as a type of game, but rather as a type of interaction that happens within a game. There are always moments in a game (feel free to lay some exceptions on me) where the character interaction and story progression proceeds in a way that owes more to logical conversational exchange than rules adherence, and those moments of play could be called "freeform".

    If freeform continues to connote a genre rather than a type of interaction, then we don't have a good label for talking about the moments of a game that are not strictly rules interactions.
  10.  # 10
    I tend to think of it as drama-only play. No fortune, no karma. Just people with different authority (which may or may not be firmly established and negotiable) working things out. The less stable this arrangement is, the more freeform it is. For better or for worse, a freeform game is one where you are at the mercy of constantly negotiating the fiction, and what counts as valid input and produces one kind of result one day might not be accepted or produce a different outcome the next.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 11
    This is a can of worms, even with some of the territory staked out. Matthijs the KF thread you mentioned is an excellent illlustration of why.

    It seems like there are several definitions of the word, even beyond what cj described:

    First and foremost, the activity of freeform, which as Jason points out, is the thing that all of the uses point towards. Pure drama play as Christian describes it, free of all structures (except, perhaps, the underlying structure of the social dynamics of the people involved, their shared understanding of characters and story, cultural context etc.) Purely social level support for the play.

    Then we have the various types of freeform game play: rules lite table top, structured but combat or mechanics free live action play, narrative chat and play by email, also journal and forum play, etc. The Austrialian, Jeeps and others have strongly associated freeform with their styles of play.

    The key thing for me, I found, when I was thinking about it was what Mark said--the lack of resolution mechanics. This may be why dicelessness seems to intrinsically bound up with what people think of as freeform. Dice are almost universally used to resolve issues of difference of what will be established as having happened in play. Drama as a resolution system means no dice.

    If we start looking at it as a continuum, as Jonathan does, and use some of those or other criteria, could we come up with some better, more precise terms to use?

    For example, "structured freeform" is a term I picked up from JW. In my mind it means play using guidelines, structures for initiating play and ordering narration or interactions but is lacking resolution mechanics. Are there terms that address the different issues in live and written play?
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 12
    Another component is the question of whether procedures are consistent. You can have a very procedure-heavy play environment, but the procedures may always or often be improvised on the fly. The consistent thing is an attitude toward procedure: it is an unpleasant necessity to be avoided, and the particulars of HOW an output is created is less important than the fact that an output is created. Freeform tends to invoke procedural methods to break out of dead-ends (resolve blocking? provide prompts?)
    • CommentAuthorMike Holmes
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 13
    Hmm. I think that it really does make sense to categorize "Tabletop Freeform" from "LARP Freeform." That is, what the LARPers mean by Freeform is distinctly different than what tabletop players mean when they use the term freeform. They have similar meanings, sure. But each group connotes different things in the use of the term.

    To whit, "Freeform" in the LARP sense is pretty well defined. If there's no stark line, there's at least an intuitive notion of what a LARP Freeform is, given all of the games that use the term as a label for a certain style of play. As opposed to the tabletop (and online) community which uses it pretty vaguely, if at all, to mean "light" or "having no dice" or "having no mechanics in the system" or "play during which no mechanics are employed" or whatever.

    To be clear, my proposition is that the use of freeform as a notion makes the most sense to me as a useful term when it refers to mechanic-less play as I've defined it. Because this can be used alongside, or instead of "Light" or "diceless" etc, all of which already carve out the other distinctions well. So one would say, "Beyond just light or diceless, the game is freeform."

    Yeah, there will be grey areas, sure. And to that extent, saying, "This game is very freeform, with only one mechanic used in rare circumstances" might work. But I think that still indicates that freeform is the end of that spectrum that goes from freeform to "Zoggin lot's and lot's of mechanics and crunch."

    If looking for a useful definition is not what you're looking for Em', then let me ask... why is it you ask the question? If you can answer that, we can probably give you better answers. I mean we can discuss what people mean when they use the term, or a good definition to use with the term locally for better understanding, or... well what's your need?

    Mike
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 14
    I agree that "freeform" is a giant can of worms - monstrous. The stuff that's going on in yahoogroups and play-by-forum stuff A) numerically, totally overwhelms the entire tabletop hobby, B) goes in an absolutely different direction than the whole tabletop hobby, C) is typically highly problematic and as with all unstructured things, subject to running out of inertia quickly, and D) is almost completely unexamined by anyone.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatthijs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 15
    Posted By: Mike HolmesTo whit, "Freeform" in the LARP sense is pretty well defined.


