This thread shoots off, basially, of "Stumbling Around a Rebuttal" and "What is a Mechanic". Somebody mentioned defining freeform... so let's.

Some seem to think of freemform as formless, devoid of system mechanics. There was a lot of talk about whether something was diceless or freeform, with an arbitary line drawn between the two. Now, it seems evident to me that when freeform was being spoken of, it was not some chaotic, nebulous void out of which anything could spring. There were clearly underlying foundations and principles; the world, the setting itself. Hell, the lumpley principle everybody is so fond of quoting: the agreement between the players and the storyteller that keeps the world going. So what DOES separate freeform from diceless? Does anything truly? Or is the term freeform extraneous, unnecesary... obsolete?

It would seem that the thing that separates diceless freeform is this: diceless does use specific mechanics to aid in determining the results of conflict or random occurences -- it simply doesn't use dice. Freeform still works within a system, but the mechanics used for resolution are a sharp mind and well-chosen words, and a general concurrence by those involved. Personally, I don't think freeform works all that well, as it takes a rather responsible group to pull it off; it is the nature of people not to like losing, and that shows through in any situation where they are given the option of determining whether or not they will succeed or fail. Diceless combines group assent with some other factor; in Amber, you have the rankings, and various definite levels of power and ability.

Conclusion:
Diceless = A resolution based on solid mechanics and quantities that does not involve the rolling of dice.
Freeform = A resolution based on group consent and setting standards that does not involve the rolling of dice or usage of alternate mechanics/quantitive measurements.

That's still a fine line... you can still argue that in freeform, yes, there are degrees of power and ability and so on... you leap to utter chaos, however, what some consider freeform but which isn't really when you think about it, when resolution is based solely on whim and exists entirely outside any mechanics, setting, or social pact.

Looking at the definition of mechanic as a step-by-step process (or mechanism if you prefer to be pedantic), I would have to say freeform play is "play devoid of such mechanics."

I would venture a slightly different definition of the two.

A diceless system provides rules that allow reasonably objective and repeatable decisions to be made without the use of dice. For example: I hit you because I have a higher skill.

A freeform system arrives at results through subjective criteria so that decisions may be inconsistent. For example: I hit you because the GM decided that we were about equal in fighting skill, but felt that my character's anger gave him an advantage.

It might be better to say mechanic instead of system, since a game could use a combination of these and other elements. I didn't just to avoid the question of whether you can have a "freeform mechanic". It's also worth pointing out that in my experience, most people playing "freeform" actually have an unwritten diceless system.

Justin wrote: It's also worth pointing out that in my experience, most people playing "freeform" actually have an unwritten diceless system.

jdagna wrote: It's also worth pointing out that in my experience, most people playing "freeform" actually have an unwritten diceless system.

jdagna wrote: It's also worth pointing out that in my experience, most people playing "freeform" actually have an unwritten diceless system.

lumpley wrote: I think "freeform" is hate speech or pride speech depending who's saying it, not a real live thing at all. We all apportion credibility socially. We all have Systems by which we come to consensus about things in-game. They're different in particulars, but not in any essentials.

I don't know about the term freeform being some sort of hate or pride speech. I do know I've been conducting some experiments in remarkably minimalist roleplaying with decidedly not-roleplaying-oriented-people, and I have been amazed by just how little in terms of rules and/or mechanics are required to change a game of freeform storytelling into a recognizably minimalist rpg. And I admit, the experiences forming my opinions are personal, that I can't really use it as more than anecdotal evidence, etc, etc, etc... But that said, it is enough to help me form the opinion that even the most apparently freeform, mechanic-free, soft, squishy arrangement for play ends up with... If not mechanics, then at least a set of rules and boundaries that form the structure for a very light and squishy system. I am fairly certain that articulating the basic tenets of those rules would not require a million-page manual, but I am equally certain the rules would change from group to group and maybe even session to session with the same group.

John, I think freeform can be reduced to unwritten diceless because of past play, not because of psychology or social factors (which are still important).

