What is Freeform?

[lumpley]

Hey Justin.

I think play with mechanic rules is significantly different from freeform play... Mechanical rules state up front that doing x gets you y (with differing amounts of certainty depending on the resolution system). This guarantee affects player behavior.

But - okay, bear with me - but we aren't talking about playing with mechanical rules vs playing with no rules.  All rules, mechanical or otherwise, offer guarantees and affect player behavior.  That's what they do.

Is there some reason that mechanical rules as a class are special at the System level?  I don't see it.  At the System level I see the effects of individual rules and how the individual rules interrelate, whether they're mechanical or what.

Unlike G, N and S, a game's System must function and be analyzable at the individual decision, single statement level.  You can't define System over an instance of play because the instance of play arises from the action of System.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Just a quick bit of history to put things in perspective at this point.

First, I am to blame for the use of the term Freeform here. Let me explain. I am aware, as are most of us, that there exist styles of play out there that do not resemble tabletop much because they don't use many of the devices which we do (indeed I'd played some small amount myself). a long while back, I was curious about this phenomenon, as I see it as philosphically important, and asked what people who do it typically call it. The problem is that, essentially, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I could speculate that this is because, having an anarchist spirit, they don't want to be lableled. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that there's no commonly used term.

When I asked, Lance (of Wolvesden fame and frequent TROS poster) said that he'd had some experience with it, and that mostly it was just called Role-playing. But that's hardly enough to categorize it clearly. When pressed, he said that occasionally it was called Freeform, when it needed to discriminate itself from tabletop.

I'm sure we can dig up the original thread if it's important.

I latched on to this term because it seemed apt. Now, that said, even I had worries about the term at the time. One of which is that it's also the term that many LARPers (especially in Australia) use to describe the style of LARP they run. Some of which have a lot of rules, actually.

But having nothing better, I've continued to use it, and it's caught on around here. So, Vincent, I rather suspect that few people would ever use Freeform as a pride statement as they don't use the term much at all. I do understand your point that people will react dogmatically to the dichotomy, however. And just a caveat, don't think that using the term will make you any more intelligible to that community, either, as it's likely not something that they use.

Blake, can you speak to this at all?

Anyhow, as with all RPGs, I agree that the Lumpley Principle applies. The players are using some method to determine what happens in game, even if that method is "do whatever you want". That can be the system, but it has to be understood first to work. So it counts.

One of the reasons that I use "mechanic" the way that I do (and I actually formerly used system before we agreed on it's broader use), is so that one can delineate between these styles, then. Basically, I see a game as more freeform the less mechanical it is. That said, it's all a big spectrum (like the hard to soft thing with mechanics) and few games would be purely one or the other to be precise.

That's the point at which I see the term freeform being usefull. Some players like mechanics, some players do not. Those in the former group tend to play tabletop games, and those in the latter group are drawn to Freeform. That's where I'm at with my usage.

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Defining freeform is problematic since in traditional discussion and in Forge discussion it seems to be something different.

I agree with John on this. Freeform is a bit more than rules unwritten. Freeform is more like Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do as describe in the bio pic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story "It is like water. It favors formless and as such can assume all forms"

Player in a freeform game come across a situation. Through the lumpley principle they find a method to resolve it and then move on. This method they used to reach agreement fades back into formlessness. It may be used again if a similar situation comes up, it may be modified, it may never be used again.

This is freeform. Not to be confused with diceless, randomless or pure Drama.

[Mike Holmes]

I see your point, Jack. And if that's pure Freeform, I can go with that definition. But I like to think of the term as a relative adjective. Such that I can say that as a game approaches what you describe as Freeform, that I can say, "X game is pretty darn freeform." In any case, if we go with your definition, I'll be saying things like, "Game Y is pretty close to Freeform."

Or perhaps I'll have to speak of "mechanicless" games?

Mike

[lumpley]

Ah, Mike, now that I'm okay with.  Game x was more freeform than game y, but game z was more fast-paced than either, and game w was more monkey-oriented than all three by far.  "Freeform" is something that games have, not something they absolutely are or aren't.

Very fine.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

What's the opposite of Freeform then, however? Anti-freeform? Hardform? Mechanicky?Mechanist? Mechanistic? Rulz Hevy? :-)

Mike

[lumpley]

Crunchy.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, I dunno. MLwM has considerable amounts of mechanics, but I wouldn't call it crunchy. That, to me, has always indicated an amount of detailism (but it probably does relate to the "hard" designation).

Mike

[Windthin]

John, Justin, exactly the opposite.  I'm saying that all play is freeform, essentially, but some play is freeform with mechanics.

