Has anybody ever used Fortune (as in: rolling dice somewhere along IIEE) in freeform gaming? Would that even be freeform any more?

Here is the related story: Two friends of mine designed a generic system which was basically just that. No stats at all were used, you would just describe your character and his actions, and in a given situation where success and failure hung in the balance, the GM would determine the dice to roll based on how challenging the situation was. After rolling the dice, the GM would interpret the outcome.

So, none of the character’s competence and state or the task’s difficulty would be measured in abstract numbers. You would just say: “How hard is it for your character, here and now, to do this?”

I played it once with them and found it brilliant. Unfortunately, in their following sessions, they got into trouble because one of them thought the GM’s role was too dominant and the other feared the players stealing control from him over “his story” and “his world”. Their efforts to compensate this through the rules ruined the concept. The conflict was fed by them disagreeing on the style and flair of the game. I think without this disagreement it could have worked very well.

Has anybody else tried something similar? How did it work?

To illustrate, one example of system in action. Few occurred during the session, most of the time we just described what happened, with quite a classic distribution of narration between players and GM. Then my character, a trained knight, got circled by three cut-throats in an alley. They pulled knives on him.

Me: “I step toward the closest one, grab his wrist and bend it, then kick him in the stomach.”
GM: “Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he’s got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me.”
We roll, I roll significantly higher.
GM: “Right, your maneuver works, he loses his knife and clutches his stomach, groaning. The other two stare in surprise for a moment.”
Me: “I step backwards to the wall and draw my sword, daring them to attack.”
GM: “They take to their heels.”

- Frank

Interesting.

Frank T wrote: You would just say: “How hard is it for your character, here and now, to do this?”

Frank T wrote:
Me: “I step toward the closest one, grab his wrist and bend it, then kick him in the stomach.”
GM: “Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he’s got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me.”
We roll, I roll significantly higher.
GM: “Right, your maneuver works, he loses his knife and clutches his stomach, groaning. The other two stare in surprise for a moment.”
Me: “I step backwards to the wall and draw my sword, daring them to attack.”
GM: “They take to their heels.”

In my Verge rpg, risk is always chosen by the player group. The player has X dice from his relevant trait then he gives the GM Y dice to roll against him. Other players will have some limited ability to give the GM a few more dice but the rule as written is in flux.

Right, I'll keep my eyes open for Matrix Games, now that I know they have nothing to do with Keanu Reaves in bullet time. ;-)

As for the difference between conflict and task resolution, Sidney, you are surely right that this was task resolution. I’m not sure if I grab the meaning of the word “fiat” correctly, though. To be sure: in this particular game, the GM would not pre-determine the outcome of a conflict. So the task resolution would influence the outcome significantly, only in a different way than conflict resolution would.

- Frank

Oh, I wasn't suggesting the GM predetermined the outcome before you had your input (though I suppose it's possible). By "fiat" I simply mean that the GM just decides without any kind of rules, mechanics, consultation, whatever -- whereas with the "I grab his wrist" etc. the GM actually rolled dice.

GM: “Okay, you surprise him, got superior strength and training, but he’s got the knife. Make that a d8 for you and a d6 for me.”

Yeah, I've gamed almost exactly like this. When it works, it works stunningly. It's the getting it to work part that is difficult. The biggest problem is that there is massive potential for assumption clash, and there's no common framework of any kind on which to base a consensus. By assumption clash, I mean differing assumptions about what is plausible.

Using step-by-step task resolution rather than conflict resolution will often result in lesser apparent assumption clash, because breaking the conflict down into steps allows disagreements to be voiced along way. But the assumption clash is actually just as bad, because the implicit assumptions behind the framing of the resolution are where the really big assumption differences hide.

By contrast, the game you are describing fell apart not because of differing assumptions about game-world plausibility, but for real-world control issues.

Actually, I should point out that there's nothing inherently "Freeform" about the idea of players deciding their own difficulty. It just means that competence to perform a task is not a resource that needs to be carefully monitored.

Which may mean that it doesn't matter (in My Life with Master, for instance, you really can't avoid the core problems of the game by being smarter, faster, more skilled) or it may mean that any numeric choice is a balanced strategic decision with pros and cons. For that latter, I'll recommend a look at my baby-steps development on Misery Bubblegum which has exactly this sort of "Decide how hard it is" system, but which places serious emphasis on whether and how you succeed, and what it costs you (and those around you) to do so.

So if you're rephrasing in your own words the realization "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" then I'm right there with you. Cool, isn't it?

Hi everybody and thanks for the replies!