    I'm not sure it is. I haven't heard the term being used much by the LARPers I know, and haven't seen it used much in the Knutepunkt books at all. I'm pretty sure there are major differences between British, American and Nordic LARP here.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 16
    Mike wrote:
    If looking for a useful definition is not what you're looking for Em', then let me ask... why is it you ask the question? If you can answer that, we can probably give you better answers.


    Good question. I think JD and Matthijs have answered it, in part. Although the term is used extensively, it's poorly defined, and continues to be used to refer to a broad spectrum of activities. I don't feel equipped to apply it to the online gaming--that is a huge area that needs attention. But live and table-top play are much closer to my experience, and likely we've got the knowledge among those participating here to get some clarity.

    The other part, for me, is that it's the area of design I'm interested in forwarding. Both by writing games using these techniques, and talking more about the ones people are already using. We've got a good body of theory about more formally structured games, and a great deal of analysis has been done about live play in the nordic scene. But it seems like we're still missing a systematic analysis of this part of it.

    We don't have to accomplish that in this thread, but getting more terminology and specifics might be a good start.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 17
    I play with a lot of people who all seem to have different ideas of what freeform is. I'm not sure. This comes up a lot:

    Dogs: "say yes or roll the dice"
    Freeform: "negotiate or if you want, use the rules"

    I'm not sure if a game is freeform or if how you play the game is freeform.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 18
    So, we're finding some terms and criteria here:

    Christian's use of drama for resolution - negotiating the fiction
    Mark's consistency - whether procedures are applied systematically, and in a repeatable way
    And I suggest guidelines vs. mechanics - using principles and narrative or description based general procedures rather than numeric and quantified step-by-step processes

    Mark W. wrote:
    Freeform tends to invoke procedural methods to break out of dead-ends (resolve blocking? provide prompts?)

    In my experience of live freeform, procedures and structures are used to guide play (via scene framing, re-incorporation or revision of interpretation of in game events through the introduction of new information).

    For tabletop play, I've found that guidelines are very helpful for scene framing and situation creation but are less commonly used but that often fortune or some other mechanic is used to break out of a deadlock or to minimize the effect of a conflict of interest (for example, I've flipped a coin at times when I was caught between trying to just know what my character would do, versus using out of game knowledge I had about what the consequences of a choice would be).

    Crossposted with John:
    Yes, is it the consistency that makes Dogs mechanical, vs a group playing freeform using the same rule?
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 19
    Boo-yeah, this thread is quickly becoming awesome. The three things you mentioned above, Em, are basically what I mean by "structured freeform":

    1. All Drama
    2. Guiding Structures But No Resolution
    3. Consistent Implementation of Those Structures

    I've been trying to talk about this for years and Story Games nails it in less than 4 hours :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 20
    Posted By: Emily CareYes, is it the consistency that makes Dogs mechanical, vs a group playing freeform using the same rule?


    I believe that is a large part of it.

    One of my former RPG groups was composed primarily of actors and improv fanatics. We played many games as written but would occasionally freeform aspects of certain games based on everyone's interests at any given time. Games where this was discouraged and the majority of what you do was systemized were often considered boardgame like by this specific group. Going along with this line of thinking...

    Dogs: "say yes or use the rules"
    Boardgame: "never say yes, always use the rules"
    Freeform: "negotiate or if you want, use the rules"
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 21
    John: was that fantastic or hugely irritating?

    Jon: yay! We win the internet.

    I think we need more specific examples. Like, John, in your playgroup what got improv'd/freeformed: Combat? Tasks?

    I remember making the break with mechanical resolution for magic in our Griffin's Aerie game. "So, rather than rolling the dice, tell me what it feels like when you do the spell, what is it you actually do? What does it look like?"
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 22
    I remember making the break with mechanical resolution for magic in our Griffin's Aerie game. "So, rather than rolling the dice, tell me what itfeelslike when you do the spell, what is it you actually do? What does it look like?"