Think of it like the legal system. Early legal systems had the two parties appeal to the chief, who made a decision based on what he thought - freeform justice, if you will. But how long do you think it took before someone said "Hey, wait! When Joe killed Fred's cow, he was only fined two cows, but you're fining me three cows!"? I imagine it took only a few years at the most.

It's at this point when things are no longer freeform. The longer you play, the larger the body of precedent becomes, and the more you use precedents the more they start looking like rules.

This isn't to say that freeform play is impossible (as I think lumpley was) but that maintaining it as freeform is very unlikely.

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

Every actual game would require a million pages to write. Every game is about social interaction.

Really what I'm saying is that "don't fuck up Vincent's fey woods" is exactly the same kind of bug, where it matters, as "roll to hit."

-Vincent

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

Justin, maybe. Why are we distinguishing between play where some of the rules are mechanical and play where none of the rules are mechanical again?

Irritable rhetorical questions, forgive me: How many mechanical rules per unit time does it take to make a game not freeform? Or is our commitment to using mechanical rules to resolve conflicts sufficient, even in a game session where the need doesn't arise? Or is play freeform moment-to-moment except when mechanical rules have been immediately invoked, so a typical game session lurches from freeform to not whenever anybody picks up the dice?

I think that, for discussion, we ought to be explicit about considerations of social vs. mechanical rules. Check this out:

"We decreased our reliance on the mechanics in the book in favor of overt inter-participant consensus-building."

"We decreased our reliance on the mechanics in the book in favor of subjective dice-interpretation on the part of the GM."

"We drifted toward freeform" could mean either. It's casual and convenient and I don't have any problem with it as such, but it doesn't describe what actually happened in a discussion-facilitating way.

In other words, I'm not calling anything "freeform play". I'm calling play "play", and treating the types of rules you use as a variable on top, to be specified at need.

-Vincent

Just a moment ago, over in the parent thread, I wrote: On the subject of what is freeform, I'd say this:

• A freeform system uses strictly drama resolution.• In a freeform system, no one vetoes a declared event or action, but merely modifies it through other declared events or actions.

I think those are the essentials.

So far, I never associated the term "freeform" with diceless play (rather the opposite, but that was a result of not seeing a formalized diceless game such as Everway for many years).

I've played quite a bit of what I'd call "freeform", most of which came down to "write down a couple of strengths and weaknesses for your character" and "roll a die, high is good, low is bad". Should these be called rules and the games be labelled as "not-freeform" as a result?

Please note that the principle "high is good, low is bad" was occasionally inverted during our games. This usually happened after no dice had been rolled for a while (after a pizza break or long dialogue, for instance) and people had forgotten about the original 'convention'.

Similarly, different dice were used at different times - whichever were at hand first, really.

I guess that, for me, "freeform" has so far meant that no rules - written, implied or planned - exist *at the beginning* of the game, but are made up as one goes along.

Such newly created rules will usually cover only the situation at hand. They might be reused when the same situation crops up again, but they may fall by the wayside just as well (e.g. if the group desires a much quicker or more detailed resolution this time around, to name two typical motivations).

(If what I have described above is generally not considered freeform at the Forge, then what is it? Is there a term/definition?)

Regards,

Hal

In regards to your rhetorical questions, Vincent, I would say with some confidence that the mere commitment to mechanical rules/resolutions is sufficient to prevent play from being labelled free-form.

We could qualify this using the same vague "instance of play" definition used for GNS modes. Thus, you could have freeform instances intermingled with mechanical instances depending on exactly what scale you use. However, no mechanical game says "You must not do things the rules don't cover" so I see these small pockets of freeform play as being well within the mechanics, bringing us back to the previous paragraph.

Why discuss this at all?

For one thing, I think play with mechanic rules is significantly different from freeform play (in the way that Narrativist play is significantly different from Gamist play, even if they share some common elements). 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.

A simple example: a goup of players have disabled a dragon and can take its treasure without killing it. In D&D, the experience mechanic affects behavior - players are almost guaranteed to kill it. In a Palladium game, you might actually get more experience for letting it live, making that option more likely. In a freeform game, without the mechanical x begets y, players are more likely to weigh the choice in totally different terms.

