The Forge Archives

This thread is born out of the "No rules, no nothing" rpg? thread

Quote from: Mike HolmesNobody should be denigrating Freeform here, IMO. It's just not the tabletop stuff we're (or at least I am) mostly used to. If people want to play without rules, that's fine. It's just not difficult to define the "rules" for a rules-free game. Check outr Jack's link KW, and you'll see what I mean.

While there are a jillion ways to skin an RPG cat, there's only really one way to do freeform. Most freeforms have less structure than one-page RPGs (no resolution system or character enumeration, for example), and are in an entirely other category, IMO. Not sure I want to get into that again.

Of course that's from a tabletopper's POV. The subtle differences in freeforms are probably very important to freeformers. Things like what sort of language can be used in the game, and whether you canj affect other player's characters even indirectly. Whatever. It's just that relative to tabletop, it all seems to be the same stuff. And it certainly takes less effort to design.

"OK, everyone be nice, and post about once a week" - could be the entire "rules" for Mike's Freeform RPG. Check out the real games. They aren't much more complex.

This is an important point, Mike. From the mountains, the seas look pretty much the same.

What bothers me is the last comment you've made and other have made about freeform. It strikes me as very similar to what some had said of Narrativism over the years or what people are still saying about GNS and similar such things.

Personally, I'd like to understand it better and see what it has to offer. ANyone else with me on this?

I'd like to understand it better too, Jack. Unfortunately I think that our knowledge base is pretty slim here. OTOH, for the same reason that I say that Freeforms are easy to create, I think that "experts" on Freeform are few and far between.

OTOH, I may be just as mistaken about that. If anyone does have extensice experience, please speak up. Lance? You have some practical experience, no? Speak up.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesI'd like to understand it better too, Jack. Unfortunately I think that our knowledge base is pretty slim here. OTOH, for the same reason that I say that Freeforms are easy to create, I think that "experts" on Freeform are few and far between.

I've been involved with a couple of fairly extensive freeform games over the internet. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but here's my opinion. :)

Freeform games are sort of a pure distillation of the essence of RPGs. A freeform game pretty much boils down to a social contract that details who can decide what.

They're utterly deterministic (no fortune) - everything that happens is a direct result of a decision made by one of the players. I think that saying "all freeforms are alike" is a bit of a misstatement. All freeforms are alike only in that all social contracts are alike: they outline the rights and responsibilities of the participants. Freeform games can run the course from complete GM-less collaboration to GM storytelling where the players pretty much sit back and listen.

Without a good social contract, some nasty problems can happen. Here's an experience that I had in an online group called TEUNC. TEUNC (Tolkien Eccentruc Unusual Nutcases) is not actually a role-playing group... exactly. It's a bunch of people who met on the tolkien newsgroups and started having a bunch of fun. Some of the regulars on the newsgroups complained, though, because we were very OT. (Much more so than your regularly scheduled Balrog Wings flamewar, for example. ;) So we moved to (at that time) OneList. Now, while this group wasn't strictly devoted to role-playing, a lot of impromptu role-playing went on there, completely spontaneously, off the cuff, in addition to the other more mundane discussions of Star Wars movies, Tolkien, politics, morality, etc. :)

For the most part, everyone got along fine and had a lot of fun - until this one guy. This guy (Lord Adam) was a sort of powergamer's powergamer in that he had a need to dominate. A typical posting sequence would go like this:

A: Lord Adam makes a post with role-playing content
B: Someone responds to Lord Adam's post
C: Lord Adam explains how post B never happened because the poster didn't follow the rules that Lord Adam stated or implied in post A.

After a while, this got really boring and irritating, and resulted in a lot of people just dropping the role-playing stuff.

So, some time passed, and many changes took place in the group. But a lot of the oldtimers were still there, and we still wanted to role-play. A lot of ideas got thrown around, and finally we started TURPS, a sister group. Originaly it was run by a triumvirate of GMs, myself, and two guys from the list with RPG experience. This was run as an actual RPG (with formal IC and OOC statements), but with no actual system being used. (I actually wrote a system for it, but we ended up only using the character generation to create templates that just give general ideas of the characters.) The difference this time is that one of the GMs, Matt (who is now the only GM running the show) knew what he was doing and created a social contract. That group is still going, and the story archive is now over 50,000 words. That's a pretty impressive track record for a couple of paragraphs of preventive medicine. (Note that Matt is a great guy, and the reason I left the group was one of time and RL load, not anything personal at all.)

So, my experiences have taught me this about freeform:

Without a clear declaration of who gets to do what, freeform gaming will likely fail. It's possibley that conflicts of interest will never occur (if participants share goals) but we know from studying GNS how likely that is. :)

With a social contract, freeform gaming can be very enjoyable, and can be perfectly teneable for long campaigns (which is an argument naysayers often fling at it: "My D&D campaign ran for years! How many freeform games have you seen do that?").