    Yeah, and if I were designing a game like that, I'd create a series of guidelines for describing what a spell looked like, or (even better) guidelines for creating different sets of guidelines! So, like, players could create "Alapraxian Necromancy" by making a set of guidelines for how spells in that school were performed and how they would be described in play ("always involve a crystal knife," "involve the sacred numbers 2 & 6," "spells in the Alapraxian Wyrmtongue branch summon worms that feed on the dead," "the target of the spell is randomly chosen by the player sitting to the left of the caster," etc.). Consequently, everything would end up very ideosyncratic and self-reflective, like something Shreyas or Rebecca Borgstrom wrote, because it would use a consistent set of images, descriptors, and guidelines. Yay boardgame-style freeform :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatthijs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 23
    Posted this in the wrong thread - repeating it here:

    To me, freeform is part of what I called my hippie methods. Specifically, this: "No numbers. No resource management. Minimum amount of bothersome mechanics."
  24.  # 24
    Posted By: jenskotFreeform: "negotiate or if you want, use the rules"

    I'm not sure if a game is freeform or if how you play the game is freeform.


    The moment you use the rules, you're no longer freeform. And for my definition, if you are playing a game, it's not freeform.

    Freeform to me is when the players figure out where things go. I've done freeform where there was a GM and myself as the only player - a friend and I would play while walking laps in PE, or writing out events and passing a paper back and forth between (sometimes during) classes. These were our "You're an elf, you're naked, you're in the woods" games, because they always started that way.

    Negotiate or use the rules is only a variation of "Say yes or use the rules." So I'd go with this.

    Dogs: "Say yes, or roll the dice."
    Freeform: "Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate."

    Because in freeform, the only rules are in the setup. ("I'm the GM and control everything not your character, even the results of your actions" or "Let's tell a space opera story, each of us will 'own' a character" or "You're a tinker gnome, you're naked, you're in the woods")
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 25
    Posted By: Emily CareThe other part, for me, is that it's the area of design I'm interested in forwarding.


    You're assimilating everybody's input really well, and creating terms for the discussion, which is awesome. But I wonder, what does it mean to you? Rather, what about "freeform"-style gaming do you find appealing? Do the terms that are currently on the table clarify what you feel defines it?

    I ask because I think it is cool that you're interested in forwarding the area, but don't yet don't have a definition for what you want to forward. That's kind of freeform, in and of itself.
    • CommentAuthorptevis
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 26
    A not-totally self-serving question (I promise): Is A Penny For My Thoughts freeform? Based on what has been said here, I suspect some people will say yes, others no.
  27.  # 27
    Paul,

    I would say no. (However, and you should take this as a compliment, it broke my wall of my die hard and often vehement separation of RPG and improv acting/storytelling/freeform. It also helped me refine my notions beautifully.)

    It's completely freeform except that it has a single mechanic (well, based on the demo, which I presume illustrated it completely). The penny purchasing mechanic switches it from freeform to RPG.

    And that's it, in my book. One single mechanic takes it out of the realm of freeform. If instead you went around the table until you said "Oh, I like that" and players took turns asking their questions, then it would be freeform.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMerten
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 28
    Freeform is a loaded term, yeah, probably because a lot of people have claimed it for describing how they play, which might be different from how some other people claim their brand of freeform is played. Not unlike the term roleplaying, in general.

    I'd think that freeform could be about lack of structures (no pre-determined archs of drama, not set turn order) and lack of abstractions (no stats, no social combat. no resource mechanics, etc). The "negotiate, negotiate, negotiate" sounds like a good criteria; something happens, the outcome is decided by players through negotiation (either by just negotiating between themselves, or negotiating in fiction via their characters, and with or without GM input).

    The tricky thing with structures is that they usually are there, if hidden. There might be a basic plotline installed by the GM, or a whole lot of frontloading (characters, starting situtation) and where as the play itself is "freeform", there is some kind of guiding force. Freeform without some kind of structures is a kind of puzzling thought.

    (Incidentally, Emily, I'd consider Jeepform very much being non-freeform, because there's plenty of structures there.)

    Not sure about separating tabletop and live-action freeform from each other, either. What's the big difference? The act of negotiation is basically similar, even if in live-action it's quite often and only negotiation within the fiction, through the characters.
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 29
    Posted By: jenskotFreeform: "negotiate or if you want, use the rules"

    Posted By: Alvin Frewer
    Freeform: "Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate."


    Jenskot's is closer to what I think of as a freeform rpg play. The crux of the definition is that when you reach an impasse in negotiation, you go to the system. If not for that aspect, the freeform distinction would be much cleaner than it is turning out to be.
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 30
    I appreciate the idea of guidelines vs mechanics, and I haven't heard it talked about. "Rule" can be a pretty broad term.
  31.  # 31
    It's obvious that we're all bringing our own experiences into this.

