Freeform

[Henry Fitch]

Think I'll stick my head in here, as freeform roleplaying constitutes just about all of my roleplaying experience. I haven't done it in a while, but it's often been a fairly big thing with a few of my friends. Let me summarize a few basic points about our style...

1. No GM, director stance was shared by players in the fairly rare instances when it's needed.
2. Conversation was largely IC, but broke into OOC rather frequently to discuss or negotiate. So far, no serious disagreements have broken out that I'm aware of.
3. Play proceeded in a semi-LARP fashion, specifically the "several people playing characters wander in forest" style. For obvious reasons, we generally played characters who wander in forests.
4. There was no explicit Premise or real goal of any sort, but I'd say it was really closest to Sim. "Getting in character" was a big thing.
5. The social contract, when it couldn't be reached in a wordless common-sense manner, was non-existent.
6. Yes, it was basically indistinguishable from "playing pretend." Give us a break, we're highschool students.

Obviously, there are some problems here. Still, it worked pretty well, and was a passable way to get an RP fix. I'd even like to try it again, with a more explicit Premise to work with and an agreed-upon Contract.

Now, as to whether it's all the same? Certainly not. Even within the limited range I've defined above, there was a lot of variation. From a GNS perspective, we drifted about quie a bit, with some games focusing on sweeping stories and others stuck in Sim to the point of "well, it makes sense for our characters to kill each other... guess the game's over." I can easily see something like a Gamist version working too, and I've been thinking some about how to implement that effectively.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

To those interested, there is a Yahoo Group recently started about Freeform RPG design here. So far not a lot of traffic, but there are only four members yet.

[Bailey]

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

First I'll need to define the two.

Mediation is the filtering process of carryin meaning between things.
Arbitration is the resolution of conflicts.

Basicly it means that there is a standard GM (the mediator) who plays the part of the world and such.  there is also the arbitrator who makes the Drama/Karma/Fortune action resolution descisions.

In most games the GM is mediator while rules and dice serve for arbitration, though the GM may overrule arbitration that she feels is inappropriate.  In the freeform games I play the group decided that giving GM full arbitration power was unbalancing.  It arose entirely out of one player's objections to playing diceless being based on the GM having too much power (since she would also have all the power dice normally have).  We just gave dice power to another player who may or may not be in agreement with the Mediator.

[Le Joueur]

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

Mediation is the filtering process of carryin meaning between things.
Arbitration is the resolution of conflicts.

Basically, it means that there is a standard GM (the mediator) who plays the part of the world and such.  There is also the arbitrator who makes the Drama/Karma/Fortune action resolution descisions.

In most games the GM is mediator while rules and dice serve for arbitration, though the GM may overrule arbitration that she feels is inappropriate.  In the freeform games I play the group decided that giving GM full arbitration power was unbalancing.  It arose entirely out of one player's objections to playing diceless being based on the GM having too much power (since she would also have all the power dice normally have).  We just gave dice power to another player who may or may not be in agreement with the Mediator.

We did something very like this for Scattershot's live-action role-playing game mechanics (for further detail look here).  And for similar reasons too.  (Added to the fact that we expect in excess of 30 people at these things.)

We divided the gamemaster role into referee (the on-the-spot arbiter), the game’s originator(s), the ‘gamemaster’ (who introduces ‘agitation’ in areas that are losing the players’ interest or are becoming overwhelming), site maintenance (the actual hosting), and customer service (and recruitment).  Thus we have lots a referees and only one 'gamemaster.'  Not that this colors very clearly on Freeform, just that such a separation functions under other circumstances too.

Fang Langford

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, if we use Bailey's definitions.. Then ALL active players are Mediators, and ALL active players are Arbitrators, in Freeform Roleplaying (at least the breed we use in the Lyran Tal forum)

However, the methods for mediation and arbitration differ slightly in different circumstances. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to go into a blank area of the setting and make something which suddenly becomes part of the setting, and retroactively always was. Towns pop all of a sudden which have been there for decades, and suddenly, the rank structure of the Silver Moon Knights means something a lot more specific.. And this is the way it's always been. However, one's ability to create and add to the setting is moderated two things.. Setting integrity and popular consensus. My stratification of the Silver Moon Knights went mostly unchallenged, because it filled a niche which was mostly empty at the time, and did not step on anyone's toes. On the other hand, if I decided that the elves of Arboria actually breed via osmosis, simply because no one had detailed how elves bred, there would be problems. Setting integrity would be lightly touched (or more heavily, if someone had already written something that mentioned elves giving birth in the manner of humans) but popular consensus would be greatly aroused. The previous didn't happen.. But you should have seen the row about whether LT elves have beards...

