Freeform and Fortune?

[Frank T]

Has anybody ever used Fortune (as in: rolling dice somewhere along IIEE) in freeform gaming? Would that even be freeform any more?

Here is the related story: Two friends of mine designed a generic system which was basically just that. No stats at all were used, you would just describe your character and his actions, and in a given situation where success and failure hung in the balance, the GM would determine the dice to roll based on how challenging the situation was. After rolling the dice, the GM would interpret the outcome.

So, none of the character's competence and state or the task's difficulty would be measured in abstract numbers. You would just say: "How hard is it for your character, here and now, to do this?"

I played it once with them and found it brilliant. Unfortunately, in their following sessions, they got into trouble because one of them thought the GM's role was too dominant and the other feared the players stealing control from him over "his story" and "his world". Their efforts to compensate this through the rules ruined the concept. The conflict was fed by them disagreeing on the style and flair of the game. I think without this disagreement it could have worked very well.

Has anybody else tried something similar? How did it work?

To illustrate, one example of system in action. Few occurred during the session, most of the time we just described what happened, with quite a classic distribution of narration between players and GM. Then my character, a trained knight, got circled by three cut-throats in an alley. They pulled knives on him.

Me: "I step toward the closest one, grab his wrist and bend it, then kick him in the stomach."
GM: "Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he's got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me."
We roll, I roll significantly higher.
GM: "Right, your maneuver works, he loses his knife and clutches his stomach, groaning. The other two stare in surprise for a moment."
Me: "I step backwards to the wall and draw my sword, daring them to attack."
GM: "They take to their heels."

- Frank

[Sydney Freedberg]

Interesting.

You would just say: "How hard is it for your character, here and now, to do this?"

This sounds a lot like a "Matrix Game" -- there's a fair number of posts on this around, especially in RPG theory (look for posts by "MatrixGamer" in particular).

Me: "I step toward the closest one, grab his wrist and bend it, then kick him in the stomach."
GM: "Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he's got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me."
We roll, I roll significantly higher.
GM: "Right, your maneuver works, he loses his knife and clutches his stomach, groaning. The other two stare in surprise for a moment."
Me: "I step backwards to the wall and draw my sword, daring them to attack."
GM: "They take to their heels."

This is a neat little example of the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution, actually. See what happens? The GM has you roll for the specific action and its immediate but really pretty temporary and small-scale consequences; but the really important thing -- that you come out of the fight uninjured but they get away -- is pure GM fiat.

[Adam Dray]

In my Verge rpg, risk is always chosen by the player group. The player has X dice from his relevant trait then he gives the GM Y dice to roll against him. Other players will have some limited ability to give the GM a few more dice but the rule as written is in flux.

[Frank T]

Right, I'll keep my eyes open for Matrix Games, now that I know they have nothing to do with Keanu Reaves in bullet time. ;-)

As for the difference between conflict and task resolution, Sidney, you are surely right that this was task resolution. I'm not sure if I grab the meaning of the word "fiat" correctly, though. To be sure: in this particular game, the GM would not pre-determine the outcome of a conflict. So the task resolution would influence the outcome significantly, only in a different way than conflict resolution would.

- Frank

[Sydney Freedberg]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting the GM predetermined the outcome before you had your input (though I suppose it's possible). By "fiat" I simply mean that the GM just decides without any kind of rules, mechanics, consultation, whatever -- whereas with the "I grab his wrist" etc. the GM actually rolled dice.

[Larry L.]

GM: "Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he's got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me."

There's something strangely appealing about this dice mechanic. It's almost exactly the same as Matrix Games, but for some reason "the GM doles out the funny dice" seems more engaging than "the GM sets a difficulty level."

I'm getting increasingly sold on designs that hinge on "props," or whatever the going terminology is. There's just something... fun about pushing otherwise abstract interaction into the tangible realm.

[Lee Short]

Yeah, I've gamed almost exactly like this.  When it works, it works stunningly.  It's the getting it to work part that is difficult.  The biggest problem is that there is massive potential for assumption clash, and there's no common framework of any kind on which to base a consensus.  By assumption clash, I mean differing assumptions about what is plausible.  

Using step-by-step task resolution rather than conflict resolution will often result in lesser apparent assumption clash, because breaking the conflict down into steps allows disagreements to be voiced along way.  But the assumption clash is actually just as bad, because the implicit assumptions behind the framing of the resolution are where the really big assumption differences hide.  

By contrast, the game you are describing fell apart not because of differing assumptions about game-world plausibility, but for real-world control issues.

[TonyLB]

Actually, I should point out that there's nothing inherently "Freeform" about the idea of players deciding their own difficulty.  It just means that competence to perform a task is not a resource that needs to be carefully monitored.