Mechanics changes the nature of the game for better and for worse, so I find it very worthwhile to examine play without mechanics. It appears that most mechanics offer consistency in exchange for freedom. I'm sure a political science major would find this fascinating as a parallel to Leviathan.

Anyway, I agree that you can't just say freeform and know exactly what people are doing. But this is true of almost every term we use. You can't say Gamist and know exactly what people are doing either, just that they're likely to be using some subset of behaviors associated with Gamist modes.


M.J. - I'm in total agreement that precedent need not be binding, which is why I feel like I can make the statement that freeform play is still possible.

I first became really aware of its importance in a game we called freeform (but was really diceless, since we had a simple system in place). After a few years of play, a few of us noticed that precedents had accumulated to the point where the written rules probably constituted less than 10% of the actual rule set people were playing with. Furthermore, another group of people had stolen my rules for their own game and had tacked on their own unwritten precedents. Our written rules were almost identical, but I literally couldn't figure out what they were doing half the time.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Mike

Crunchy.

-Vincent

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

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

lumpley wrote: 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 wrote: 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?

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

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.

lumpley wrote: 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.

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:

I wrote: 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.

lumpley wrote: 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.

Windthin wrote: Actually, I am currently playing in a game where the system is so complex, it's run through a "book" on Excel.

I think that this description suffers from two problems. It seems to imply that players change the rules a lot, and that they do use mechanics quite a bit. Which means that you always have to attach that rider about "given that it's difficult, people don't make up mechanics".

Further, I think that it ignores motive. I think that people who play freeform do so precisely because they find mechanics to be problematic in play. Not because they want freedom to do what they want, but because they want freedom from mechanics. So, yes, I think that freeformers do allow their rules to change, but, you know what, so do I in my games. I drift the the systems I use all the time. So am I a freeformer?

I think we have two axes here. One is the mechanical axis. The other is represents willingness to change system.

In starting the use of freeform, I never intended to indicate that there was any more or less willingness to change system. Some freeformers are completely unwilling to change their system as they've developed it (though it may drift unintentionally, and may have been established "freely"). But the phenomenon I'm describing does have everything to do with mechanics. What's "freeform" is the use of player whim, Drama, as the primary means of determining results, with as few limitations on that as possible.

So, I'd reject the definition of freeform as willingness to change, or freedom from established rules. Because that's not the dichotomy we're describing. OTOH, I do think that the willingness to change is an interesting phenomenon, and should get it's own term. If it was Alterable, then we could speak of a Freeform Alterable game, or a Methodical Inalterable game, or the other corners of the area created by the intersection of the spectra.

Mike

Hmmm... first off, Mike, I think you take too much upon yourself. A lot of us here I am certain know the term freeform well. I know I have all of its facets... I've seen the extreme of those two spectra you listed, utter lack of mechanics virtually and fluidity of change, and pretty darn close to it as well. This is a topic that was bound to come up, I think, whatever terminology it used to take form

As to your diagnosis... I have to agree. I know some very strict, die-hard freeform gamers, and the highly-complex game I mentioned earlier frequently sees rules changes, to the point that many characters I had not even a year ago would be unplayable in the current system, let alone two, three, five years ago.

I should mention... most freeform gamers I know DO state that the reason they engage in freeform is because they do not feel systems, dice and similar means, can express what they want. They come right out and say they basically don't want those confines. But they frequently create other boundaries. I have been for a time now doing some freelance sort of work with a forum on-line that is definitely freeform, but has a large, established world setting and very definite rules about things like magic.

That aside, I still agree with your dual axes. I get the urge to add a third one, another dimension; you haver fludiity versus immutability, complexity versus simplicity, and whim/drama versus quantities and their companions (dice, ranks, what have you). It's the need, I think, to separate out the degree of detail from the method used.