Sound pretty chaotic? It can be. That's where the forum leaders Shard mentioned come in. Shard is pretty much the man who created Lyran Tal from the bottom up, and as such is granted a certain level of immunity to popular consensus... though not entirely. However, whenever there is a debate which does not seem to be going to settle itself, Shard is often looked to for the decision. A lot of pressure for one man, neh? That's why others have volunteered to play certain roles, In-Character and Out-of-Character in the forum. These players have the responsibilities of being experts and arbiters when disputes specifically involve their area of expertise. Usually these players play the roles of regional leaders or influential figures in a given area, but sometimes their IC role is less conspicuous. What matters is that they are given leave to make certain decisions in their area, taking a lot of the burden from Shard himself.

Again, it all boils down to Social Contract and Communication. That is why Shard says that a message board or similar system is vital to a Freeform community. The boards allow the members to socialize, form bonds and respect for their fellow players and forum leaders, as well as provide a medium for letting people know what is going on, and getting their input on things which will effect the forum they own in collective with all the other players.

[Shard]

Okay, if we use Bailey's definitions.. Then ALL active players are Mediators, and ALL active players are Arbitrators, in Freeform Roleplaying (at least the breed we use in the Lyran Tal forum)

Lance touches on an important issue that relates directly to Bailey's definition of arbitration and mediation.  IF people are role-playing in the public chat room arbitration and mediation are typically a behind the scenes occurance that happens real-time.  Sometimes this can slow the RP, but typically it is a few IMs and an issue of who wins a combat that settles the matter.

I think this discussion revolves around three types of free form.  The LARP style, the table-top games, and online free-form.  While I have little to no insight on the first two forms, I can say that online free form needs everyone to play an active arbitrator and mediator.  

However, anything that would effect the setting on a grand scale should be presented to the forum as a whole where open arbitration and mediation can take place.  Sometimes this can be cumbersome, but typically things can be settled in a quick and efficient manner.

~Shard

[blackmanxy]

What I find interesting about this discussion is the repeated claim that FFRP requires a well-defined social contract.  So I have to ask, what defines a social contract?

The reason I ask is because I spent a few years playing nothing but FF games.  Occasionally, we'd build characters with a system but not use the dice, others we'd just vaguely describe what our characters could do and the GM would use dice to influence the outcome, but mostly we were totally without a system.

Now my game group at the time was very close.  It was myself, my girlfriend, my best friend, and her boyfriend.  (Needless to say, this game group self-destructed when the relationships failed.)  Though we hadn't gamed a lot with each other before we started freeforming, we all had a pretty good idea of what the others wanted from games - basically, we were all hardcore narrativists with a strong focus on characterization.  There was a lot of trust involved in the group.

As such, there was never a stated social contract.  Whoever was GM'ing basically had control over the game, the players had control over their characters.  In terms of "chargen" (such as it was), the GM would allow just about anything because no one ever wanted something that was unreasonable.  The only real rules were "players can't ask for anything unreasonable" and "the GM won't kill characters unless they do something stupid."  Of those, only the latter was ever verbally defined - the other was assumed.

It seems to me like there's an implied contract there, but it raises the question of what constitutes a contract.  Did we have an unspoken contract simply because we all happened to agree on play style?  Do those two little rules constitute a contract?  Or were we "working without a net?"  Is the existence of a contract based upon consent, whether conscious or not, or is it based on intent?

This is something I've actually been wondering about for a while now.  From everything I've read, it sounds like people are saying that the social contract is necessary for a successful game.  If that's the case, then I can only assume, based on my personal experience, that it is assent, and not intent, that defines the contract - because I've played in many successful games that were not defined by an intended social contract - even one that didn't go by that name.

If social contract is not a necessity, then I can only assume it is based on intent - and is a tool to be utilized by groups who experience or expect disagreement between the participants.

(Edit: Sorry, I realize this is a little off-topic.  Like a lot of this thread, what I'm saying is "like most RPG's" rather than something specific to freeform RP.)

[Lance D. Allen]

This might be contribution to thread entropy, but I think I can answer manxy's question, at least in general terms.

The way I understand it, there is almost always a social contract in any gaming group. It is pretty much necessary for a group to be functional. It might, or might not be explicitly defined, but it does exist. For the group you described, I think your own words sum up your Social Contract nicely, here:

Whoever was GM'ing basically had control over the game, the players had control over their characters. In terms of "chargen" (such as it was), the GM would allow just about anything because no one ever wanted something that was unreasonable. The only real rules were "players can't ask for anything unreasonable" and "the GM won't kill characters unless they do something stupid." Of those, only the latter was ever verbally defined - the other was assumed.