Tony, it's not that much, "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" It's rather, "Hey, to address the question whether my character can climb the slippery wall, a game doesn't need stats and difficulty levels." What I loved about this particular game was that it was very straight task resolution and exploration. It was Sim without stats. Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

Lee, I absolutely agree on the assumptions part. I think with the two guys I mentioned, the reason for the clash of real-world control issues was really a clash of assumptions about game-world plausibility. One of them would normally GM, and he would force his vision of the game world on the players. Had the players shared this vision, the control issue would never have become a problem. I would love to hear more about the gaming you mentioned. What exact rules do you use?

- Frank

Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

Frank T wrote: Has anybody else tried something similar? How did it work?

Frank T wrote: Hi everybody and thanks for the replies!

Tony, it's not that much, "Hey, a game doesn't have to be some contest about whether my character can climb the slippery wall... it can address entirely different things!" It's rather, "Hey, to address the question whether my character can climb the slippery wall, a game doesn't need stats and difficulty levels." What I loved about this particular game was that it was very straight task resolution and exploration.

Lee, I absolutely agree on the assumptions part. I think with the two guys I mentioned, the reason for the clash of real-world control issues was really a clash of assumptions about game-world plausibility. One of them would normally GM, and he would force his vision of the game world on the players. Had the players shared this vision, the control issue would never have become a problem. I would love to hear more about the gaming you mentioned. What exact rules do you use?

My friend Ben called this his 2d6 system. First session good. Second session bad - all my fault when I wanted to play this ubercool demon character who could throw tables around, and it didn't fit in with the other's expectatins. That seems like a theme, no?

I'd call all these systems something like "near freeform."

The question, to me, is why not simply take that last step to complete freeform? At the point that the abstraction is at the level of roll one die vs roll another die, why not just select the outcome instead of the dice? What are the dice providing at this point?

I wouldn't be surprised to see that all of these systems are the result of RPG gamers going towards freeform, and not freeformers coming in towards TT RPGing. What I think I'm seeing is that the people playing this way are clinging to the last vestiges of the idea that they need an arbitrary system in order for play to be "fair" somehow. Or that, sans a rating system (no matter how abstract) and a system to compare it to, that no in-game understanding can be achieved.

Belied by all the functional freeform play, of course.

I think that these systems tend to end up in dysfunction because at some point somebody tests the "hardness" or "fairness" principles that the pseudo-system is supposed to provide, and that throws everything out of whack. I think that in most cases these games would be better off without the mechanics.

Which is not to say that something like this couldn't be functional. If people all understood that, like in narrativism games, the fortune functioned as solely an "imaginative springboard," then I think you'd just be playing nigh freeform with a little bit of divination thrown in. Which could work. But as a system like most TT have to regiment play, I think they're so light as to fail miserably. Basically simply not enough structure to maintain play for, well, more than a session or so.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: My friend Ben called this his 2d6 system. First session good. Second session bad - all my fault when I wanted to play this ubercool demon character who could throw tables around, and it didn't fit in with the other's expectatins. That seems like a theme, no?

I'd call all these systems something like "near freeform."

The question, to me, is why not simply take that last step to complete freeform? At the point that the abstraction is at the level of roll one die vs roll another die, why not just select the outcome instead of the dice? What are the dice providing at this point?

I wouldn't be surprised to see that all of these systems are the result of RPG gamers going towards freeform, and not freeformers coming in towards TT RPGing. What I think I'm seeing is that the people playing this way are clinging to the last vestiges of the idea that they need an arbitrary system in order for play to be "fair" somehow. Or that, sans a rating system (no matter how abstract) and a system to compare it to, that no in-game understanding can be achieved.

Belied by all the functional freeform play, of course.

I think that these systems tend to end up in dysfunction because at some point somebody tests the "hardness" or "fairness" principles that the pseudo-system is supposed to provide, and that throws everything out of whack. I think that in most cases these games would be better off without the mechanics.

Which is not to say that something like this couldn't be functional. If people all understood that, like in narrativism games, the fortune functioned as solely an "imaginative springboard," then I think you'd just be playing nigh freeform with a little bit of divination thrown in. Which could work. But as a system like most TT have to regiment play, I think they're so light as to fail miserably. Basically simply not enough structure to maintain play for, well, more than a session or so.