I'm not claiming that the term freeform is mine, or that we have to continue to use it in that fashion. Simply that the axis that we have used it to describe here has been, previously, all about not wanting to use mechanics. I started that, and am just speaking historically and locally. If we want to make the term freeform mean something else around here, that's fine; I don't have an attachment to particular terms. The only potential trouble will be with people who have followed the previous discussions here, and have an idea of what the term means. This will be a shift for them. There's a principle that it's bad form to change the local meaning of a term because of this effect.

That all said, I think that the problem here is, as I've said before, that there are multiple meanings to the term. I agree that we ought to, in the name of trying to capture them all appropriately, make a statement that what I've identified previously is only one axis that's identified with freeform.

So I'd redefine freeform as a label for play that has one or more of the three following qualities.

* relatively few mechanics
* a non-directed approach to deciding on system
* a tendency for system to change

I'm not sure about complexity. Though if mechanics are defined as what I'd call Hard Mechanics, then I suppose you could have an all Drama game with loads of soft mechanics.

Meh.

This is getting complicated. If we go with all sorts of potential axes (maybe four now), do we really want to label each and have terms for each end? Someone else wanna tackle this one? :-|

Mike

Well, you probably already know what I'd suggest. Leave "freeform" casual, not rigorously defined, and let's break the axes out into topics in their own rights.

When we play:

How committed are we up front to a particular set of rules? How willing are we to make big changes to our Systems mid-play?

How do we make decisions about rules? Who can propose rule changes (including introducing new rules), under what circumstances, and how do those proposals get acted on?

How many of our rules are mechanical? Of our mechanical rules, how hard are they?

Consider the space defined by those questions. As we design games, what territory within that space are we trying to cover? I'm thinking of the do-it-this-way approach vs. the toolbox approach.

This is all stuff to keep talking about, whether "freeform" gets a definition or not.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: 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.)

...

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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I am leaning toward using the term method vs. mechanic. I am thinking that freeform refers to not having formalized methods, but I don't believe it's possible to reach agreement about the imagined space without having a method or two. By method, I am naturally refering to roleplaying methods, not really normal social methods, like talking and stuff.

Jack, this:

I don't believe it's possible to reach agreement about the imagined space without having a method or two. By method, I am naturally refering to roleplaying methods, not really normal social methods, like talking and stuff.

Vincent, sorry to post so soon--I'll be away for a bit, and I feel like this specific conflict has been spoken to in the other thread:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I don't believe it's possible to reach agreement about the imagined space without having a method or two. By method, I am naturally refering to roleplaying methods, not really normal social methods, like talking and stuff.

I'd like to hit the <BACK> button a bit.

Forget what I said about freeform. What I've described is something, and if we call that freeform or not makes not difference to this conversation at this point.

Freeform, as it has been traditionally discussed and defined, is being able to do whatever you want in play. The common phrase is "if you say it, then it happens." The problem with this, as many detractors have noted, that, well, if you say it, then it happens. This can wind up being a roleplaying stone soup. Like throwing some of everything from you refridgerator and cupboards into a pot. It can lead to such odd situations like a British secret angent and an 18th century vampiress dancing in the corner while the barbarian sips camomille tea and plays Tetris on his mobile phone. Suddenly the hard-boiled detective arrives on a magic carpet covered with ants.

This is obviously Drama and such situations may have their own absurb charm

Jack, I'm holding your hand.

But there are other problems with this style of play

Jack, I'm licking your face.

Such as when someone says something that should be reacted to, but is not.

Jack, I'm setting your hair on fire.

It is sort of like the old Let's Pretend Yes I did-No you didn't arguement

Yes I did.

No you didn't.

To keep every instance of freeform play from devolving into this is where Drama really comes in.


Note: I separate out "talking and stuff" from roleplaying method because in the perspective on roleplaying thread someone mentioned that the English language must be a part of roleplaying and while deciding on a common language is important in roleplaying, it is important for communicating for nearly every other possible social application, and thus not very helpful for our discussion

Emily Care wrote: The mechanic that may be involved, however, would be determining who gets to talk.