    My introduction to what people then called freeform play was chat-based. No dice rollers, no official rules. You take on the nick of a character, make a send into a room, other people react to you, and there you go. Roleplaying without rules and mechanics. So there was no way to "go to the rules" if you came to an impasse.

    Of course, rules do develop. People usually claim complete ownership over their characters, meaning that if you make a send stating that you shoot at me, I determine if and how you hit me. But then comes the social maneuvering: if you don't get hit often enough, people call you names and stop playing with you. If you randomly attack people, you get put on ignore. And so on. But these social rules are in flux, never written down. People with a competitive edge in this environment where you can't directly hurt another character quickly figure out that you need to manipulate these social rules to your advantage, and that's how you "win" in the end. That often turns ugly.

    Anyway. Point is, there's freeform play without any mechanics and without consistent rules. That's my background in that regard, and that's why, when someone says "freeform," that's what I think of. I understand that that gives me a different perspective than people who started playing Ars Magicka and over time just stopped using the mechanics.
    • CommentAuthorFaerieloch
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 32
    For me, a big distinction is that in "freeform", it's never a question of whether you succeed, but how. Now, this also encompasses a whole whack of games like Polaris which have specific resolution mechanics, but the players come to a consensus on the outcome. This is not my only distinction, but the one that is foremost in my mind.

    --Nancy
    • CommentAuthorjdrakeh
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007 edited
     # 33
    Posted By: Mark WI think the true "freeform" in the sense the term is used most frequently is envisioned as having absolutely no overt, consistent, repeatable structure - it's all improv, all the time.


    That is largely how I envisioned it when penning Formless, despite said work containing a simple hierarchy of logic to resolve action.
  34.  # 34
    Posted By: jzn
    Posted By: jenskotFreeform: "negotiate or if you want, use the rules"

    Posted By: Alvin Frewer
    Freeform: "Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate."


    Jenskot's is closer to what I think of as a freeform rpg play. The crux of the definition is that when you reach an impasse in negotiation, you go to the system. If not for that aspect, the freeform distinction would be much cleaner than it is turning out to be.


    I hear you. But to me, if there's a system, it's not freeform. I think the real crux is - why doesn't negotiation work? I've played with friends where negotiation always worked, and there really was no system, not even a plan for one. I've played with strangers on IRC where there was no system, but negotation didn't work, so it was often a mess, except when I could find people who I could negotiate with.

    I think of it like freeform drawing or freeform dance. The only thing you have is the medium. A pencil on paper or moving to a certain piece of music. Freeform roleplaying is similar, in that all you have is the medium - dialog with the other participants. Like a lead or a follow in dance, you can have your roles (GM and players, player controlled characters, third person narratives, whatever), but the steps you take are all in the moment.

    And if you get to that "third stage" negotiation and no one can go "okay, I give" or turn it over to a player not in the dispute to decide, then you might have no choice but to stop playing freeform. Whether that's because you agree to disagree and stop playing, or because you add in a system to resolve the impasse.

    Not that it should be surprising. Going without rules only works under the right conditions. Unless everyone is on the same page, and can set aside egos to always say "yes, and" to the ideas of their fellow players (or trust them when they say "yes, but" or "no, but"), eventually, something undesirable will come up, and having a rule to avoid that is helpful.
  35.  # 35

    [Apologies if this post comes across as too offensive. I'm quite jetlagged and maybe not on my best side.]

    For me, free form is about being free to make up the rules/mechanics/guidelines (=form) that will help you tell the story at hand. Initially, I thought of freeform as rule-less roleplaying, but I quickly realised that it was (much) about eliminating dice rolls or other arbitrary resolution mechanisms that stood in the way of story telling (= not just simulating the outcome of what happens when five knights take on a mission.)

    As our stories grew up (we killed off the idea of the party, and that of the quest, and moved them to places we could relate to), resolution mechanics weren't needed anymore because that wasn't what the games were about. And if talking your friend out of jumping from the bridge requires dice roll, it isn't role-playing anymore. Story concensus decides. Which is done implicitly by all players and GM all the time.

    As we learned more fancy words, I think we (we being some Jeeps) realised that freeform had a lot to do with conveying a message or having a premise. And that freeform was about helping you get that across, or "protecting the premise". And free was about being free to use whatever (shady) methods you needed to do so. Tailor the form to the story. Make sure that the game's drama was the one you wanted.

