This thread is born out of the "No rules, no nothing" rpg? thread

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

I'd like to understand it better too, Jack. Unfortunately I think that our knowledge base is pretty slim here. OTOH, for the same reason that I say that Freeforms are easy to create, I think that "experts" on Freeform are few and far between.

OTOH, I may be just as mistaken about that. If anyone does have extensice experience, please speak up. Lance? You have some practical experience, no? Speak up.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'd like to understand it better too, Jack. Unfortunately I think that our knowledge base is pretty slim here. OTOH, for the same reason that I say that Freeforms are easy to create, I think that "experts" on Freeform are few and far between.

Paganini wrote: Freeform games are sort of a pure distillation of the essence of RPGs. A freeform game pretty much boils down to a social contract that details who can decide what.

For the most part, everyone got along fine and had a lot of fun - until this one guy. This guy (Lord Adam) was a sort of powergamer's powergamer in that he had a need to dominate. A typical posting sequence would go like this:

A: Lord Adam makes a post with role-playing content
B: Someone responds to Lord Adam's post
C: Lord Adam explains how post B never happened because the poster didn't follow the rules that Lord Adam stated or implied in post A.

After a while, this got really boring and irritating, and resulted in a lot of people just dropping the role-playing stuff.

Without a clear declaration of who gets to do what, freeform gaming will likely fail. It's possibley that conflicts of interest will never occur (if participants share goals) but we know from studying GNS how likely that is. :)

With a social contract, freeform gaming can be very enjoyable, and can be perfectly teneable for long campaigns (which is an argument naysayers often fling at it: "My D&D campaign ran for years! How many freeform games have you seen do that?").

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Paganini wrote: Freeform games are sort of a pure distillation of the essence of RPGs. A freeform game pretty much boils down to a social contract that details who can decide what.

This POV may be why I'm so attracted to it, but reading it now, calling it "pure distillation" sound, I don't know-- kind of out there? Maybe a little too close to roll-playing/role-playing, you know?

This can happen even in traditional RPGs. Part of it, I have no doubt, in this case was because this was an internet game. Were this a tabletop RPG, Lord Adam may not have sat down. And if he did, the others would have boted him out fast.

Without a clear declaration of who gets to do what, freeform gaming will likely fail. It's possibley that conflicts of interest will never occur (if participants share goals) but we know from studying GNS how likely that is. :)

So, basically what you're saying is that freeform RPGs, in spite of the name, does have and require structure to run. This structure is mostly just the social contract which all RPGs have or should have.

Since the social contract is no longer an underlying structure but the only structure, many things typically dealt with are left out. Stuff like damage list for weapons, but even more stuff than just that.

This is like that James Ernest article I posted a link to a while ago. Freeform chips away at a bunch more marble to make the horse.

One of my big questions about freeform gaming:
When a game session starts out as D&D or Champions and then the gm and players agree to stop using the rules and "freeform" instead, is that considered freeforming?
Or is "not using dice or looking up rules" considered a house rule?

Hi, Kenway

I wouldn't consider it a house rule. Mostly because if playing D&D without using any of the rules could be considered a house rule, then by exstention every RPG out there is just a house rule of D&D. You see, D&D came first, the systems that came out shortly thereafter were variants or blatant rip-offs of D&D. Chaosium's Basic Role Playing rules used in Runequest started as a set of house rules. Following games were built upon this foundation so that nearly every RPG on the market is just a variant of what has gone before. I'll bet we could trace a lineage for games like Sorcerer directly to D&D is we tried. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

But I don't think Sorcerer is just a D&D variant, no matter how removed. SO dropping the system when playing is not just house rules. I doubt it's something entirely new, either. This is the same problem with 1p. RPGs. If you're playing D&D and you drop the rules, then what are you doing? Something replaces the rules. Exactly what will vary.

In any case, this system dropping is a phenomenom unique and somewhat separate from just plain freeform and we should treat it as such.

Most importantly, dropping the system is an extreme example of drift. You are definitely playing the game now in a manner which the text does not imply. Even if you start with just the chargen, and then go from there without rules. That's just a big rule dropping drift.

If you were to not even use the chargen, then I'm not sure how it could be said that you are using the system at all, except perhaps as inspiration? Remember setting is not system. If you are just using the setting, and not the system at all, then you are just "playing the setting" but not the RPG in any meaningful way. At that point you are probably playing a Freeform that uses the setting.

This is as opposed to Freeform where there are no resolution of chargen rules in the "design" of he game, and play is not drifted at all. That demarcates the two activities pretty well.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: If anyone does have extensice experience, please speak up. Lance? You have some practical experience, no? Speak up.

Wolfen wrote: So do you all think I've classified Freeform pretty well, or have I missed something important?

Relating to Mike's point about the lack of drift in pure freeforming, there are a couple other related questions:

-Do and should freeform game sessions still have explicit GNS goals?
-Do and should freeform game sessions still have a Premise?
If these are relevant, the lack of attention to these factors is probably why most freeform game sessions often don't seem to go anywhere.