Quote from: PaganiniFreeform games are sort of a pure distillation of the essence of RPGs. A freeform game pretty much boils down to a social contract that details who can decide what.

This POV may be why I'm so attracted to it, but reading it now, calling it "pure distillation" sound, I don't know-- kind of out there? Maybe a little too close to roll-playing/role-playing, you know?

QuoteFor the most part, everyone got along fine and had a lot of fun - until this one guy. This guy (Lord Adam) was a sort of powergamer's powergamer in that he had a need to dominate. A typical posting sequence would go like this:

A: Lord Adam makes a post with role-playing content
B: Someone responds to Lord Adam's post
C: Lord Adam explains how post B never happened because the poster didn't follow the rules that Lord Adam stated or implied in post A.

After a while, this got really boring and irritating, and resulted in a lot of people just dropping the role-playing stuff.

This can happen even in traditional RPGs. Part of it, I have no doubt, in this case was because this was an internet game. Were this a tabletop RPG, Lord Adam may not have sat down. And if he did, the others would have boted him out fast.

QuoteWithout a clear declaration of who gets to do what, freeform gaming will likely fail. It's possibley that conflicts of interest will never occur (if participants share goals) but we know from studying GNS how likely that is. :)

Much like any other RPG :)

QuoteWith a social contract, freeform gaming can be very enjoyable, and can be perfectly teneable for long campaigns (which is an argument naysayers often fling at it: "My D&D campaign ran for years! How many freeform games have you seen do that?").

So, basically what you're saying is that freeform RPGs, in spite of the name, does have and require structure to run. This structure is mostly just the social contract which all RPGs have or should have.

Since the social contract is no longer an underlying structure but the only structure, many things typically dealt with are left out. Stuff like damage list for weapons, but even more stuff than just that.

This is like that James Ernest article I posted a link to a while ago. Freeform chips away at a bunch more marble to make the horse.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr

Quote from: PaganiniFreeform games are sort of a pure distillation of the essence of RPGs. A freeform game pretty much boils down to a social contract that details who can decide what.

This POV may be why I'm so attracted to it, but reading it now, calling it "pure distillation" sound, I don't know-- kind of out there? Maybe a little too close to roll-playing/role-playing, you know?

When you put it that way, I see what you're saying, but that's not exactly what I meant. By "pure distillation" I didn't mean to imply that freeforms are the ultimate RPGs. I meant that they're literally distilled - more like RPGs that have been run through a filter. Every non-essential element has been removed, regardless of whether or not such elements might be useful.

Quote
This can happen even in traditional RPGs. Part of it, I have no doubt, in this case was because this was an internet game. Were this a tabletop RPG, Lord Adam may not have sat down. And if he did, the others would have boted him out fast.

Hehehe.... no doubt. :)

QuoteWithout a clear declaration of who gets to do what, freeform gaming will likely fail. It's possibley that conflicts of interest will never occur (if participants share goals) but we know from studying GNS how likely that is. :)

Much like any other RPG :)

Indeed, but I think that it's much more obvious with freeforms, because all of the trappings you find associated with most RPGs have been removed. The social contract is all that's left, and it gets the spotlight. If it fails, it's obvious.

QuoteSo, basically what you're saying is that freeform RPGs, in spite of the name, does have and require structure to run. This structure is mostly just the social contract which all RPGs have or should have.

Exactly. The problem wiht many freeforms is that they think they really are freeform, and make no attempt to detail a social contract. The social contract mus be inferred from the text of the game, or made up on the fly during play. It's similar to what Ron said about one-page game systems; if the system isn't complete, then the participants have to design it on the fly.

Quote
Since the social contract is no longer an underlying structure but the only structure, many things typically dealt with are left out. Stuff like damage list for weapons, but even more stuff than just that.

Yup.

Quote
This is like that James Ernest article I posted a link to a while ago. Freeform chips away at a bunch more marble to make the horse.

Exactly, yeah.

One of my big questions about freeform gaming:
 When a game session starts out as D&D or Champions and then the gm and players agree to stop using the rules and "freeform" instead, is that  considered freeforming?
 Or is "not using dice or looking up rules" considered a house rule?

Hi, Kenway

I wouldn't consider it a house rule. Mostly because if playing D&D without using any of the rules could be considered a house rule, then by exstention every RPG out there is just a house rule of D&D. You see, D&D came first, the systems that came out shortly thereafter were variants or blatant rip-offs of D&D. Chaosium's Basic Role Playing rules used in Runequest started as a set of house rules. Following games were built upon this foundation so that nearly every RPG on the market is just a variant of what has gone before. I'll bet we could trace a lineage for games like Sorcerer directly to D&D is we tried. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

But I don't think Sorcerer is just a D&D variant, no matter how removed. SO dropping the system when playing is not just house rules. I doubt it's something entirely new, either. This is the same problem with 1p. RPGs. If you're playing D&D and you drop the rules, then what are you doing? Something replaces the rules. Exactly what will vary.

