This is a generic diceless system, designed to play improvised games in any situation where you have some spare time.
Some desing goals:
a) it can be played everywhere: train, beach, pub, whatever (but of course you can also use it for your standard table-top games)
b) also, it doesn't require dice, paper or any other prop you could miss in such situations
c) low set-up time
...and possibly:
d) it should be non-threatening and easy to understand for novice or non-players (but I'll assume anyway that the GM and a few players already have some roleplaying experience)

The game-play is traditional RPG, with one Game Master describing what happens and players stating what their characters try to do.

Setup and character generation
Appoint a GM and choose a setting.
Each player thinks about his character and then describes it: the character description can be anything from a one-sentence stereotype ("your typical Indiana Jones style adventurer") to a deeper character background, depending on how much time you want to spend for setup and on the group's preference.
This description won't be written down, so stick to something easy to remember, describing your character background and experience more than a list of skills.
The only limitation to characters is general consensus, so everyone can make suggestions if they feel one character isn't appropriate or doesn't fit well with the rest of the cast.
Character generation is over when everyone is satisfied (or any form of consensus is reached).

Task resolution is based on two rules:
1) Precedent: if anything already stated about the character dictates a certain outcome, then the situation will be resolved that way.
This includes the character description and previous outcome of similar situations (however those situations where resolved).
2) Rock-Paper-Scissors: if no precedent exists for the current situation, the GM and the player resolve it through a single round of Rock-Paper-Scissors: if the player wins the action succeeds, if the GM wins the action fails, if it's a tie the situation stalls.

On the fly character description:
I'd like to allow the players to add some new information about their characters when needed, with the following restrictions: no contradiction to previously stated information and previous task resolution (the precedent rule); and any such attempt should be subjected to general consensus.

First of all, do you think the whole thing makes any sense?

About consensus: it is explicitly needed in character generation as a sort of "balancing" factor, as well as in task resolution, to decide whether a precedent applies or not to the situation.
A straightforward way to achieve consensus is letting everyone vote about the issue, or you could just let the GM decree everything, or anything in between.
Do you think a formal system for evaluating consensus is needed or an informal definition ("does everyone agree? ok") will do?
Or do you think that getting rid of the entire concept of consensus will make the game simpler and less chaotic?

About the "precedent" mechanics: someone suggested that it could create a feedback effect so that if you fail some random (rock-paper-scissor) task, you'll be doomed to more failures.
I think that since this actually applies only to situations you didn't care much about in characted generation, it will never go against the character concept.
Do you think the mechanics is flawed in this respect?

What you've described we generally refer to around here as Freeform play. Or, in this case, Freeform with RPS or voting to decide things when there's some player conflict.

As such, play like this happens all the time. Mostly online, actually via email, post, or IRC play, but occasionally Face to Face as well.

Check out this page, and look for any games that have the keyword "freeform":
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/bykeyword/online.html

These games all rely on some social level constraints to work, most of which are more verbal than your RPS method, but not significantly different in this way. So, yes it works, and no it doesn't need anything else, particularly.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What you've described we generally refer to around here as Freeform play. Or, in this case, Freeform with RPS or voting to decide things when there's some player conflict.

Mike Holmes wrote: These games all rely on some social level constraints to work, most of which are more verbal than your RPS method, but not significantly different in this way. So, yes it works, and no it doesn't need anything else, particularly.

@ When i would play free form type stuff for my friends on camping trips and train rides, my mechanic was "pick a number from 1 to X". Then based on how close/far their choice was to/from mine, that would determine the outcome. It was very informal and fun. Perhaps some standardization on what X is would be worth developing, in fact i'm working on a PaN system already. But in the situations where i used it, i didn't have any papers to say what power or ability gave what range.

@ If you are looking for pocket sized games, consider cards and coins. The system for character generation looks alot like QuickDraw.

This is a link to my coin system:
http://toddstarbuck.tripod.com/xccoinmechanic031009.pdf

QuickDraw:
http://digital_imp.tripod.com/Files/QuickDraw.pdf

@ Reading this thread has inspired me to make a RPS mechanic, i'll post a link here when it's done.

:)

Andrea Gualano wrote:

I think you're right, it sounds a lot like freeform, but I guess that's not exactly what i want.
I have no problems in playing systemless, but IME most players are a bit suspicious (or afraid) of playing without a well-defined system.

apeiron wrote: @ That suspicion seems to me to mean the player thinking "I can't figure out how to exploit and min/max in a systemless game".

Some people just like a little structure. I'm one of them.

Rules can be seen as comforting, not something to automatically be exploited. I relate to numbers more easily than I relate to people, so it's nice to be able to appeal to numbers.

I think the term "freeform" seems a bit fuzzy. From my experience, it is used as a catch-all for rules-lite systems. Or, it is simply assumed to mean narratorial anarchy, relying entirely on social contract for resolution. This second definition bothers my, because this does not describe the word "freeform," so much as it defines "formless."