Mike

Hey Frank,

I know that I am coming to this party late, as I have been extremely busy with life and working on a specific post, but my answer to your question is basically – “Yes.” I would say that just about everything outside of combat proper is pretty much entirely outside the realm of abstracted numbers, tables and equations. I should note that in our incarnation of this technique (style?) of play that while we do have attributes and skills numbers they are rarely referenced directly and are mostly just symbols than anything functional. To give you an example I’ll quote one player in our game, “Stats are the currency by which we purchase our fantasies.” IOW the numbers are not so important as an element of system and resolution mechanics as much as they are a rude or coarse reference point by which we hang our Character on. There are no tables to match the stats to. 18 high percentage is nearing human maximum strength – whatever that means! – and an 11 is the midpoint in the bell curve of humanity – whatever that means! What matters to us is - is my Character “really strong,” strong enough (or so enfeebled) that he stands out in some important way or so normal as to not really be worth noting in any particular fashion.

All sorts of situational “modifiers” are taken into consideration by the GM as well as the players’ own skills. IOW if the player is particularly clever, like your knight in your example, then said player is given “bonuses” to his die roll – or just flat out succeeds. Again all this is handled in such a fashion that numbers really aren’t “called for.” The GM will typically just say, “roll,” (which unless stated otherwise means roll a d20) and high is always better and low is always worse. If the situation is exceptionally difficult in some way the GM will notify the player through a number of techniques usually verbal occasionally numerical. By that I mean if the situation is dire the GM will say something like, “This is really risky, are you sure you want to do that,” or “That’s really gutsy, but if you pull it off…,” or “You had best get hot…” Occasionally he’ll say, “Don’t roll a ‘1’,” or “You need an 18, 19 or 20,” or “Don’t talk to me unless you roll a 20!” However, in all of this no tables are referenced no stats are called forth no equations are applied, just different methods of conveying information. I should note that in the examples where numbers are cited they are actually stock phrases that have their own bricoled meaning. IOW its not the numerical value that’s important or what is being focused on but rather what that number “means.”

Which brings me to –

Miskatonic wrote: There's just something... fun about pushing otherwise abstract interaction into the tangible realm.

Frank T wrote: It was Sim without stats. Strangely, I had the feeling that this was a much more realistic way of dealing with any possible in-game-situation than any complex rulesset of skills, attributes, hit locations and whatnot could ever provide.

I've used similar systems in the past mayself, especially when there wasn't a particular game handy that covered the situation (creating a unique setting on the fly), or when playing with folks that were casual gamers and didn't have a familiarity with a given setting or ruleset.

IME, a simple "how-likely-is-it-to-happen" worked very well, regardless of the particulars of the die type rolled.

I think this points to a general direction possibilty in design trends. Instead of focussing design on the micro-level of character to world interaction, it simplifies it greatly and shifts design focus to player to player interaction. Doing so leads to some interesting questions, like:

Why do characters get xps, rather than players?
Why do character players get xps, and GMs don't?
If GMs got xps, how would they use them?
What does it mean when you bring initiative/turn order up to the player level, rather than keeping it down on the character level?
...and about a hundred others.

I suspect that mainstream commercial sim designs continue to focus on complex resolution systems from the fear that simple systems are not commercially viable, and those producers may well be correct. I personally feel that that design mentality is one of the biggest barriers seperating mainstream rpg design from a broader audience of the general populace.

Mike Holmes wrote: The question, to me, is why not simply take that last step to complete freeform? At the point that the abstraction is at the level of roll one die vs roll another die, why not just select the outcome instead of the dice? What are the dice providing at this point?

First, Rob, I think people don't approach it like this. If they did it might be a bit more functional. But the problem even with your notion is that there are still going to be those moments where the players disagree even that a roll is called for. There's a three foot gap over a chasm. Possibly short enough to step over. Do we roll? Even at long odds to fail?

It's the problem of when the tension of the roll should be introduced that's the problem. Sans a system telling you that it's the GM's prerogative and duty to set these things up, it can still be problematic.

Really the point of all of this is that these "systems" are ususally extremely incomplete, because what's not agreed upon is what the die rolls are for, and how they get established. IOW, the IIEE isn't worked out at all. Often because the system gets created by some guy saying, "Hey, let's just roll some dice for combat and stuff, and high rolls mean good, and low rolls mean bad." Well, that tells you what the outcomes are, but not how we're agreeing to establish when to roll in the first place or why we're rolling.

Again, put this in the context of some text that explains it (perhaps as you have, Rob) and to which the players agree, and you might get a functional system. Or if you have a GM who really understands this all, and perhaps uses examples of play to make people understand the issue. The point is simply that the minimum requirement to make a game functional over time, barring getting very lucky, is to not only have the resolution system set out, but the IIEE, too.