    If a game is about how love is fickle, then it (can) make a lot of sense to roll dice for falling in and out of love. If a game is about how little time we have for ourselves in our daily lives, then a time token system (although I would personally have preferred a more organic approach, and an egg-timer) makes sense.

    I love the example of turning back to Rivendell because you didn't bring enough rope. 99 times out of 100 that sucks in a bad way. But there will be a game where this is the essence at some point, and then equipment lists and having to buy equipment for money is all going to make sense to me again. A game about how pointless figting is in roleplaying games should adopt the Role Master rules immediately to achieve the right meta-play effects.

    IMO, freeform games are far from rule-less although I think that they seldom use traditional table-top rules, like resolution systems, etc. Naturally there are obvious social conventions which are developed in every freeform community, but also game-specific rules. An implicitly understood game-specific rule from an old game is this:

    This scene is about being miserable; it is only okay to add good things to the game if they are immediately lost.

    Is Diplomacy freeform? Not necessarily, but I think it can be played as such. Any game, even Vampire, can be played freeform style if you start by throwing the books away and keeping only the stuff you've internalised that is not going to be an obstacle to your play. The game's form can greatly be supported by resolution mechanics if they add to what the game is about.

    I like what Mathijs said: "No numbers. No resource management. Minimum amount of bothersome mechanics." I'd like to add just as much numbers, resource management and mechanics as is needed to convey my message or keep the game focussed on the premise.

    Faerieloch said "that in 'freeform', it's never a question of whether you succeed, but how."

    I think that is true, but that should also be true for any good system in a roleplaying game (as opposed to task-resolving games or simulations). A lot of people have misread this as "in freeform, you always succeed", but it should really be read as, "things might not go as you like only when there is a good point (story-wise or meta-play-wise) for them not to. Then anything might happen."

    In my experience, Alvin Frewer is right that "the players figure out where things go", because that is the smoothest and most unobtrusive way of playing. Freeform is story-focussed, which encourages ignoring (traditional table-top) rules and other things that detract attention away from the story.

    The reason why I like to have a GM still is to make sure things are not too free to go wherever they want to go, but where the game at hand wants to go.

    Maybe I'm coloured by the fact that in Sweden, all role-playing experimentation was done in the freeform scene, and thus anything that is weird must be freeform :-) I don't know.

    Rougly: instead of free as in free of the shackles of simulation games (like D&D), I say free as in Indie or free as in do what's best for you.

    --Tobias

    •  
      CommentAuthorLxndr
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 36
    My definition of freeform is closest to Mike's I think: A lack of repeatable, mechanics is what defines "freeform play" for me. Once you have mechanics (which Mike also defines fairly well) that are used and re-used on a regular and consistent basis you start to have form.

    I can see "use of drama for resolution" as a substitute since "drama" resolution has rarely generated what I'd consider a mechanic (i.e. an algorithmic, repeatable process). Although the keywords of Polaris are a particular example of something that is mostly Drama resolution, and yet also mechanical in nature.
    • CommentAuthorRoger
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 37
    Hmmm. I can't shake the feeling that negotiation is System. That any form of conflict resolution is System, and, well, form.

    I guess I'd be inclined to say that 'freeform' is a synonym for 'conflictless.'

    Which is probably going to sound like a bad thing, what with decades of "CONFLICT CONFLICT CONFLICT" drummed into our heads, but I'm inclined to think it's not necessarily so.

    It also supports the idea that 'freeform' is more of a mode-of-play than a quality of any particular game system.

    "Say Yes" is all there is. If you're not Saying Yes, then you're not in freeform any more.

    I have the feeling I may be way out by myself in left field with this, though.



    Cheers,
    Roger
    • CommentAuthorFaerieloch
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 38
    I must agree with Roger in the sense that, if there's no conflict, there's no story. I think, even in "freeform" there needs to be conflict, a reason for the characters to be doing what they're doing. Otherwise you end up with Canner Row or The Grapes of Wrath where the characters all say "yes" to the storyline and are powerless to fight back. What makes a good story? The underdog fighting back in the face of all odds! Someone fighting to succeed in their dream and winning! Even though they can't possibly win, the Good Guys struggling to bring into being the world they envision! There needs to be conflict, in my mind, for a good story to take shape and therefore "freeform" in story games needs to have some way of resolving these conflicts (even if it's just the players discussing it back and forth with no written mechanics). So, yes, I agree that "freeform" is more a mode of play than the system itself.