Which may mean that it doesn't matter (in My Life with Master, for instance, you really can't avoid the core problems of the game by being smarter, faster, more skilled) or it may mean that any numeric choice is a balanced strategic decision with pros and cons.  For that latter, I'll recommend a look at my baby-steps development on Misery Bubblegum which has exactly this sort of "Decide how hard it is" system, but which places serious emphasis on whether and how you succeed, and what it costs you (and those around you) to do so.

So if you're rephrasing in your own words the realization "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" then I'm right there with you.  Cool, isn't it?

[Frank T]

Hi everybody and thanks for the replies!

Tony, it's not that much, "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" It's rather, "Hey, to address the question whether my character can climb the slippery wall, a game doesn't need stats and difficulty levels." What I loved about this particular game was that it was very straight task resolution and exploration. It was Sim without stats. Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

Lee, I absolutely agree on the assumptions part. I think with the two guys I mentioned, the reason for the clash of real-world control issues was really a clash of assumptions about game-world plausibility. One of them would normally GM, and he would force his vision of the game world on the players. Had the players shared this vision, the control issue would never have become a problem. I would love to hear more about the gaming you mentioned. What exact rules do you use?

- Frank

[xenopulse]

Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

Absolutely. Arguably, the best Simulation will not have highly detailed mechanics, but rather be decided by the players researching the subject, discussing the probabilities, and making a simple roll for those things that are not directly causally calculable.

[Rob Carriere]

Has anybody else tried something similar? How did it work?

I ran a game for about 3 years (roughly 150 hours of play) that worked mostly like that.

Strictly speaking, we did have a rule on the books: "when we have a gadget-detail question (`how long do the batteries in a tricorder last') we look up the nearest equivalent gadget in GURPS Ultratech, and whatever that says is the answer". Read: nobody was interested in discussing battery-life and such.

For the rest, it was pretty much GM-fiat with the occasional d100 roll, the chance of success again set by GM-fiat.

For the most part, it worked well; the game was popular with the players. In fact, I think I was probably the least satisfied participant. When everything works by GM-fiat, that makes the GM responsible for making everything work. Now, I knew that going in; the game was, among other things, an experiment to find out what I wanted from RPG rules by seeing where in the game I missed formal rules.

SR
--

[Lee Short]

Hi everybody and thanks for the replies!

Tony, it's not that much, "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" It's rather, "Hey, to address the question whether my character can climb the slippery wall, a game doesn't need stats and difficulty levels." What I loved about this particular game was that it was very straight task resolution and exploration.

I think this is a very good description of my game (and probably your friends' game) -- but I think such a freeform system could be used much as Tony envisions it.  

Lee, I absolutely agree on the assumptions part. I think with the two guys I mentioned, the reason for the clash of real-world control issues was really a clash of assumptions about game-world plausibility. One of them would normally GM, and he would force his vision of the game world on the players. Had the players shared this vision, the control issue would never have become a problem. I would love to hear more about the gaming you mentioned. What exact rules do you use?

First, let me say that, It's been a very long time (~15 years) since I have done this.  I would like to do it again, but I haven't found another set of players that I thought would make it work.  I played 2 shortish (6 months to a year) campaigns this way.  One had 3 players, one had only one player.  

Rules:  First, the player described the action his character attempted.  Then I as GM would tell the player the character's estimation of his chance of success, as a percentage.  Usually this number was accepted, but there were times that the player objected and we discussed it.  Often when that happened, the final chance of success was different than the original number I put forth.  Once the player accepted this number, he committed his character to the action and I would announce any modifiers to the difficulty based on unknown conditions.  These, too, could be discussed but very rarely were.  Then the player rolled percentile dice to see if he succeeded.  (Note:  if I did this again, I would use FUDGE dice...but they weren't around yet when I played these games).  

The resolution did not necessarily end there, though.  Extended actions were resolved with a single die roll.  As an extended action was played through, character choices could effect the chance of success -- ie, by choosing the more difficult way to do something, the chance of success would be adjusted downward.  This made it imperative for the GM to decide the base chance of success assuming that the character chose the best way to do something (keeping this in mind was somewhat of a pitfall).  

This "one roll per extended action" rule included combats -- the extended action was deemed to be over when the originally stated target was out of combat, then another roll was made.  

Character sheets:  these were mostly prose descriptions, but I did ask for skills to be laid out in a specific format.  Each skill was to be rated as either "Nth percentile" or "One of the best ___ in the ___".  This latter format was to be filled out like "One of the 4 best in the county."  "Skills" were typically very broad, almost like HeroQuest keywords.  Of course, most characters also had a few narrow skills, too.  