Kenway wrote: -Do and should freeform game sessions still have explicit GNS goals?

-Do and should freeform game sessions still have a Premise?
If these are relevant, the lack of attention to these factors is probably why most freeform game sessions often don't seem to go anywhere.

Also, in what I'd call the "Advanced Roleplaying Forums" there is a lot of additional emphasis in the forum's individual Social Contract on playing fair, and creating a "good scene". This means that you "take your hits" (ie, if it's realistic for something to happen to your character, you should allow it, including taking hits in a fight) and sometimes work from Author stance to make the scene better and more interesting. "Taking your hits" is a given, but using Author stance in an improvised scene often relies on intercommunication between the participants (OOC conversation, usually in IMs) and trust in the other players to not do anything to your character that you do not want happening. I see this type of RP as primarily Simulationist, with a strong leaning toward Narrativism in the latter cases.

As stated before in Actual Play, I think that seperating mediation and arbitration into jobs held by different people can help eliminate the railroad illusionist thing.

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

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.

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

Bailey wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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)

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.)

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.

blackmanxy wrote: 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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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).

Right, Fang, that's a good example of a TT reward. But in a Freeform, what do you use as a reward? There are no dice or tokens in FFs. So what would you give?

Mike

Let me add one cautionary comment about positive reinforcement: long-term prizes can backfire. If someone struggling with social contract issues gets in the mindset of "guess I'm out of the running for the prize," it can become a self-reinforcing "... so I might was well just have fun [go berserk; ruin everyone else's]."

I second Fang's instant rewards, but let me add that the most effective reward might be completely intangible and completely outside the game. Such as simple statements (via IM, if necessary) like, "Hey, that rocked."

Um, take a real close look sometime at how Ron (and some others, but mostly Ron) respond to Forge newcomers who need some help with the local culture. I've seen it become a rather intricate dance with subtle positive and negative reinforcement (often ostensibly directed at other parties) on a very fine scale.

- Walt

Mike Holmes wrote: Right, Fang, that's a good example of a TT reward. But in a Freeform, what do you use as a reward? There are no dice or tokens in FFs. So what would you give?

Le Joueur wrote: Depending on how the whole worked or if any tracking could be managed without huge headaches, how about something like 'kudoes?' If someone gives you a 'kudo' you get the 'right of way' in a scene when you 'spend' it later.

One question that I do have is that someone mentioned that they believed that Gamist FFs were possible. This I'm having a hard time imagining. Without any mechanical bars to set, and without players set as objective referee's I'm having trouble seeing where the player can strive in a Gamist fashion. Can anyone explain that?

Evan Waters wrote: Good question. I think there are some ways in which it is possible- if the character is given a goal that is achieved through RPing, character interaction, problem solving, etc., the player could work towards it without invoking mechanics. An example might be RPing a company executive planning a hostile takeover or trying to negotiate an important contract. Or, maybe if you put a PC in a room where he has to solve a puzzle to get out, the GM can give the player a drawing of the puzzle, or say a riddle and make the player guess, or something else that involves working out an answer to a problem without resorting to mechanics.

At the risk of (a) making myself look like a liar when I described myself recently as "not a designer" and (b) giving folks a look at a rules set that desperately needed polish, here's a link to a set of Freeform (online -- BB-oriented) RP rules I put out for the Tribes Roleplayers during my time on the Tribes 2 project.

Here's the link: TRP rules

You'll likely have to go to the Downloads link and grab the rules from there.

Best,

Blake

Blake's game has me really thinking.

This really messes with the definition of Freeform. There are distinct resolution rules in there, and mechanics. They are all Drama based, but by that definition, Amber falls under the Freeform definition. But when you look at it, all Freeforms have a "resolution mechanic" just one that is often left unstated or a simple line about how to use appropriate Drama when resolving what occurs. In the case of Blake's game, you have a looong essay on exactly how to use the game mechanics including a point based CharGen with a Trait and Skill system to adjudicate exactly what is appropriate from a Drama standpoint. But it's still all Drama.

There are differences, however. Many Freeforms will not have the "mechanical" details that Blake's game has. I think that may be key. I have a strong desire to say to Blake, "Hey, that's too organized to call Freeform."

What do other people think?

(BTW, Blake, I like it a lot, and I might even try and join up when I'm not so busy. )

Mike

Just out of curiosity, but did you see my post prior to Fang's, Mike? You asked what could be used as positive reinforcement in FFRP, when I gave several examples.

Anyhow, I can give an example of something that might be considered Gamist in FFRP. For a while, in LT, we had a forum-wide SL (Storyline) going on where shards of a mystical artifact, said to be able to grant life or immortality had to be found, then assembled. Shard organized this by having everyone contact him privately and sign up for "Good or Evil", either with active character, or one made for the purpose of the SL. We were allowed to cooperate both in writing the SLs, roleplaying the pertinent scenes, and working out the answers to the questions.