    --Nancy
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2007
     # 39
    Faerieloch ( and everyone else)
    Is that adversity rather than conflict(in the context of this discussion)?

    Also, would it be at all useful to discuss other structured play without conflict resolution stemming from resource use or dice/randomizers? I mean, Greg Stolze's Executive Decision. Model UN, and other Commitee/Crisis Management type games get away without it and involve some minimal sort of roleplaying.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatthijs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 40
    Tobias, not much to add, but very cool post.
  41.  # 41
    I'll throw in another question. I've done plenty of freeform-ish roleplaying with occasional use of dice. In the sense that if something came up where we thought it useful to inject an element of randomness, we would roll percentiles, and the higher the result, the better things went (in some sense we'd discuss beforehand, if it wasn't obvious). Then we'd narrate the result, and carry on. Often we used a good deal of GM fiat, for speed and other reasons, but I don't think that was really necessary.

    Is this freeform? Or have we "broken" it by introducing a random element?
    • CommentAuthorRoger
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 42
    Posted By: FaerielochI must agree with Roger in the sense that, if there's no conflict, there's no story.


    Dang, I was afraid that might happen.

    What I was trying to say was "We've had 'conflict is story and story is conflict' drummed into our head for decades and decades, but I don't necessarily believe it to be so." Someone else has said this better than I can:

    "Modernist manuals of writing often conflate story with conflict. This reductionism reflects a culture that inflates aggression and competition while cultivating ignorance of other behavioral options."
    -- Ursula Le Guin, "Steering the Craft"


    I fear this might be dragging us away from the real thrust of this thread, so I'll probably spin it off as a separate one. On the other hand, it does have bearing on the subject of freeform gaming and what it might be, at least in my opinion.

    To clarify, as prompted by komradebob's excellent question, I'm trying to talk about 'conflict' in the sense of 'conflicting opinions between players as to what is happening or what should happen in the Shared Imagined Space' if that's not too jargony. I don't mean Bob the PC blowing away the nameless mook.

    With respect to freeform, I think it has to have a freedom from these conflicting opinions. As soon as there's a need to resolve any conflicting opinions, then you have System. I'm including negotiation in this. Heck, I'm inclined to think that even the really crunchy, mechanical, lots-of-dice-rolling systems are really just an extended form of negotiation.



    Cheers,
    Roger
    •  
      CommentAuthorLxndr
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 43
    Posted By: Dave HallettIs this freeform? Or have we "broken" it by introducing a random element?


    Having a random element does not, in and of itself, create a mechanic, which Mike defined very well earlier: "an algorithm by which certain input is put through a hard-coded process that produces certain end effects." If you're just gong "eh, we felt like introducing a random element" that's not making it less freeform, unless you've gotten to the point where you say "randomness exists HERE, and HERE are the results, etc. etc."

    There seems to be a weird argument out there floating around that freeform is somehow free of System. Where did this come from and why is it being discussed? It's not - it's simply free of mechanic. The definition in my head for freeform is System without mechanics. It's playing without a "net." Once you have mechanics - something to fall back on besides negotiation, you are not playing freeform anymore - you have yourself a net.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007 edited
     # 44
    Nothin' wrong with the Grapes of Wrath....

    Anyway, the idea that freeform is "conflictless" is not true by definition although it often is in practice. In theory, anyone can introduce a conflict, and anyone can negate it away or make it trivial. In practice, the fact that any conflict you introduce can simply be denied existence by other players makes it very rare.
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007 edited
     # 45
    Posted By: LxndrMy definition of freeform is closest to Mike's I think: A lack of repeatable, mechanics is what defines "freeform play" for me. Once you have mechanics (which Mike also defines fairly well) that are usedand re-usedon a regular and consistent basis you start to have form.


    In improv, one rule of thumb for reacting to the other players choices is to say "Yes, and...". Everyone does it constantly. Is that a repeatable, consistent mechanic?

    Posted By: FaerielochI must agree with Roger in the sense that, if there's no conflict, there's no story. I think, even in "freeform" there needs to be conflict, a reason for the characters to be doing what they're doing. Otherwise you end up withCanner RoworThe Grapes of Wrathwhere the characters all say "yes" to the storyline and are powerless to fight back.


    To clarify, when we talk about "saying yes" in a game, it is not about the characters saying yes to each other. It is about the players always saying yes to each other's ideas. In that context, there is plenty of room for conflict within the story.

