Freeform, Diceless, "System" experiment-test 1.&qu

[Crackerjacker]

As has been said before, the preferred "system" for my preference of play is pretty much freeform. It's certainly not the gaming mainstream, but it can work, and is a "pure" form of storytelling roleplaying, in some senses. However, as a overworked mind I feel the need to try to define the undefinable, give some reason to the madness, some order to the chaos. So I work on things that cannot be called "system lite". Things with no stats, no mechanics per se, but still add some sort of order. I started this excercise with a favorite topic of mine, superheroes. Imagine a "diceless, freeform supers game" that works as followed-

Character Creation:
Create a character concept, and define it in 1-3 words (ex: God of Cities, Arcane Master of the Necrodain, ect.) "the", of", ect. don't count as one of the three.

State the powers, abilities, equipment, and bassically all capacities of your character, and discuss with you GM. This goes like "I want light powers, and I also have a motorcycle and know some kungfu". Then you have the task of listing what you can do/things you have. This is the most GM approval heavy part of the process. Remember, you don't need to limit what a character can do for balance with other characters and the NPC's, that comes later. This list should be like (-harmfull energy blasts of light, flying on lightbeams, custom motorcycle with turbo drive and machineguns, kungfu servant, ect.)

After you have a character concept, power statement, and list of the specific capabilities, next comes the Rating. The Rating is 1-5 stars, and will either be the same as the rest of the PC's start with, or be based on the "quality" of your character, the uniqueness/coolness of it's concept, and how you pull it off, determined by your GM.

Conflict Mechanics
In conflicts, be they fights, tests of skill, or what have you, the players will have to use their character's capacities (powers, gear, abilities, ect.) to good effect and solve these problems. Thats the focus on the gameplay, figuring out smart, creative, brave, and out of the box ways to solve the problems that are created by the NPC's, the GM as the god of the world controlling the environment per se, and even the other PC's. Good use problemsolving earns temporary increases in the characters rating. Big "victories" or problem resolutions through this problem solving earns increased longterm rating. The opposite is also true, by being uncharacteristically inneffectual, you can have your rating temporarily or even longterm decreased.

The rating is sort of a loose guide to "power level". This does not mean that a one star hero cant beat a five star villain in a fistfight, it just means he better have some kickass idea to get at least 2/3 more, temporary, rating stars to put him on the level to earn that victory. Remmber the focus is not the statistic, but using the statistic to push the players to use their characters in ways other than "I have strength+20, so I kill him".

and that is the begginings of an idea.

[Crackerjacker]

character example-

"Silver Bug"
*** (3 stars)
what can he do: the Silver Mobile, Silver Shell hq, Bugsuit, Silvergun, can walk/cling to walls, superagile

-armored two seater all terrain vehicle, capable of going on walls/ceilings
-underground hitech futuristic headquarters with nonviolent security systems and information monitoring computer node
-protective suit, sensory helmet that enhances sight/smell/sound
-acrobatics
-can cling/walk on walls

Action Example-

The Silver Bug has to defuse a bomb set under a manhole in the middle of the city, set by Prof.Sinestro. Silver Bug is a three star hero, whereas Prof.Sinestro is a fullblown five star villain. However the Bug doesnt just climb up the wall of the sewer and try to defuse the bomb, he drives the Silver Mobile through the sewer (vary hazardous), manages to dodge various obstacles and pull it off, tries to snatch the bomb as he's going and throw it down into a deep sewage well. Very creative, very ambitious, and even though from the Bug's player's inability to properly explain how he bests some of the inherit difficulties within realism, and the Bug fails to pull this off, the GM thinks this was heroic enough to grant the Bug a temporary two more stars to try to defuse the bomb in it's last two seconds.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. Somebody brought a system like this to me not too long ago.

I have serious doubts about such a system. The only real rule is that the GM says if some narration is good enough to merit success in the character endeavor. Why have the stars and such? Why not just have the GM make this decision each time based on it's individual merits?

What I'm getting at is that the system doesn't seem to do what I think most of us who are into mechanical systems do - provide constraint to enhance imagination. So, sans that, why not just go completely freeform, and skip this step that will slow you down?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Crackerjacker,

In your previous thread, I suggested that you check out Pace, by Fred Hicks, but I don't know whether you followed up on that. You can find the game at the Evil Hat Productions website. Individual actions are handled through "just saying," but one trades off degrees of success and failure for the future in doing so. It is surprisingly powerful in producing familiar, enjoyable adventure. Some discussion about it includes:

24 Hour Games: nine games open for critique
Pace: playtest experiences
[Pace] Some actual play

I think you'll find it to be an interesting read, especially since my playtest thread (the last one above) concerned a fairly light, fast, and fun superhero adventure.

Best,
Ron