Freeform

[Laurel]

Here is one of the doccuments I wrote for WW's original "moderated" online game.  Its basically a stated social contract that dictates really clearly what level of narration each player can assume.  I'm offering it as an example of freeform system which specifically details out "who gets to do what, where, and when"

New Bremen was WW's attempt to bring system to a freeform environment.  The theory was that "a few good STs" could use their "own best judgement" to translate all 300+ World of Darkness books into a functional MMORPG world just by enforcing the game mechanics of the sourcebooks supplemented by a few Faqs created specifically for the massively multiplayer online environment.  

The results were, of course, disasterous in terms of "fun factor" for anyone involved for a lot of reasons I don't care to go into.  But my experiences with NB were not only what led me to the Forge in the first place, but convinced me that I could and should create narrative, freeform and shared-narration games.   I'm not bitter about learning so much the hard way first.

[Laurel]

For example, the wind chimes problem is solved in TT by the GM making a ruling. Is the problem in FF that GMs are not available enough to rule on such minor matters? Or that people feel that they should not be limited by such arbitrary rulings? What?

Here are some of the problems in existing FF as I see them.

1) Player Incompatibility
Groups who play FF together aren't usually buddies or handpicked by the GM.  Its like signing up for a game at a convention, not knowing who you'll be playing with- and then playing with them for months or years.  Chances are you'll love at least one other player, really like some of the players, be okay with a lot of the players, dislike some of the players, and make some enemies.  

2)  The 24-7 phenomenon
Online FF can take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Some players dedicated 40-80 hours a week to the game.  Others are there one night a week.  The people who play obsessively tend to assume leadership roles, and begin to control the direction of the overall game.  People who have 80 hours a week to devote to a FF RPG are not always....well.

3) The Law of Power
Nowhere else does the axiom that power corrupts hold true than in a FF game.  The moderators and player leaders are put into a situation where they have enormous control over the narration and metagame affairs.  Some of them turn into tyrants.  Others reward players who brownnose, or focus on goals that are important to their roomates, girlfriends, ect and dismiss the rest.  

Moderators and player leaders are put under enormous stress.  They're expected to go way beyond the "call of duty" a TT or LARP GM would... and even the best, most talented, most patient people begin to break down.

4) The Cyber Factor
Freeform games tend to have lonely players rp'ing relationships with other lonely players.  They get emotionally involved and transfer the wants/needs they'd normally express in dating someone into their character's interpersonal lives.  Then cybersex (public or private) shows up into the game and a struggle for narrative power ensues between those who like RPing one big soap opera and those who seek other game goals.

[Matt Machell]

Matt, do you know of any examples of such Freeforms that were conducted sans GMs? Just curious.

Not the ones I ran or played in certainly. I should imagine it's possible, but this would require a very cohesive group, who had a solid social contract. This leads me to wonder, if the social contract is stringent then surely it essentially becomes a set of rules (allbeit very abstract ones) for deciding who can do what.

I suppose the Freeforms I've been involved in are best summed up as LARP, without costume and with GM handling all resolution by Drama.


Matt

[Mike Holmes]

This leads me to wonder, if the social contract is stringent then surely it essentially becomes a set of rules (allbeit very abstract ones) for deciding who can do what.

Social Contracts are by definition rules. They are usually limited to player interaction. I suppoose that as soon as there is a delieation of player power in any sense, then it becomes a game rule as opposed to a social contract rule. This is probably going to be a fuzzy line, however. Which is OK, as we seem to be dealing with a numer of spectra already.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Wow Laurel,

That seems to be quite a list of potential problems. Which would you say are caused by the media as opposed to the rules (or lack thereof)?

And thanks for the rules example. I am a bit confused, however by that first post. You say it was disasterous, but then you say that you want to design like that. Are you looking for solutions to what is otherwise a good form of play? Or am I missing something?

Mike

[Laurel]

White Wolf's experiment at a "systemized freeform" was disasterous because of the way they, as a company, tried to do it- most particularly
expecting that the Revised Storyteller System could support a chat-based MMORPG... they had no real appreciation that the difference in environment would be as dramatic as LARP, and like LARP, is going to require its own action resolution system.  Furthermore, combining all the WoD games into one chronicle and encouraging PvP combat and insisting said combat is conducted as if it was a tabletop session with no system drift is just a recipe for badness.  

Everything else, good and bad, that happened there could not overcome or overshadow this.  White Wolf didn't invest that much money in it  (less than say any major hardcover print run) and I'm sure it boosted sales of certain products and especially encouraged fans of one game line to invest in core books of the others, so from a publisher's point of view, NB might well be considered a success.  But few people had/have fun or think the system itself is a good one, so from a design standpoint, it was a failure.

But I believe that systemized freeform, as an idea in itself, has incredible potential.  I'm encouraged with my work for Skotos;  I think the Skotos folks have the right mindset for systemized freeform and their products are a big step in the right direction.  Shannon Appelcline (pre marriage was Shannon Appel) worked on Hero Wars and he's just one heckofa game designer and person and he's one of the leading forces behind systemized freeform over there at Skotos.  

I think the right freeform system, in the hands of the right people, could produce some incredible, incredible roleplaying for hundreds of players in a single chronicle and that there are some benefits to FF over TT and LARP as well.  Its a very popular mode of gaming, but doesn't sell books... because no one is writing books specifically for it.  Systemized FF is still uncharted territory, almost completely in Jack's "amateur" game design bracket.  But I don't think its going to stay there much longer, especially now that we're all talking seriously about it.