As you said, it wasn't ever officially stated, but it did exist.

However, there are, I think, advantages to an explicit Social Contract, rather than one which exists without conscious effort. Most people, IME, do best when what is expected of them is made totally clear, and a stated agreement does this much better than an unstated one. Also, having a codified Social Contract makes it easier for new members to integrate into the play group, because they can be told upfront what is what with the group, so they spend less time testing the water before they know what is acceptable and what is not. In the spirit of this, I think some things which should be generally considered whenever forming a gaming group can be listed here.

1. Player Power - this applies to both the GM (who is also a player) and those who play characters. Knowing exactly how much you are allowed to do to influence the game will lead to less conflicts about what can and can't be done in-game.

2. Taboos - What is unacceptable, whether as in-game content, or OOC reference. This could be a rule disallowing rape scenes in-game because a particular player has been traumatized by such, or racially oriented jokes, even when all players are of the same skin color/religion/whatever.

3. Food and Snacks - Does the group order pizza as a whole, and if so, how much is considered mandatory per person to chip in? Are snacks based on a fend-for-yourself basis? Are snacks even allowed at all? What about alcohol, is it allowed?

4. OOC -vs- IC - Does the group have any guidelines limiting how much OOC banter and chatter is allowed? Are there any accepted methods to designate Out-of-Character from In-Character, or even other things such as Inner-Monologue, or speaking in another language?

These are just a few ideas to start with, all of which apply to pretty much any gaming venue, be it LARP, Wargaming, Online FFRP, Offline FFRP, or Table-top style games, either online or off. They are not meant to be comprehensive, and should only be considered a basis for codifying a Social Contract, assuming you do not already have one.

For our particular Freeform forum, I'll answer my own points...

1. Player Power - Each player is the final arbiter of what happens to their character. They are encouraged to cooperate with others and play fair, but they have absolute power over what happens to them, and what they are capable of. Failure to play fair, cooperate, and abide by setting can cause your character to be ignored, but nothing adverse or beneficial may happen to your character without permission. If another player grants you the right to do something to their character specifically, this is also their right, which they may revoke at any time.

2. Taboos - Anything which violates AOL's Terms of Service is taboo. Also, anything verging on overtly "adult themes" is strongly discouraged, though allowed so long as it is handled discretely and maturely. The players and writers are not involved in this forum for the purposes of viewing or taking part in cybersex or reading pornographic literature.

3. Food and Snacks - Eat, drink and be merry, for you are in your own home, and no one can tell you otherwise. Playing drunk is not particularly advisable unless you are willing to accept the consequences (such as making your serious character appear like a total goob, or somesuch), but it is not prohibited. Also, if you figure out a way to transmit food online, you are required to share, or else you will be labeled greedy, and everyone will pout at you.

4. OOC -vs- IC - OOC speaking is not allowed in the Crosswinds Tavern Conference Room except by the Forum Leaders and Hosts. Any Out-of-Character communication should be taken to IMs, so as to not disrupt the chatroom. If the scene is being played in a Private Room, then OOC chatter may be allowed, depending on those who are taking part in the scene. Describing actions are depicted by placing the description into doubled colons, like so. ::smiles:: Speaking another language is handled in a number of ways, either by using a Symbol font (widely accepted for the Elven Tongue) or simply denoting that a different language is being spoken. Example <Dwarven> Yer beard is to short for you to be runnin' your mouth, youngin'. Singing is denoted by putting the words into pound symbols, like so. #Still Waters Part, let me go my way, let me find my love and so shall come what may...#

Though we don't exactly call it "Social Contract" All of this and more is explicit and is offered to any newcomers to the forum, along with basic guidelines to setting, etc. It gives us a standard set of rules to play by, which allows us to concentrate less on the "mechanics" and simply play. Without these rules, there would be total chaos, like many of the less reputable "Inns", which are, unfortunately, the more well known.

[Laurel]

What I find interesting about this discussion is the repeated claim that FFRP requires a well-defined social contract.  So I have to ask, what defines a social contract?
<snip>
Now my game group at the time was very close.  It was myself, my girlfriend, my best friend, and her boyfriend.  (Needless to say, this game group self-destructed when the relationships failed.)
<snip>
As such, there was never a stated social contract.  
<snip>
The only real rules were "players can't ask for anything unreasonable" and "the GM won't kill characters unless they do something stupid."  Of those, only the latter was ever verbally defined - the other was assumed.

