The Forge Archives

I was wondering about a thread a month ago started by Jack Spencer Jr about "1 page rpgs."
 In this thread, Ron Edwards also mentions how systems like SLUG are broken and unplayable.
 The idea of "fully freeform" games was also alluded to.
 I hope I'm not asking a bunch of huge, fundamentally unanswerable questions here:

 -Is there any way to make something like SLUG "unbroken and playable?"  I felt kind of stupid after reading the thread in question since I've played several fairly enjoyable SLUG campaigns without thinking anything was wrong.

 -I think "fully freeform" gamewise means basically "make your characters whatever you want" and the gm makes up the results of anything a pc attempts.  Are there any actual, well-written guidelines for running a campaign like this?  I thought Heritage was more or less this kind of system but that system got pretty much torn apart in that thread.

 -Many novice game designers, myself included, have tried to make a "fully freeform game."  Is this kind of thing impossible, or are we just going at it the wrong way?

My opinion on the subject (yeah, I know that you asked for Ron's) is that free-form games are VERY difficult to run for long.  I don't think that any of the 2-year games you hear about so often are free-form.  They seen to be from the gamist and simulationist perspective.  It is no coincidence that I often enjoy them as a simulationist and gamist.  To create an RPG to run free-form games seems impractical to me, but I try to veiw impossible as something that hasn't happened yet.  I think that you could if you wanted to, but I would think that the campaign setting would need to be well, limited and strange.  I am aware that I am one of the GNS newbies who goes around pointing the philosophy at everything as a tool to condem it.  However, I am also dependent on you guys to set me straight.  I also may be confused as to what you mean as free-form.  There are several definitions that could be called conventional but I'd like to hear what your opinion would be.

Hi Kenway,

Let's call a spade a spade, all right? You are not "confused" about my statement. You are saying, "Ron is wrong. He said SLUG is unplayable. I played it lots."

Before I launch into a clarification of my original point, I want to say that You May Be Right. I may well be wrong. However, before we work out (based on your play experience) whether I'm wrong or not, it's crucial that you understand my rationale for my claim.

Here's my call on games of this sort, which I'm pretty sure wasn't understood by many people in the original thread. Their systems do not actually facilitate play. The role-playing that occurs when using these games is actually independent of the system, being driven mainly by Drama and various Illusionist or shared-author techniques (depending on the group).

"System," in the sense of the five components of Exploration, may be thought of as "procedure of establishing the imagined events." In my experience of SLUG-like games, the system on the sheet is responsible for doing "System" (as I define it here) about 10% of the time, looking at the total number of imagined events that are established through play. The majority of the imagined events are established without using it.

Therefore it looks as if one is playing, e.g., SLUG, because that's the sheet in front of everyone, but what is really being played is a Drama-heavy system that isn't written anywhere. The SLUG system is at best tweaking very occasional and/or non-crucial elements of the imagined events.

So I am asking you, in full knowledge that you did indeed role-play with SLUG in front of you, whether you and the other participants used SLUG as the primary determinant of resolved-events during play. (I specifically refer you to the IIEE discussions as some background for answering this question.)

Best,
Ron

SInce I started the one-page RPG thread, I'll try my hand at some of these questions

Quote from: Kenway-Is there any way to make something like SLUG "unbroken and playable?"  

There is, but it would require a nearly full rewrite and the creation of several pages of material, the unwritten material ROn mentions above, so it would cease to be a one page RPG anymore.

Quote-I think "fully freeform" gamewise means basically "make your characters whatever you want" and the gm makes up the results of anything a pc attempts.  

Full freeform is an odd duck and I've been trying to find material on it. Lately I've been looking away from freeform RPGs and looking toward improv theatre for inspiration. There's some useful ideas there.

MOst freeform I've run into is chatroom-based. The GM's role is much reduced to basically just vetoing something impossible, improbable or just plain "wrong" a player says their character does. This is important in certain world FFRPGs that have a game world with set rules and roles.

One thing that does not seem to be in there is the GM's role of telling players the result of attempted actions. Some have this, but not all do.

Quote-Many novice game designers, myself included, have tried to make a "fully freeform game."  Is this kind of thing impossible, or are we just going at it the wrong way?

Freeform is governed by "rules" of a sort whether written or unwritten. We usually boil this down to social contract in typical RPGs because we have other concerns there, like dice mechanics or character ability balancing or whatever.
The problem with novice designers writing "fully freeform" RPGs, myself included, is that they don't write down all the stuff that's left out, like dice and such (they often write down that these are left out) and then they don't write down or barely gloss over what's left. The result is about a page or five of underdeveloped ideas. The designer goes "oh my, look, if I leave out all of that stuff an RPG can be only a page long." In reality, the single page barely has enough information on it to play and requires the players to "just make up" so much of the How of the game that it's greatly reduced in value. It then becomes a nifty idea. Well, I get nifty ideas all day long. I don't need another.