In terms of player empowerment, the players were empowered to make up background setting material and NPCs and frame scenes.  As GM, I laid down guidelines as to what was acceptable in the setting and the players generally did their best to stay within the guidelines.  The real problems came about over differing interpretations of what "gritty" or "low magic level" meant in practice.  Fortunately, I had played with the players for years, so we had a good backing to work from.  I have shied away from playing like this again, because I don't think I've had a playing group with enough common background to avoid these problems.  I certainly know that I've played with some other groups where we discussed our game vision and said things like "gritty" or "low magic" and we very clearly meant different things.  

Lee

[Mike Holmes]

My friend Ben called this his 2d6 system. First session good. Second session bad - all my fault when I wanted to play this ubercool demon character who could throw tables around, and it didn't fit in with the other's expectatins. That seems like a theme, no?

I'd call all these systems something like "near freeform."

The question, to me, is why not simply take that last step to complete freeform? At the point that the abstraction is at the level of roll one die vs roll another die, why not just select the outcome instead of the dice? What are the dice providing at this point?

I wouldn't be surprised to see that all of these systems are the result of RPG gamers going towards freeform, and not freeformers coming in towards TT RPGing. What I think I'm seeing is that the people playing this way are clinging to the last vestiges of the idea that they need an arbitrary system in order for play to be "fair" somehow. Or that, sans a rating system (no matter how abstract) and a system to compare it to, that no in-game understanding can be achieved.

Belied by all the functional freeform play, of course.

I think that these systems tend to end up in dysfunction because at some point somebody tests the "hardness" or "fairness" principles that the pseudo-system is supposed to provide, and that throws everything out of whack. I think that in most cases these games would be better off without the mechanics.

Which is not to say that something like this couldn't be functional. If people all understood that, like in narrativism games, the fortune functioned as solely an "imaginative springboard," then I think you'd just be playing nigh freeform with a little bit of divination thrown in. Which could work. But as a system like most TT have to regiment play, I think they're so light as to fail miserably. Basically simply not enough structure to maintain play for, well, more than a session or so.

Mike

[Lee Short]

My friend Ben called this his 2d6 system. First session good. Second session bad - all my fault when I wanted to play this ubercool demon character who could throw tables around, and it didn't fit in with the other's expectatins. That seems like a theme, no?

This certainly is a clash of assumptions and expectations, but at more of a metagame level.  Your difference appears to have been more in the answer to 'what game are we playing?' than in the answer to 'what would happen in this situation?'  

I think simmy mechanical systems largely reduce assumption clash on a large scale between the players by trading it in for continual low-scale assumption clash between each player and the rules. But the former is a game-breaker, and the latter rarely is.  

Anyway, IME, true freeform gaming is just as prone to assumption clash as these games were...no more, no less.  The difference is that freeform players tend to have the expectation of talking through assumption clash, while near-freeform players may not have that same expectation.  But there's still plenty of assumption clash in completely freeform games, IME.  It's often dealt with better socially.  

I'd call all these systems something like "near freeform."

The question, to me, is why not simply take that last step to complete freeform? At the point that the abstraction is at the level of roll one die vs roll another die, why not just select the outcome instead of the dice? What are the dice providing at this point?

I wouldn't be surprised to see that all of these systems are the result of RPG gamers going towards freeform, and not freeformers coming in towards TT RPGing. What I think I'm seeing is that the people playing this way are clinging to the last vestiges of the idea that they need an arbitrary system in order for play to be "fair" somehow. Or that, sans a rating system (no matter how abstract) and a system to compare it to, that no in-game understanding can be achieved.

I agree with much but not all of this.  I have played a lot of Amber (ADRP), which is pretty thoroughly freeform in practice (at least, among most of the players I know).  Frankly, it did't really feel a lot different to me from those old games of mine...but I think that's largely an artifact of that specific play group and our social contract.  I certainly see how some members of that group were using the dice in the manner you mention, or perhaps simply out of inertia...and I'm not sure I could have run those games successfully without the dice.  

I think I would see the same problem in reverse if I took a batch of Amber players and tried to run them through a game like this...some of them would object that the game is heavily biased by GM whim, when the potential for bias in freeform is just as strong.  I think it's all just a matter of what the players are comfortable with.  

Belied by all the functional freeform play, of course.

I think that these systems tend to end up in dysfunction because at some point somebody tests the "hardness" or "fairness" principles that the pseudo-system is supposed to provide, and that throws everything out of whack. I think that in most cases these games would be better off without the mechanics.