Sorry for all the snipping, I wanted to get to these statements together.

Freeform playing is a lot like dating.  When you date someone, there is a social contract between you whether its stated, half-stated, unstated, or assumed.  This social contract can contain content such as "we don't lie to each other", "we don't date other people",  "we don't hit each other".  When the social contract is broken by one or more parties, the relationship begins to destruct.  Trust and rapport are lost.

The Social Contract for a freeform RPG basically says in big bold letters how everyone should conduct themselves IC and OOC and who to talk to when someone seems to be behaving in a way contrary to the social contract or the wellbeing of the game.

Social Contracts are tricky stuff, especially when games increase in popularity.  My girlfriend and I have been freeform roleplaying together in our own private chat room for 5-6 years...  we know exactly what is and isn't kosher and are extremely flexible and receptive to one another's moods and characters.   However, recently we let two people join us, bringing our group up from 2 to 4.  We're teaching them and adapting to them.

Social contracts have to be dynamic, and change to meet the player base as much as the player base needs to meet the social contract.

What defines a social contract?  Its any expectation of conduct that characters or players are expected to abide by.  The more articulated these expectations are, the better the chances that the group is aware of them.  OOC conduct, public "cybersex" posts, exchange of personal information, accountability for other player's emotional wants & needs can all fall into a social contract depending on group.   The bigger the group, the harder it will be to find players who agree with the social contract in its entirety and the more time is spend debating policy rather than playing.

Early in my online RP career, I discovered what happens when a large group of players doesn't abide by the same social contract.... it was like being in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship, only with thirty people instead of just one.  

There's a *whole lot* of research and experimentation left to be done in creating sustainable social contracts for freeform games and I'm really interested in the topic.

[Mike Holmes]

Keep in mind that the concept of the Social Contract was invented by Hobbes (I think) who said essentially that all human relationships involve a contract almost always left unstated. The utility in identifying an enumerating the Social Contract in any relationship is to ensure that there is understanding of the contract on all sides, and that it is something that the participants really want. Later Locke wrote about how the social contract between kings and comoners really tended to shaft the commoners, and what came out of that? The American Declaration of Independence, a very well know example of a use of Social Contract theory to get exactly what you want (in this case an end to Monarchical rule).

The point is that usually the Social Contract goes unstated. But in these cases there are often dissatisfied parties, many times for reasons nobody can ascertain. The solution is to make the contract plain, and include in it the assumptions regarding what you hope to get out of the relationship. In terms of RPGs this can be of great value to all the participants.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Early in my online RP career, I discovered what happens when a large group of players doesn't abide by the same social contract.... it was like being in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship, only with thirty people instead of just one.

This also links to Ron's Family Matters thread...It's rather interesting to see how the power relationship between people in real life plays out in games.  There's also a lot of breaking of the social contract by those who either are used to power(and therefore unaware of their actions) and those completely unused to it(who go overboard and abuse it).

I'd say that this breaking of the contract happens equally often in traditional rpgs and freeform games, but I'd guess that online FF suffers the worst(anyone can play, from anywhere in the world), and that LARP and table top have slightly better systems of exiling contract breakers(simply by the fact that people who break social contracts are by their nature, not very social).

One question that I have, since social contract may or may not be stated, what are the general rules/tendencies for punishing/exiling folks who break social contracts(if any)?  I've seen more than a few games fall apart and have heard LARP nightmares because of it, does anyone have any recommendations as far as being selective to members before they play?

Chris

[Shard]

Chris(Bankuei) writes:

One question that I have, since social contract may or may not be stated, what are the general rules/tendencies for punishing/exiling folks who break social contracts(if any)? I've seen more than a few games fall apart and have heard LARP nightmares because of it, does anyone have any recommendations as far as being selective to members before they play?

Good question and there really are many options.  Most options are linked to the contract-breaking player.  I would think the following options could be used for any style/form of Free form.

1. Education - Educate the person on some of the basics of the contract. This can be as simple as toning down language (if they are abusive or really vulger and offending others), to some points on diplomacy and the golden rule of treating others like you wish to eb treated.  Education typically works best with players who really want to role play but just need to be gently pushed in the right direction.

2. Warnings - Real simple.  Explain the deviant behavior in detail and why the behavior is not typical or accepted as normal within the group in question.  The key here is to help the player to understand that their perspective of what is normal does not fit in with the accepted norms of the group. A non-gaming example of thsi would be a dress code for work.  You either follow the code or you look for a new job.