    For instance, if a player has his guy say to my guy, "Stop looking at my girlfriend like that!", what he is suggesting is that my character is looking at his guy's girlfriend, and finds her attractive. That's the part I need to say "yes" to! I don't have to follow his character's instructions at all, just his suggestion. His suggestion is that I find her hot, and it becomes my job to reinforce that fact. So, a good "yes" choice for me in this case would actually be "my guy stares harder at his girlfriend and starts to drool".
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 46
    Bob: Adversity. Completely.

    Alexander wrote:
    The definition in my head for freeform is System without mechanics. It's playing without a "net." Once you have mechanics - something to fall back on besides negotiation, you are not playing freeform anymore - you have yourself a net.


    This nails it,in my book. Open and shut. This is "pure" freeform. Quite possibly only a hypothetical concept.

    So what we're looking at in other types of "freeform" is games where people have adopted types of rules that guide play but that aren't quite "mechanics". This encompasses drama as resolution, the asystematic system. Narrative online games often use the "your authority ends at my nose" guideline to moderate conflict. Adversity can be offered, but it must be accepted. This is an example of a freeform system where they do *not* use the "Always say yes". Any player gets to say "no" to harm to their character, but i believe, as Christian talked about in his freeform experience, there is strong social pressure put to bear. Social structure as system (pretty much sucks imo, but that's a different story). The stricture in jeep is "what happens, goes" (and yes, Jukka, jeep form is highly structured, there are very strong secure nets there).

    Then we have the consistency. Tobias and Dave Hallet talked about good reasons for including mechanics, to reinforce and emulate the experience the players were looking for in their story or themes of play, and to support story. (I've got a bone to pick with you Tobias, about mechanics neceesarily being bad for that, but for another time). In our Griffin's Aerie game, we did the same thing. When we faced down a dragon, we created special dragon dice rules that helped us provide our selves with meaningful adversity, while adding interesting complexity to the events: the dragon had poisonous breath and emotion warping effects. Along with straight up narration of the corruption and destruction it spread in its wake, we also used the dice to see who got hurt or emotionally effected by the proximity of the dragon to help us inflict damage that would help us make better story, without flinching at taking the hit on a character we played, or choosing via a contrived strategy.

    Then guidelines vs. mechanics. That's where the real continuum is, I think, that is of interest to me. What are the structures and guidelines that work? What have people done? What structures can be used across forms, what are most suited to one or the other? What are the unique concerns of live vs. tabletop? Do the tehcniques map, or must they be distinct? Why is it that you can use drama as a resolution system? And is that even true or are there other rules hidden in each application of that which we can find through observation?

    So, Jzn, there lies my agenda. We've really done a great job of nailing how to write mechanical games. We're at the point now where we can really start honing the craft and applying the lessons to make amazing structures. The theory bed is laid and the craft mastering can begin. But there is a whole world of other play that we haven't done that with yet. Freeform is a borderland between straight up mechanical (table top) play and others (live forms, online narrative play, improv). So, working here will help, I think, get clearer about what's happening in those forms. Make sense?
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 47
    Looks like we have concensus. :)
    • CommentAuthorjzn
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 48
    Nicely DMed!
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007 edited
     # 49
    Is it going to be very distracting from the main thrust of things if I ask:
    "Where does the fear/frustration I see regarding anything called freeform (however you define it) come from?"

    I mean, is it something about gamer culture specifically?

    (I've similar reactions in the wargaming community to high player input/low mechanics games as well.)

    Tangent #2:
    Is part of the key to freeform to change what players are told they're supposed to do?

    I could see where something as simple as saying:
    One object of play is to introduce something you suspect the other player(s) will find intereting that is related to the situation as described.

    You should also try to build on what other players have introduced, with the same objective.

    Always try to make whatever you introduce open-ended to allow the other players to build upon it more easily.
    • CommentAuthorcydmab
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2007
     # 50
    Maybe it's no conflict among the PLAYERS. The CHARACTERS can get involved in conflicts with other characters. So if conflict is essential to story, that's where the conflict comes from.

    For example, consider playing "by oneself" - sitting around writing a story, or telling an audience a story on the spot. Isn't this a kind of freeform? Then think of two storytellers, alternating paragraphs, taking whatever the last said as given. I'd say that's freeform too. It's a kind of harmony among the people telling the story.

1 to 50 of 50

  1.