Which is not to say that something like this couldn't be functional. If people all understood that, like in narrativism games, the fortune functioned as solely an "imaginative springboard," then I think you'd just be playing nigh freeform with a little bit of divination thrown in. Which could work. But as a system like most TT have to regiment play, I think they're so light as to fail miserably. Basically simply not enough structure to maintain play for, well, more than a session or so.

Mike

I agree completely, and I think the difference between the two approaches you mention is   a matter of how you approach the rules.  I actually have a hard time envisioning them being used to enforce fairness, because it just seems so obvious that the "system" is totally subjective -- just as subjective as true freeform.

[Silmenume]

Hey Frank,

I know that I am coming to this party late, as I have been extremely busy with life and working on a specific post, but my answer to your question is basically – "Yes."  I would say that just about everything outside of combat proper is pretty much entirely outside the realm of abstracted numbers, tables and equations.  I should note that in our incarnation of this technique (style?) of play that while we do have attributes and skills numbers they are rarely referenced directly and are mostly just symbols than anything functional.  To give you an example I'll quote one player in our game, "Stats are the currency by which we purchase our fantasies."  IOW the numbers are not so important as an element of system and resolution mechanics as much as they are a rude or coarse reference point by which we hang our Character on.  There are no tables to match the stats to.  18 high percentage is nearing human maximum strength – whatever that means! – and an 11 is the midpoint in the bell curve of humanity – whatever that means!  What matters to us is - is my Character "really strong," strong enough (or so enfeebled) that he stands out in some important way or so normal as to not really be worth noting in any particular fashion.

All sorts of situational "modifiers" are taken into consideration by the GM as well as the players' own skills.  IOW if the player is particularly clever, like your knight in your example, then said player is given "bonuses" to his die roll – or just flat out succeeds.  Again all this is handled in such a fashion that numbers really aren't "called for."  The GM will typically just say, "roll," (which unless stated otherwise means roll a d20) and high is always better and low is always worse.  If the situation is exceptionally difficult in some way the GM will notify the player through a number of techniques usually verbal occasionally numerical.  By that I mean if the situation is dire the GM will say something like, "This is really risky, are you sure you want to do that," or "That's really gutsy, but if you pull it off...," or "You had best get hot..."  Occasionally he'll say, "Don't roll a '1'," or "You need an 18, 19 or 20," or "Don't talk to me unless you roll a 20!"  However, in all of this no tables are referenced no stats are called forth no equations are applied, just different methods of conveying information.  I should note that in the examples where numbers are cited they are actually stock phrases that have their own bricoled meaning.  IOW its not the numerical value that's important or what is being focused on but rather what that number "means."

Which brings me to –

There's just something... fun about pushing otherwise abstract interaction into the tangible realm.

This is the mythic thought process exactly!!!  This is also referred to by Levi Strauss as, "Science of the Concrete."  Chris Lehrich talks about this a lot in his article Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games and in these following threads - Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!], On RPGs and Text [Long] and Bricolage APPLIED (finally!).  (This is the thesis that I have been struggling with – which is that the "priority" of Sim is just this very process.)

It was Sim without stats. Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

I don't know if this technique is more "realistic" (that term being a "tar baby") but I fully agree with you that it certainly "feels" more natural and fluid and certainly goes much further, in my mind, in maintaining the continuity of the Dream than having to constantly cross in and out of the "meta-game/SIS" boundary to "discuss" mechanical matters and/or reference books/tables/etc.  Exactness does not matter, what matters is that the result fits within the norm of expectation of that fictional world or when it doesn't, that it can be accounted for by the players.  This is extremely important to Sim!  This process of rationalizing the unusual within the SIS is the process by which the Dream is strengthened and subsequently made more real/intense!  (If I recall correctly I think that Chris', "Shadows in the Fog," does not use numerical stats much, if at all, either.)

The key here is understanding that while it may seem "freeform" because of the apparent lack of rules/mechanics there is actually this enormous structure of intersecting structures of relations (the "myth") that are held within the heads of all the players present that is constantly being employed and updated (the "System" in Forge terminology).  Having just glanced at "Bricolage APPLIED (finally!)" again, I can't stress strongly enough the need to read and digest it while keeping your initial question in mind.  As far as the ability of such play to last, the game I am playing in that I referenced above has been functioning (powerfully) for over 20 years!

However, given the nature of the medium, Exploration, I do not think that the process can ever go completely "freeform"/Drama resolution.  Why?  Because "real" mythic thought processes do rely on the concrete physical world - as Exploration is a process of shared imaginings, the existence of at least some form of mechanics does help substitute for the lack of a concrete/tangible "objective" reality.

As it is late here, I hope this helps rather than hinders!