I hope that answered some of your questions.

For the second time in a month I agree with Jack. Surely the apocalypse is near.

If there are any "well-written" guidelines, they're not around here. The table-top mentality is sufficiently far from Free-form that we don't deal with it.

More importantly, what would it say? The "rules" for all Free-form are pretty much the same, as Jack points out. Make up what you want, just adhere to the details of the social contract (ofen just admonishments that a player play nice, and responsibly). Occsionally there is a GM to do vetoing to keep players in line. What more can you add? It's the freedom from rules that's the primary feature of Freeform stuff, so predictably there are not many if any. Occasionally some stuff on how often one is allowed to create (read post, in most circumstances).

Sure one can make up a good setting or other details to make the game nifty. But that's not rules, and the guidelines for writing good setting are profuse here and elsewhere.

Are we missing your point, KW?

Mike

Mike and Jack,

I agree with you, but I think that this thread includes two very different issues and they should be kept separate.

One issue concerns so-called one-page RPGs which offer - according to them - sufficient rules. It's not about Freeform vs. not-Freeform, it's about whether these games, historically, are indeed what they claim to be.

Earlier, I suggested they were not. Kenway is stating that he experienced plenty of enjoyable play using SLUG. I'm asking questions that dissect out what he really experienced and whether SLUG had anything to do with it.

The whole Freeform issue is, in my view, completely independent of that first issue. That's a different question - whether Freeform works, whether there are guidelines, etc. Yes or no to these questions has nothing to do with one-page vs. not one-page.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the responses.
 Ron was probably right in saying that I was probably trying to do 2 discussions in 1 post.
 Here, I'll address what I meant about freeform games.
 I'm still working on typing up my comments about SLUG + playability.

 Freeform Games
 Recently, I found a copy of Sean Patrick Fannon's "The Fantasy Role-Playing Gamer's Bible" and I read the brief review of Theatrix.  A footnote at the bottom discussed how the author has played games where characters were generated using Hero System rules but the "numbers come into play so rarely as to make the rules almost pointless.  No one cares- they're having a *grand* time!" (Direct quote)
 The author briefly aludes to such freeform playing during the text, but almost always in an anecdotal manner.
 I'm sure we've played freeform-type games like this of some sort.

 First, I was just making sure that "freeform" meant what I thought it did (and you've all confirmed what I thought, thanks).

 But I was also wondering if freeform playing is so popular, why there weren't any real "writeups" of how to play freeform.  This is where the I thought one-page rpgs were attempts at freeform rules.
 There ought to be freeform writeups, I think.  Freeform games are probably mostly narrative in goal, but I think that a freeform guide could discuss gamist and simulationist goals as well.
 As Pyron mentioned, freeform games probably don't last long, but I think they could last for several entertaining sessions if the players and gm had clear goals and a premise in mind.  Rules and rewards might be developed during gameplay.
 It seems that freeforming is looked down upon, but I think there might be some value.

Quote from: KenwayBut I was also wondering if freeform playing is so popular, why there weren't any real "writeups" of how to play freeform.  This is where the I thought one-page rpgs were attempts at freeform rules.

Well, the first really well-done write up on freeforming I had found was Wizards ofthe Coast's rules for Interactive Story Role Playing. This is chat room rules, but a decent place to start if you're interested in exploring freeform.

I don't think that most 1 page RPGs are attempts at writing up freeform rules. I think that many of them are just TWERPS. Remember that one? It stands for The World's Easiest Role Playing Game. There was one stat, Strength, and a simple skill or class system that was basically attribute + skill. The was typical RPG design stripped down to it's most basic (and it was oddly similar to R. Talsorian's Mekton II)

These 1 p. RPGs are mostly wanna be designers leaving out many items found in derivatie design, like classes or such, and finding the result is simple, easy to understand, easy to read, fast to read (less than 15 minutes most of them). They'd like to think they include everything necessary but the problem is that large blocks of these games are covered by "make it up yourself" or "do whatever you want."

To be fair, RPGs have had large blocks covered by these things pretty much since day one. D&D mostly contains rules for monster killing and the effects thereof. Any of what some would call "real role-playing" (although such a term is a misnomer) is just made up by the players and DM as they decide they need them. They "just role-play it" as it is said.

1p. RPGs cut most of the idea down to the ever-popular core resolution mechanic and cut out everything deemed unecessary. Skill list? Who needs it? you can just make up your own skills. and so on. This leaves, usually, a skeleton of an idea for a game.

I sound like I'm down on these games but that's because most of them are done by amateurs for the most part and the games in question are so brief only because the author has not finished them yet. This varies from game to game, but for the most part, this is true IME.