To a fair extent, I agree with this.  Unless you are talking strictly, utterly objective games like chess, there is always an element that goes beyond the base mechanics.  Freeform often IS used either proudly or hatefully.  It's a term I don't much like, because, as we can see in this discussion, it's a loaded term, carrying an amazing amount of baggage with it already.  For detractors, freeform is chaos.  For proponents, freeform is independence from what they see as archaic and unrealistic systems.  I find a middle-ground, a compromise, to be far more desireable, to recognize that all good roleplay requires the players and storyteller to go beyond the numbers and the stats and the figures and the system into description and personality and mood and plot... this is why I wonder where you draw the line between full freeform and diceless.  Full freeform would seem to be entirely subject, as even the very world itself and its laws can shift at the whims of the players.  I don't think even the most chaotic of games approaches that (oh yes, I do believe in controlled chaos, the semblence of chaos).

[Windthin]

Ah, Mike, now that I'm okay with.  Game x was more freeform than game y, but game z was more fast-paced than either, and game w was more monkey-oriented than all three by far.  "Freeform" is something that games have, not something they absolutely are or aren't.

Very fine.

-Vincent

Agreed.

As to the opposite of freeform... ::chuckles::  Try Backbreaking.  Actually, I am currently playing in a game where the system is so complex, it's run through a "book" on Excel.  Droning, monotonous... tight.  Tight comes to mind, everything clockwork and coiled, no loose nuts and bolts, no room for anything else.  I don't know.  I could make a joke, toss out the name of a rules-bound system, but I don't believe a term actually exists for that.  Wind-up almost, I think of, animatronic, like some theme-park thrill ride, you're just there but the machines do all the work.  I don't think anything is quite THAT bad, clearly, but you get the jist.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I see your point, Jack. And if that's pure Freeform, I can go with that definition. But I like to think of the term as a relative adjective. Such that I can say that as a game approaches what you describe as Freeform, that I can say, "X game is pretty darn freeform." In any case, if we go with your definition, I'll be saying things like, "Game Y is pretty close to Freeform."

Or perhaps I'll have to speak of "mechanicless" games?

I don't know. If we continue with the water analogy, non-freeform games freeze the water into ice or channel it into aqueducts.

Perhaps, using the term I'm not favoring, Method, the opposite of freeform is Methodical. As in social situations in game X are handled freeform but the combat rules are methodical.

[lumpley]

Structured, how about?  That would include My Life with Master.

I don't see why we need a strong word for non-freeform, though.  We don't need a strong word for non-d8-intensive or non-monkey-oriented.

Let's please not continue with the water analogy; there's no sense in which mechanical rules freeze or channel the game but non-mechanical rules don't.

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

I could support either Structured or Methodical.

I wouldn't mind seeing an agreed-upon antonym, if for no other reason than "non-freeform" just feels like a clumsy way to phrase something.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't see why we need a strong word for non-freeform, though.  We don't need a strong word for non-d8-intensive or non-monkey-oriented.

Mostly because d8's and monkeys don't come up all that often across many games or RPG discussion while freeform does.

Let's please not continue with the water analogy; there's no sense in which mechanical rules freeze or channel the game but non-mechanical rules don't.

The difference is that the in a methodical game, the method is already frozen into place.

Let's try something else.

Kitchen Statium. Turn a home-ec dropout in Kitchen Stadum with all of those ingredients and tools and ask them to make a gourmet dinner and they're likely turn out something inedible. Strange how the Iron Chefs can turn out something fit for consumption every time. It's because the Chef has knowledge and skills the home-ec dropout does not. Now, give this person a cookbook and now they have a method they can follow to produce something worth eating.

This analogy was more to show methodology vs slamming against freeform (or to argue over whether the Iron Chef is cooking freeform or not.)

My thoery here is that freeform alows the players to create, find or use whatever methods they would like to use in play and also allows the freedom to not use methods if they so choose. Methodical play uses a cook bokk, if you will. You follow a recipe to achieve desired results.

[lumpley]

You're changing the definition on me.

I understood "freeform" to mean that the System is based on non-mechanical rules.  What you're saying now is that "freeform" means that the System is based on improvised rules.  You're leaving unsaid whether the improvised rules can be mechanical or not.  (I suspect you're conflating improvised and non-mechanical, in fact.)

Actually, that's my favorite definition so far of all:
A game is "freeform" insofar as its System is based on improvised rules (be they mechanical or non-mechanical) rather than preestablished ones.

That matches my experience nicely, including times when I've improvised mechanical rules, and it incorporates the observed tendency of freeform games to become less freeform as precedents establish.

Naturally, improvised rules will tend to be less mechanical, because it takes time and effort to create mechanical rules.  Some sets of improvised rules will contain no mechanical rules.

Is that cool with you?  How about you, Mike?

If we need to discuss mechanical vs. non-mechanical further, Jack, I stand by this:

Is there some reason that mechanical rules as a class are special at the System level? I don't see it. At the System level I see the effects of individual rules and how the individual rules interrelate, whether they're mechanical or what.

-Vincent