Freeform Roach?

edited March 2006 in Story Games
Emily quoted this from the Roach on FairGame:
Dispense with the dice, Scenes, and conflict resolution rules. The players will be handling conflicts among themselves through role-play. The actual conflict is not nearly as important as what precedes and follows it, so feel free to hand-wave your way past fights, mass drownings, chair throwing and so forth.

Are you serious?



  • That's cool if you're up to trying it. Believe it or don't it could work.

    Me though, me I like the dice. I will swallow a bug for an extra d12.
  • edited March 2006
    I went over this with Thomas Munkholt and Olle Jonsson and they seemed to think it would work fine. It is entirely untested. Me, I love some dice too, but why not poke a few preconceptions?

    (Edit: added...)

    Oh, hey, just to be clear Per, there's all of a page in the back about this, right after the designer notes. It isn't emphasized or really encouraged, just included in a "wouldn't that be interesting" sort of way.
  • FWIW, I'm actually really curious about writing out guidlines for freeform Dogs. It would be tragic - I'm crying even now! - but I'm sure you could have a very good game that had a lot in common with Dogs without the actual mechanics / conflict resolution system.

  • Per, I quoted those words out of context partly for the shock value. Jason gives a lot of excellent guidelines for applying the Roach to freeform. It is a lot like a "scenario" as I understand them. Freeform actually works really well for things like this, but I was wanting to dig a little and get at why and how it can do so.

    Some hardcore freeformer friends of mine started playing standard Dogs a few weeks back. They had at one point at least talked about playing it without the conflict resolution, but I encouraged them to do it with them.

    It's been my experience that there are things that mechanics get you to do well & easily that are hard to arrange so in freeform. So if other folks know how to do it, I want to hear.
  • Thanks, Emily, I wasn't in fact as shocked as I sounded - I want to hear about good freeform as well.

    AND I still haven't got my Roach copy, so I just had to ask :)

  • We definitely need to post some Freeform actual play, so that those of us who haven't done it can see what it's like.
  • Fred, there are some links here to actual play, Jeepform style - see The Upgrade and the review of Fastaval...

    But you're right, I want to see some here.
  • Just a nomenclature question: Why is it called 'Jeepform'?
  • Because they are nordic freaks! It's a play on "freeform", and their particular group is called Vi Ã…ker Jeep.
  • edited March 2006
    And "Vi Ã…ker Jeep" means "We go by Jeep" in Swedish. You can check out the reason behind "Vi go by Jeep".

    The name "Jeepform" is used to avoid getting wrapped in discussions on whether something is freeform or not. From their dictionary:

    (Syn: Freeform.) Jeepform as we see it is a subset of freeform, used by The Jeep for "their" kind of freeform games. It is mostly distinguished from freeform in order for Jeepers to be able to say, "why, that is not Jeepform" about a freeform game without having to claim that whatever it was wasn't really freeform.
  • Emily Care:

    "It's been my experience that there are things that mechanics get you to do well & easily that are hard to arrange so in freeform."

    Snipped that and the keyword "scenario". It's a lot about putting the parameters and constraints to the scenario beforehand, whereas in game design you'd make them into some kind of formal rules. I'm not very familiar with Roach, but I'd think that, for example, situtations where roach commands a character would require some thought.

    To keep the scenario as focused as the game appears to be, you might have to script it a lot beforehand (pre-set situtations and characters, etc). Also, the winning/losing -aspect might pose problems.
Sign In or Register to comment.