3. Suspension - If a person is a repeated offender and education and warnings have not helped you could suspend them for a predetermined amount of time.  My assumption would be most players would either quickly get the hint or move on to something else.  This extreme can be a bit harsh, but only works if there are pre-determined authority figures.  Someone must have the ability to actually suspend this player.  I woudl think the ability to suspend someone would be rather rare.

4. Expulsion -  Happens in one of two ways.  An Authority figure bans the player and that is the end of their playing with that group, or the group as a whole decides to not play with that player.  The second method is more in line with the social contract and linked to majority rule.  (i.e. you do not follow our rules, you will not work within the rules and you did not take the warnings seriously, therefore you are dead to us.) Ignoring the player typically would take place.  How subtle or blatent the ignoring ends up depends on the dynamics of the group involved.

I'm not sure there is any other way to punish or exile a problem player who refuses to follow social norms and contracts.

In my experience with this type of player I have exclusively used methods #1 and #2.  Fortunately I have never had to use method #3 or #4.  I have seen instances online where players were "blackballed" and the forum as a whole will not interact with the player.  This never ends up pretty for anyone involved and typically has a lot of hurt feelings involved.

Peace.

~Shard

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not sure there is any other way to punish or exile a problem player who refuses to follow social norms and contracts.

I think you hit the sensible ones. For example, one could threaten violence, but that's a bad behavior itself. One could fine players, but that would be hard to set up, and couse really bad reactions if there was even a hint of impropriety (and possibly even if not).

On the opposite side, there is positive reinforcement. You see this regularly in the form of people complimenting each other on the quality of their play. It could be extended further, however, by, say, having players vote on a best player. Even more powerful would be to offer aprize to that player. There might be a threat that such incentive would cause players to "go overboard". Can anyone else come up with other positive reinforcers? In TT this usually takes the form of the GM doling out some effectiveness reward (EXP, frex). What can be done in Freeform?

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

Positive reinforcement does happen, though Shard did not hit upon it in his post. Those who show marked improvement in roleplaying, or at least show that they are making an effort do get some level of encouragement. One method is that people will play with them. Another is that they will occasionally be complimented on their roleplaying, or on their improvement. Getting into higher levels, if they write, they will receive acknowledgement in the form of positive comments and critiques on their story if it is interested and well written, or shows positive areas of improvement. Eventually, if the player/writer is consistent in proactive participation in roleplaying, writing, and contributing to the world, there comes the respect of their fellow forum members, and possibly consideration for a project head position, or a forum leadership position.

A specific example of the lower level encouragement is a member of our forum named Amanda. Her original character was a sometimes visitor to the Crosswinds... And a Goddess. Um.. yeah, she got ignored, a lot. Her level of roleplaying (always attempting to heal people without consent, or blasting a troll that others were having a good time dealing with) did nothing to encourage a change in this overall attitude of dislike. She would enter the room, and at least half of the participants would ignore her without waiting for her to type a single line. Gradually, however, partially through the efforts of particularly tolerant players, and (I assume) reading our boards and wanting to be part of the community, she began to see why she wasn't accepted, and changed her ways. She is now an active player, with more than a few storylines under her belt, and whose opinion is considered equally with everyone elses. I'd call her a success story, and I think she'd agree with me.

This is a good example of both negative and positive reinforcement used successfully in FFRP.

[Le Joueur]

On the opposite side, there is positive reinforcement. You see this regularly in the form of people complimenting each other on the quality of their play. It could be extended further, however, by, say, having players vote on a best player. Even more powerful would be to offer a prize to that player. There might be a threat that such incentive would cause players to "go overboard". Can anyone else come up with other positive reinforcers? In TT this usually takes the form of the GM doling out some effectiveness reward (EXP, frex).

We have something like that in Scattershot.  When someone does something you like, you reward the player on the spot.  That's players-rewarding-players positive reinforcement.  When such a reward is in keeping with the group's Genre Expectations (an agreement set up at the beginning of play of what the group expects), the gamemaster is compelled to 'replace' appropriate rewards from the 'bank' (this helps the gamemaster 'remember' to practice positive reinforcement and makes the process more democratic).

The gamemaster makes these 'instant' rewards also, but having so many other foci of interest, can easily forget.  There also the rare, between-games awards and some mention of possibly voting a 'Most Valuable Player' award.  (Note: all of Scattershot's rewards are actually rewards to the player, not the character.)

Fang Langford

p. s. And none of this is limited by 'dice in hand,' because of Scattershot's 'loan' policy on Experience Dice, the reward mechanism.