What questions? Here's where it gets borderline gamist. We were given lists of questions which, in some twisted way, all related to where one of the shards were. Whoever found all of the answers first got a few more questions, and whoever was the first to answer those got to have their team find the shard. Finding the answers to the questions could mean looking up obscure facts online, or answering off-the wall trivia. (What is {some chemical compound}? It turns out to be a Freon substitute, which ends up relating to Freon, the Cryomantic Archmage, who resided in N. Oceanuus, and who had possession of the shard.)

From there, usually the actual finding of the shard was roleplayed, and there could be a variety of things happen in the RP'd scene, esp. considering that multiple characters were involved. Some good stories came out of that contest...

Anyhow, I don't know if this exactly counts, but it was definitely a game, and one we were all trying REALLY hard to win. In the end, we all lost, but... that's only 'cause Shardie's a twisted bastard.

Thanks, Mike.

Fair warning: the TRP community isn't doing much RP these days. I haven't been available to provide help and inspiration, and Sierra seems to be taking Tribes farther from a story-based setting, from what I can see on the computer gaming news lists. Consequently, most interaction over there is social, but not game-oriented.

In practice, players used the chargen rules quite a bit, but not the attribute activation rules. There was some discussion of granularity, but not a lot of use of Grunts or Shadows to provide supporting cast for Hero stories.

Best,

Blake

Okay, I came to this discussion quite late, but there was a call for people with experience of Freeforms, so I'll give my 2 cents.

I ran, and played in, lots of freeform games for the Sci-fi society when I was at university. Most of those were for between 30 and 50 people, and ran with GM control of everything bar social interaction and allowed actions(ie if somebody didn't mind something happening to them, it happened, if their brief said they could do it, it happened). If there was disagreement, the GM chose the result that made the plot more interesting.

The key part of these freeforms were general and character briefs. When designing a starting scenario, I would create what was essentially a relationship map of characters, who knew information about each other and had particular aims. (Most of these freeforms were based around clue building, to achieve a goal). Where you fitted into the web of conflict was dictated by a player brief, but how you played your character was up to you. The contract of play was built into the general brief, which set up the scenario and what most people could or couldn't do, and what was expected during play. Generally the scenarios were set up in such a way as to avoid too many GM calls being necessary.

From a GNS point of view, these games relied mostly on Narativist and Gamist decisions. Gamist, because often characters would be swapping information, in order to gain better information, with which to achieve their stated goals, and thereby win. Narativist, because if a conflict between individuals came up, whatever decision was made (whether by player or GM) was usually in favour of a more interesting story.



Matt

Mike wrote:

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?

There are differences, however. Many Freeforms will not have the "mechanical" details that Blake's game has. I think that may be key. I have a strong desire to say to Blake, "Hey, that's too organized to call Freeform."

What do other people think?

Wolfen wrote: Just out of curiosity, but did you see my post prior to Fang's, Mike? You asked what could be used as positive reinforcement in FFRP, when I gave several examples.

Anyhow, I can give an example of something that might be considered Gamist in FFRP.

...

Anyhow, I don't know if this exactly counts, but it was definitely a game, and one we were all trying REALLY hard to win.

Matt wrote: I ran, and played in, lots of freeform games for the Sci-fi society when I was at university. Most of those were for between 30 and 50 people, and ran with GM control of everything bar social interaction and allowed actions(ie if somebody didn't mind something happening to them, it happened, if their brief said they could do it, it happened). If there was disagreement, the GM chose the result that made the plot more interesting.

Shard wrote: 2. A contest: We had a writing contest judged by forum leaders in other Free Form Forums. The winners won Amazon.com gift certificates. We only recieved three contestants but it was a good start. Incidentally we gave a gift certificate to all three contestants. They were VERY surprised.

3. Storyline Direction: Typically RPers who exhibit exceptional role-playing and who are "leaders" within the forum are recognized with the opportunity to take over the roles of key NPC's within the setting. In some ways this is a sign of status, however I think it just gives people a great opportunity to expand their RPing and writing skills. Additionally players who exhibited the highest Social contract skills also were the players who lead forum wide storylines with world spanning effects. People followed and took part in their storylines because of their willingness to show thier leadership qualities within the forum. This was encouraged by everyone.

I think you hit it right on the head. Free Form eventually hits a very important line in the sand on both sides.

Organization vs. Open Ended

Too much of either and it starts to stray from Free Form. Not enough rules or background setting and you get a chaotic mess. Too much organization and background information and you step past free form and into something that borders on classic table-top roleplaying.

Toeing this line is a daily endeavor within online Free form communities and it sometimes takes stepping back a bit as a community and reassessing where you are going. When people start to debate whether wind chimes would be appropriate in a free form high fantasy setting...your begiining to move over the edge of organization.

However, laying down a setting that gives enough options to the forum members without stifling their creativity is essential to Free Form.

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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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?

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

Matt wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?