In any case, this system dropping is a phenomenom unique and somewhat separate from just plain freeform and we should treat it as such.

Most importantly, dropping the system is an extreme example of drift. You are definitely playing the game now in a manner which the text does not imply. Even if you start with just the chargen, and then go from there without rules. That's just a big rule dropping drift.

If you were to not even use the chargen, then I'm not sure how it could be said that you are using the system at all, except perhaps as inspiration? Remember setting is not system. If you are just using the setting, and not the system at all, then you are just "playing the setting" but not the RPG in any meaningful way. At that point you are probably playing a Freeform that uses the setting.

This is as opposed to Freeform where there are no resolution of chargen rules in the "design" of he game, and play is not drifted at all. That demarcates the two activities pretty well.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesIf anyone does have extensice experience, please speak up. Lance? You have some practical experience, no? Speak up.

::sounding as if from far away:: Someone summons me? I come, I come...


Ahem. I won't say that I have the most extensive experience with freeforming, but I think I'm definitely in the running for that title. I suppose that FFRP is really my greatest area of expertise, from the "Talking Games" I did before I'd ever seen a single gaming die to the Online FFRP I indulge in occasionally even now, when I can find the time.

The way I see it, there are essentially two types of FFRPGs. One is what I'll dub, for lack of a better term, as "True Freeform", which is essentially what we have in the AOL RP forums. Therein, Social Contract is either all-important, or the game suffers. The Social Contract from AOL could be summed up as "Necto Gamut" (Any The Fifth Element fans should get that one..) or in other words, Not Without My Permission. You may declare your actions as nearly anything, so long as it does not directly effect another player's character without their permission. In really extreme cases, this can mean that you can't even hand them a drink directly, but can only "attempt" to, leaving it up to them whether or not they actually receive the drink. Most cases aren't this extreme, and your average RPer won't balk at "called actions" that do not adversely affect their character.

Also, in what I'd call the "Advanced Roleplaying Forums" there is a lot of additional emphasis in the forum's individual Social Contract on playing fair, and creating a "good scene". This means that you "take your hits" (ie, if it's realistic for something to happen to your character, you should allow it, including taking hits in a fight) and sometimes work from Author stance to make the scene better and more interesting. "Taking your hits" is a given, but using Author stance in an improvised scene often relies on intercommunication between the participants (OOC conversation, usually in IMs) and trust in the other players to not do anything to your character that you do not want happening. I see this type of RP as primarily Simulationist, with a strong leaning toward Narrativism in the latter cases.

The second type of Freeform I'd designate as "GM'd Freeform". This boils down to a large amount of Illusionism, as the GM decides the effects of all character's actions for the most part. I suppose this could be altered by allowing the players to do certain narratives, giving them authorial power over the scene and their character's actions. This is what I played mostly before discovering actual roleplaying games. They are infinitely flexible and can be as realistic or fantastic as the GM and players wish, based on their knowledge of the subject matter.

The Social Contract for such games is generally very simple. It boils down to "GM runs everything, trying to amuse the players, and thereby gets his own amusement". If this is not met, then these games will not be successful.

Which brings up a third type to my mind, a type of hybrid between the two. I've played this type of "GM'd Freeform" in my current forum. He told us what we found as we explored, he played all (or most.. he had recruited a few co-GMs to lighten his load) of the antagonists and lackeys, but we still had permissive authority over what happened to our characters. It follows the Social Contract of the former type, but it has a GM who determines the external events, rather than allowing the players themselves to determine them at their whim.

I could give extensive examples of various types of all three (so I said two originally, SUE me) types of Freeform, but I don't think that is in order, as of yet. From my experience, all instances of Freeform RP fall basically into one of these areas, but I will confess that my experience is not all-encompassing. So do you all think I've classified Freeform pretty well, or have I missed something important?

Quote from: WolfenSo do you all think I've classified Freeform pretty well, or have I missed something important?

I think you've given us a good start. Why don't you go ahead and flesh out these ideas a bit more, as you've said you could.

Relating to Mike's point about the lack of drift in pure freeforming, there are a couple other related questions:

 -Do and should freeform game sessions still have explicit GNS goals?
 -Do and should freeform game sessions still have a Premise?
 If these are relevant, the lack of attention to these factors is probably why most freeform game sessions often don't seem to go anywhere.

Quote from: Kenway-Do and should freeform game sessions still have explicit GNS goals?

I'm going to have to say yes.

I have three games in my hot little hands. All from the same publisher, oddly enough.