The dictionary definition of freeform talks about a an unconvential, or flowing asymmetrical shape. By my personal definition (I haven't found an official one yet), freeform defines a system that is malleable, not amorphic. It is adaptable to circumstance, while still using a single, defined structure. The rules listed above would fall under my definition of freeform. There are definite rules on how to handle a situation. They are simple, but adaptable to any situation.

Most of what I see online qualifies as formless, with the assumtion that what a player narrates happens, and is often based on a social contract to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Now, I'm not knocking these games. They are enjoyable. I also understand that formless sounds bad, when your trying to describe your game. However, for the context here, I would believe a notable division exists.

Moth,

That's been brought up before. I use the term Freeform because the players who play that way use it. But, if you want to get technical, we came up with several axes which describe this phenomenon over the course of several threads. The one we're dealing with here is the use of mechanisms.

It's an axiom for most here that all play has a System. Even if that system is "do whatever you want". The question in this case is whether or not there are mechanisms. The definition of mechanism here being an algorithm, essentially. That is, some rule that says, if x, then y, essentially.

Now, Andrea's game has some mechanisms. It's got a character generation mechanism, and a resolution mechanism of sorts. They're just very simple and don't make things stray too far from what you'd call formless (and we'd say was without mechanisms).


Andrea,

I'd suggest that what you are encountering is the result of players used to playing with mechanisms. That is, people who play without them have just as strong reservations about playing with mechanics. Why, they argue, if we trust each other, do we have to rely on mechanisms?

The answer can't be trust. That is, if that's your answer, then you need to get a better relationship with your players on the social level before proceeding. Instead, it has to be that system has to inject some framework that positively enhances the experience. If that's not the answer for a particular system, then I'm playing with the Freeformers.

So what does your system do to enhance play as you see it?


Another, much more complex system that meets the "traveling" criteria is Sherpa.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'd suggest that what you are encountering is the result of players used to playing with mechanisms. That is, people who play without them have just as strong reservations about playing with mechanics.

Mike Holmes wrote: So what does your system do to enhance play as you see it?

For an alternative view on this sort of thing, I'd like to shamelessly plug my own attempt at something like this:

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/success.html

@ This is mechanic i've throw together, inspired by this thread. Nothing very new here, but it is the first step toward a full, codified system. It is of course a sketch, with better versions to follow. Enjoy.


http://toddstarbuck.tripod.com/tr-rpsmechanic031107.pdf

apeiron wrote: @ This is mechanic i've throw together, inspired by this thread. Nothing very new here, but it is the first step toward a full, codified system. It is of course a sketch, with better versions to follow. Enjoy.

Tripod wrote: This file is hosted by Tripod, a Lycos®Network Site, and is not available for download. Please check out Tripod's Help system for more information about Remote Loading and our Remote Loading policy.

@ Hmm, tripod totally broke the link to the file. My apologies. Here it is in text.



t|r: A Rock, Paper and Scissors Mechanic
Version One ? Outline, 7 November, 2003
t|r is a Mechanic using the Rock, Paper, Scissors (RPS) game as its randomizer. The t stands for initial throws, and the r stands for rethrows. Each iteration of RPS is called a throw, similar to rolling a die. A rethrow in this case is if the player gets a win outcome (rock breaks scissors), and they are allowed to make a rethrow, they may make another throw. (the character between the t and the r is called ?pipe? and is typed by hitting shift-backslash)

Throw Outcomes:


Win - Paper covers rock, rock breaks scissors, paper covers rock
1. Tie - Paper ties with paper, etc.
Lose - Scissors cuts paper, etc.

Determine Number of throws (t)
2. Determine Number of rethrows (r), if any
3. Set Difficulty ? The minimum number of Win outcomes to avoid failure
4. Make Initial Throws ? Player and GM make RSP throws counting the Win and Lose outcomes.
Botch Check ? If after the Initial Throws there are no Wins and one or more Lose Outcomes, the effort is Botched, or suffers some critical sort of failure (as system indicates). Roll is complete.
5. If there are no Lose and no Win Outcomes (only Ties), the Roll has Failed. Roll is complete.
6. Rethrows
7. If r is zero, there are no rethrows for this roll. Roll is complete
8. r is the maximum number of rethrows available, for each Win in the initial throws (step 4), make one more throw. For rethrows, only wins are counted and added to the final result.
Add the Wins from the initial throws to the rethrows (if any), subtract the difficulty, the game system will interpret the result. Roll is complete.

It would be possible to leave out the r component if desired, and the difficulty could always be 0. A typical system might say Wins ? Difficulty = Degree of Success.

Notation ? A roll would be noted as t|r-d, where d is difficulty. In effect the difficulty is subtracted from the number of Wins. So 3|2-2 would be 3 initial throws, 2 rethrows and a difficulty of 2.

apeiron wrote: t|r is a Mechanic using the Rock, Paper, Scissors (RPS) game as its randomizer. The t stands for initial throws, and the r stands for rethrows. Each iteration of RPS is called a throw, similar to rolling a die.

John Kim wrote:
Something that was pounded home from my Vampire LARP experience is that RPS really isn't random. It is a game of psych-out and to some degree perception and hand movement. That is, with any two players, one may be able to consistently beat the other in RPS. Personally, I found this very annoying.