Mike

Hey, a lot of replies! :D I don't have the time to address everything as I ought to right now, so I'll stick with the point raised by Mike for the moment:

What are the dice providing at this point?

Really the point of all of this is that these "systems" are ususally extremely incomplete, because what's not agreed upon is what the die rolls are for, and how they get established.

Mike,
I wouldn't presume to speak for `people' over such a thing, just for myself and even that limited by all the caveats of introspection.

I sincerely believe that I was using the dice as I described. Because of that, I find myself in full agreement with your remaining points. A die mechanic is not enough for a functional system. Today I know enough to toss IEEE in there as well, but back then I didn't, and I didn't.

The result was a system that worked well enough to sustain the game among a group of friends who trusted each other, but it was a lot like the proverbial dancing bear. It was meant as an experiment, and it is one that I'm happy to have done, but wouldn't repeat.

Nevertheless, short-cut of argument through the use of dice is the reason I didn't drift to complete freeform and the absence of such a short cut is one of the major reasons I still don't play freeform today. I realize, then and now, that all I'm doing is pushing the argumentation back one notch, from `does it happen' to `how likely is it', but I found that that one notch made a big difference in the amount of time spent discussing outcomes.

Frank,
Definitely thrill can be a big factor depending who is playing.

SR
--

Rob,

Thing is, theoretically the Freeformers have their agenda set out from the first, and don't have any arguments. That is, the assumption that there will be arguments that dice can be used to resolve in short order, sound like an assumption that freeform games all start with a dysfunctional level of lack of agreement on the creative agenda of play. I think that for these arguments you have to assume a functional freeform game with a coherent Creative Agenda (including IIEE, etc).

Now, if you want to claim that there is no such thing as a freeform game with a coherent CA, that would be a different argument - one that my biases would like me to accept. But without studying the form a lot more than I have, at least, I couldn't say that there are no coherent freeform games with any certaintly.

Though the one's I've seen have all had problems... :-)

I'm betting the freeformers are there on the other side of the fence saying right now that we tabletoppers never have had a coherent game, either. :-)

Mike

Mike,

I think that many of the arguments in freeform games come from differing views of what's plausible in a given context, rather than differing agendas. So freeformers can still have plenty of arguments, even if agenda isn't involved (but of course, many times agenda is involved).

Well, I think those arguments about genre expectations stem from Creative Agenda problems. Sim/Gam incoherence, for instance, causes one player to question another's addition because it's not "fair." I think that you'll find that once the CA stuff is nailed down, that when a person comes up with something implausible, it's at most amusing. You never get the sort of "argument" that needs dice to resolve.

"Uh, it's Vulcan's, not Klingons that have the pointy ears."

"Oh, damn, you're right. Forget I mentioned em."

Mike

Yeah, but CA differences aren't the only source of different expectations. Different assumptions about how the real world works are another rich vein, IME -- fundamentally, most genres are defined as "just like the real world, except . . ."

So I guess that's really where we disagree -- I think that differing assumptions about the real world contribute significantly to this problem; you don't seem to.

Mike,
"No such thing as a freeform game with a coherent CA"...yeah, I'll buy that for about the same reason that I'll buy "no such thing as a tt game with a coherent CA". I don't believe in perfect agreement (about anything) among any group of more than one.

Point is, in a system that includes formalized rules people can avoid direct confrontation by going through the authority of the rules. This is elementary "smoothing" behavior. In a freeform system everything moves by open negotiation. So, I think that, for a given group, the amount of incoherence that can be tolerated will be significantly higher when using a well-designed and appropriate set of rules.

Also, while I agree with you that many apparent content-of-the-SIS arguments are really CA arguments in disguise, I don't think that all SIS arguments are such. I have witnessed (the moral equivalent of) a 5 minute discussion about whether it was the Vulcans or Klingons who had funny ears, with both players annoyed at the time spent on the argument and neither standing to gain from either outcome, but both unable to continue until they had the "right" picture in their heads.

SR
--

Lee, oh, no, I agree with you that such disagreements are problematic and come up frequently. It's just that this is no different in tabletop than it is in freeform. If freeform is more problematic, that can't be the problem. Rather is has to be a lack of way to deal with the problems when they come up. That's CA.

Rob Carriere wrote: In a freeform system everything moves by open negotiation.

Mike Holmes wrote: [...] that freeform has the most Points of Contact of any form of RPG. [...] It also has the lowest handling time/effort, however, when people do manage to negotiate these POC. This is the essential TT/Freeform tradeoff, I believe.