I think it is important to point out that 1p. RPGs are not freeform per se. There seems to be, as you've said, misunderstand on what freeform is or even could be. Most I've run into have dismissed it as "just doing whatever you want." I don't believe this is necessarily so.

In fact, the above seems to show that most RPGs have undefined areas that are done more-or-less freeform and to leave everything in the game likewise undefined sounds like an interesting experiment to me. Whether it bears fruit remains to be seen

QuoteFreeform games are probably mostly narrative in goal, but I think that a freeform guide could discuss gamist and simulationist goals as well.

I think most will back me up that the GNS goals have as much to do with a freeform RPG as they do with the type and number of dice rolled. That is, freeform could be G, N, or S probably fairly easily, I suspect. Maybe easier for N than the others, but I think it's possible for the other two and freeform is not inheriently N.

QuoteAs Pyron mentioned, freeform games probably don't last long, but I think they could last for several entertaining sessions if the players and gm had clear goals and a premise in mind.  Rules and rewards might be developed during gameplay.

I'm not sure what could sustain interest but I believe that it bears mentioning that many games of D&D and other RPGs don't last more than one session with people trying it once and then never playing again.

It's just a matter of the right people giving it a try and then staying with it because they've decided they like it. That's all.

But it seems I've hijacked the thread on the freeform subject again despite my best intentions. Should we start a new thread?

My experience is that one page RPGs are cute, but don't functionally work, because there's not enough chassis to hang the game on.

I think of the system as the engine for the game.  To be able to build a successful world, you need a certain set of laws everyone agrees on.  These laws have to be as immovable as the real laws of physics -- it's the grounds on how the world works.  Even diceless games have a certain set of mechanics for task resolution, combat, character creation and combat.  Heck, even Over the Edge, with it's nigh non-existant system, has enough room for this.

You have to ask yourself these questions:

"How do I want my characters to interact with the game physics?"
"How do I want my characters to interact with NPCs?"
"How do I want my characters to interact with each other?"
"How do I want my characters to kill something?"
"How do I want my characters die?"
"How do I want them to start?"
"How do I want them to advance?"
"How do I want them to end?"

Fatal or non-fatal?  Magic or non-magic?  And is the magic complicated or casual?  Do you want your system to be a stand-alone generic thing or something specifically tailored to your world?

I can't imagine that these questions can be resolved -- and work successfully -- with just one page.  (I assume 1 page == 500 words.)  I'm sitting here with a system document that is far longer than that with just some character creation, advancement, and task resolution.  I assume 10,000 words for a skeleton of all questions answered, plus character templates, skill sets, readable examples and possibly equipment for a fully-featured complete game.

Your game needs to be a complete package.  "Here you go and there you are."  Freeform is nice, but you need to hang it on something.  Otherwise, you're just playing House.

Quote from: Emily_DresnerHow do I want my characters to interact with NPCs?"
"How do I want my characters to interact with each other?"

Interesting points, Em but I personally don't argee with your entire list save for these and to add these:

How do I want conflict in the game to be resolved?
How do I want conflict outside of the game to be resolved?
What am I having my characters DO?

Or such is my take on it.

QuoteI can't imagine that these questions can be resolved -- and work successfully -- with just one page.  (I assume 1 page == 500 words.)

By one page the actual game may print up into 10 or even 20 pages. The point is the game itself is very short. Most I have print out in less than five pages.

QuoteFreeform is nice, but you need to hang it on something.  Otherwise, you're just playing House.

You say that as if playing house isn't fun or that it's "just" playing house like it's a lesser experience.

I don't know, folks, but I've had more enjoyable experiences with my Fisher-Price peg people than I ever did with D&D. How about you?

Nobody 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.

Mike

OK, freeform is threatening to take over this thread. So, I'm going to start a new thread (which will probably kill the conversation) and this thread can get back to it's original topic.

The problem with SLUG, btw is that when you sprikle salt on them they shrivel up. ;)

Oh, one more point here about Freeform. I believe that actual Freeforms last as long if not longer than most tabletop games. I know of a couple personally that have run for almost a decade at this point. Just takes dedicated individuals.

Mike

SLUG
   The "SLUG" game session I most recall used a post-bomb setting like in the computer games Wasteland/Fallout.
   The characters (Desert Rangers) were described to be almost exactly the same as the players (university grads).
   The party declared actions like "I'll try to run around the Radiation Dogs and enter the building", "I'll shoot at Goliath", and "I kick down the door."
   For each action I rolled a d100 and judged the results outlined in the SLUG rules.
   I suppose the game was played with a Gamist/Simulationist perspective.

   Ron, I might be missing the point of your questions though.