Pantheon and other games is a gamist freeform RPG. The social contract is very explicit. Only one sentence at a time from each player, with various limitations. If someone says something another player doesn't like, they dice off and that's that. The purpose of the game is to describe certain events first for points and such, so as to win.

De Profundis is Simulationist freeform. You get to feel what it's like to BE a character in a Lovecraft story. If you do it right, you may even feel like you're going insane. The fact that the only gaming prop is letters adds to this. No sitting at the tabletop looking calmly at the other players while you slowly go mad here.

Baron Munchausen, I guess, could be seen as freeform narrativist. There is not competeition per se except when bidding on a plot element using the coins. You aren't really trying to focus on sim concerns. You're trying to tell a good story is all. Maybe it's a competition for telling a better story, but a story is a story.

Or such is my opinion on these three games. You may disagree.

Quote-Do and should freeform game sessions still have a Premise?
 If these are relevant, the lack of attention to these factors is probably why most freeform game sessions often don't seem to go anywhere.

I would say yes. There needs to be something driving things forward and holding things together. It will become more obvious in a freeform setting since you can't focus on the small groups tactics combat or gain enough XP for that next skill level and such. It is isn't there, it will die. A regular RPG could be on a form of life support but is dead inside.

This is the sort of thing Ron's often talking about.

QuoteAlso, in what I'd call the "Advanced Roleplaying Forums" there is a lot of additional emphasis in the forum's individual Social Contract on playing fair, and creating a "good scene". This means that you "take your hits" (ie, if it's realistic for something to happen to your character, you should allow it, including taking hits in a fight) and sometimes work from Author stance to make the scene better and more interesting. "Taking your hits" is a given, but using Author stance in an improvised scene often relies on intercommunication between the participants (OOC conversation, usually in IMs) and trust in the other players to not do anything to your character that you do not want happening. I see this type of RP as primarily Simulationist, with a strong leaning toward Narrativism in the latter cases.

::waves::

Hi all.  Lance pointed me to your site and after reading through a few of the posts I found the forum to be very interesting.  So I thought I might be able to shed some light on your discussions on Free Form RPing. (The focus in this perspective is on High Fantasy Free Form Gaming)

::points above::  Lance's quote on Advanced Free form is right on the money, however there are a few key points he left out.  Let me see if I can list them out.  In particular I'll focus on Advance Free Form (Fantasy), which tends to revolve around a setting, a magic system and core RPing rules.

1. The Social Contract is key.  Without a social contract you simply get contained chaos which tends to alienate writers and roleplayers alike.  Every person playing must be willing to sacrifice unlimited creativity for the core set of rules within the forum or gaming group. In other words, you have to know how to accept "no your idea does not fit into the setting, or how can we change your idea to be more appropriate".

2. Learn about the setting.  Read. Read. Read.  The more informed you are about the world, the magic system, the key characters in the setting and its political structure, the better you can easily slip into the setting and start RPing.

3. Be willing to experiment.  Your first foray into Free From RPing might not be successful.  The reasons why are endless, but typically they revolve around poor or lack of information on the setting.  (See Point #2) If your first character does not work, try again.  :-D

4. Free Form RPing needs to go beyond a chat room. Setting up a static location, or using private RPing chat rooms will work, however the continuity of the setting is lost.  You MUST supplement chat based Free Form with a message board based system.  The message board system should capture in character (IC) discussions and it must capture out of character discussions (OOC).  Additionally, and possibly most important are stories.  Written stories about characters that give further depth into the character and also the world.  Typically it is the story line (SL) which breaths life into the forum.  New regions are discovered, new groups are discovered, and future plots are created.

5. Dedicated players. If you only play 1x a month you will be lost.  Free form is an active roleplaying form that can be demanding.  You need to interact with your fellow players and you need to contribute.  Free form in essence demands that you jump into the setting/world, without this demand you do not get the true feel of the setting/world your playing in.

6. While Advanced Free Form does not have a DM or game master it does need people to be leaders.  Leadership allows for rules to be created and adhered to, rules that are unclear to be understood, and a method for driving forum wide story lines.  Can anyone be a leader?  Yes.  However it means understanding the setting and coming up with clear methods to express your beliefs on how certain rules should work.

While these are only a few points I expand on I think they help flesh out Lance's original thoughts.  I tried to be as generic as possible as the topic of Free form is very open-ended and there are many other points to explain or expand upon.

If your interested in more, or specifics on what I mentioned please let me know.  :-D

This looks like a great forum and I hope to learn much from you all in setting design and overall game design theory. Thanks for pointing me here Lance!!!

Regards,

~Shard

As stated before in Actual Play, I think that seperating mediation and arbitration into jobs held by different people can help eliminate the railroad illusionist thing.

Bailey,

Ummm ... can you break that concept down for those of us in the cheap seats? Mediation and arbitration split into different people's purviews?

Examples? And is this a Freeform thing specifically?

Best,
Ron