[Shard]

Laurel makes some very interesting points.  ::smiles to Laurel::  I would like to comment on a few of them as my experiences have seen these potential problems, however I think they can be minimalized with a little work.

Laurel writes:

) Player Incompatibility
Groups who play FF together aren't usually buddies or handpicked by the GM. Its like signing up for a game at a convention, not knowing who you'll be playing with- and then playing with them for months or years. Chances are you'll love at least one other player, really like some of the players, be okay with a lot of the players, dislike some of the players, and make some enemies.

I think this is a part of any gaming system that works in a public forum.  Rather than calling this player incompatibility I see it more as player diversity.  Cliches do tend to develop as the gaming community grows and matures.  Typically you will see differnt striations of types of players and these groups within the main group can be very effective on the community expanding and attracting different types of players.  You will get groups who enjoy writing the most, and they will attract more writers.  Groupos who RP more often in a chat room will attract like players as well.  You will get very serious players and then players who are just out to have fun.  If you recognize the needs of these different groups the forum can transformed to accomodate as many as possible.  If you have a group of players who enjoy talking about life in general, give them a message board area where you can do this. :-D  In the end you will help to minimize the amount of negative experiences which cause fragmentation and negative competitiveness.

The 24-7 phenomenon
Online FF can take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Some players dedicated 40-80 hours a week to the game. Others are there one night a week. The people who play obsessively tend to assume leadership roles, and begin to control the direction of the overall game. People who have 80 hours a week to devote to a FF RPG are not always....well.

I completely agree with this statement with regards to obsessive behavior.  Too much of anything is not good, however I also see the obsessive players as not the leaders of free form groups. It si the players who are emotionally balanced, creative, and diplomatic who help to keep the forum/community moving forward and expanding.  It is the well adjusted folks who show the strongest leadership characteristics.  While the obsessive players might gain a lot of control in games like Everquest, etc...in Free Form it tends to be the leaders are akin to leaders in the non-freeform world.  :-D

3) The Law of Power
Nowhere else does the axiom that power corrupts hold true than in a FF game. The moderators and player leaders are put into a situation where they have enormous control over the narration and metagame affairs. Some of them turn into tyrants. Others reward players who brownnose, or focus on goals that are important to their roomates, girlfriends, ect and dismiss the rest.

If you see this happen in a free form setting online then the people who  are moderating the setting or helping to shape it, should not be in those roles.  Looking over a few settings online, it is the settings where there are multiple moderators and groups of creative influence who do not ahve despotic forums where only a few people hold power and dictate the setting rules both implied and explicit.  Power only corrupts if you allow it to corrupt.  Additionally the corruption usually comes from people who have a preset agenda or are looking to oppress others, possibly to inflate their own deficiences?  I'm not sure why, but in general those types of players tend to hang themselves in the end .

Moderators and player leaders are put under enormous stress. They're expected to go way beyond the "call of duty" a TT or LARP GM would... and even the best, most talented, most patient people begin to break down.

Taking a break and balancing the leadership amongst multiple leaders will eliminate the problem of burn out.  If a forum/community shares the leadership roles you can give everyone the breaks and rest they need.

4) The Cyber Factor
Freeform games tend to have lonely players rp'ing relationships with other lonely players. They get emotionally involved and transfer the wants/needs they'd normally express in dating someone into their character's interpersonal lives. Then cybersex (public or private) shows up into the game and a struggle for narrative power ensues between those who like RPing one big soap opera and those who seek other game goals.

Hmmm.  Oddly enough I have not seen a lot of this.  I'm sure it exists, but perhaps this type of behavior was linked with a specific community?  If you have RPers who are there to RP and not to look for Cyber-sex, partners then can get to writing, gaming and having fun.  If people are joining Free Form communites looking for Cyber sex, then perhaps they should look for Free Form communities where Cyber Sex is a part of the setting?  Seems like it would accomplish two things at once?  :-D



I think Laurel points out the worst factors that can occur in Free Form communities, and it sounds like a community with all these problems was doomed from the start.  If the leaders of the community are careful and use good judgement then the forum/community can be very successful and be a great place for people to have fun.

While there are no specific rules on what makes a great Free Form setting/community you can use a lot of common sense and take the time to understand the reasons why leaders want to lead in your commmunity.

Mike writes:

For example, the wind chimes problem is solved in TT by the GM making a ruling. Is the problem in FF that GMs are not available enough to rule on such minor matters? Or that people feel that they should not be limited by such arbitrary rulings? What?

I think the problem resides in wanting to make too many steadfast rules which leads to something akin to "rules lawyering".  If you define every single thing that can and cannot exist you begin to erode the core characteristics which make free form unique.  The key is not having someone able to rule on everything and the players knowing when to define something and when not to define something.

If your taking about magic rules in a fantasy setting that is something that needs to be defined.  If your taking about windchimes and if they can be made from bone while the moons are in conjunction with outer planetary forces while holding an ale in the air and playing your flute at the same time....well then your going overboard.  :-D

Common sense.  A spoonful of this every now and then will define rules which do not need to be written in stone and can be implied.

~Shard