I think I have a handle on what freeform Narrativism and Simulationism would look like, but for some reason freeform Gamism esacpes me. Anyone have any thoughts on what the shape might be?

Go onto AOL, and do a search for Red Dragon Inn. You'll find a chatroom (or several). Enter and watch for a bit. Ignore anyone who seems vaguely mature in their roleplay. Wait for a fight to break out.

Now, if you mean face-to-face freeform gamism.. I imagine it would look a lot like a brawl.

Those were a bit tongue in cheek, if you'd not been able to tell. I'm honestly not sure if freeform gamism would really be much different than what I described.. I mean, generally you need some sort of advancement or winning condition, and freeform roleplay takes away most sorts of sensible guidelines. At that point, it's generally a matter of being cooler than the next guy.

Wolfen wrote: At that point, it's generally a matter of being cooler than the next guy.

The problem is that there is no yardstick with which to judge any gains, no objective yardstick anyway. The reward for one-upmanship exists solely as social reinforcement. Just as with actual real life relationships, that can lead to insecurity over one's position in the social structure and manuevering in order to climb to a higher position.

Lance is right I think in that usually that kind of competition in a "freeform" situation turns into a spectacle.

-Chris

Hello,

I think an enormous amount of Gamist play is "freeform" ... if that term can be taken to mean this:

- the "rules" are present in order to be enforced upon others and wriggled out of for oneself

- in-game effectiveness for your character, getting your way as yourself, and being acknowledged as most unassailable in your skills in doing these things are all the same thing

In other words, nearly all of the "dysfunction within Gamist play" section in my Gamism: Step On Up essay operates at a level which, given other priorities, is called "freeform."

Best,
Ron

C. Edwards wrote: The problem is that there is no yardstick with which to judge any gains, no objective yardstick anyway. The reward for one-upmanship exists solely as social reinforcement. Just as with actual real life relationships, that can lead to insecurity over one's position in the social structure and manuevering in order to climb to a higher position.

Lance is right I think in that usually that kind of competition in a "freeform" situation turns into a spectacle.

John Kim wrote: Hmm. I would say that most mystery-solving and puzzle-solving in games is freeform Gamism.

C. Edwards wrote:

John Kim wrote: Hmm. I would say that most mystery-solving and puzzle-solving in games is freeform Gamism.

I think perhaps that an area of "freeform" play within a non-freeform game, meaning an area of play where there are not rules or mechanics specifically tailored to those elements or that those rules are not invoked by a particular group, would tend to suffer less from the "spectacle" problem than a completely "freeform" narrative activity like Lance referred to in his post.

I've been in PM's with someone on this board with regards to one form of this: a mutation of Nar or Sim freeform play, where the players compete to be "more creative" or "cooler" (or "truer to the Genre") than the other players.

At the point where creativity stops feeding exploration or premise, and becomes a point of competition in and of itself... freeform gamism.

For functional examples of design for this, see Hogshead's Baron Mucnhausen, and to a lesser extent (as goes freeform) Pantheon & Atlas Games' Once Upon A Time.

The closest thing I am aware of to commonly observed functional drift within a single game in my own play is the style I've found in some of my D&D and WFRP games - where one alternates between gamist miniatures battles and essentially diceless Sim play ('OK, now it's time for everyone to 'be their characters' while you talk to the queen).

But that's not 'freeform' gamism - it's freeform Sim play embedded into a non-freeform rules system which is being used to support Gamism. I have seen this happen a lot - the freeform Sim game is used to 'take a break' from the primarily Gamist play that's going on through most of the session. The social contract which supports this drifting is pretty well, if tacitly, understood.

Cops and robbers is freeform gamism. So if you think about RPGing in a primarily gamist way, you may be horrified by certain other types of approaches, and accuse those who play that way as just playing 'cops and robbers with dice...'

I believe this has been linked to here before.

http://home.freeuk.com/henridecat/

Free Kriegspiel. While technically a wargame, the fact that a player is, in essence, role-playing a general, and that any issue you can think of can be brought into the game ("Double the rum rations!") in a totally freeform manner, points to a form of functional freeform Gamism.

I also played a game once at a con set in the Star Trek universe where you had ambassadors negotiating a crisis in one room, and the captains of individual ships involved in the crisis in the other, with a simplistic map. Anything that anyone wanted to do could be mediated through the GM and the GM's ideas on how the Star Trek universe worked. But there were defined "win" conditions, both for the ambassadors and the ship captains. This, too, seemed like functional freeform Gamism.

Hey John,

I think we're colliding over the meaning of the term "game". When I use it I mean something with a structure and procedure beyond social reinforcement. The term "freeform game" meaning an interaction where there is an element of play within that social structure.

Hmm, maybe a quote might help illuminate what I'm trying to say. The following excerpt is from an interview with Eric Zimmerman, founder and CEO of gameLab, an alternative digital-game design studio. The source of the excerpt is the September/October 2003 issue of Print magazine.

Zimmerman: A game is a system where players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome. This definition is useful because it helps separate games from less formal kinds of play (like narrative play with dolls or playing catch with a frisbee) that don't have a definite outcome or endpoint. Definitions are important. Game design is such a new field (although games themselves are ancient) and it is important to be able to define its domain of study.

Interviewer: A game is also about play. So what is play? And what is the purpose of a game?

Zimmerman: Games are about play, but many other things are, too. I put play into three kinds of categories: Game play is the formal play of a game that occurs when players follow rules and take part in the kind of game I [just] defined. Ludic activities are other kinds of activities that we would recognize as play (two dogs chasing each other, two kids rough-housing, someone casually tossing and catching a ball).

Being playful is also a more general kind of play. [There are instances where] the spirit of play is injected into other activities or perceptions, such as giving a playful lecture, sex play, or even the play of light on a wall.

Interviewer: What is common to all these?

Zimmerman: Common to all these things is a more abstract notion of play, which I define as free movement within a more rigid structure.

This definition applies to all three categories of play phenomena. For example, when we play a game, we enter the rigid structure of rules, but dance in and about them through the process of play. The person tossing the ball is playing with gravity, the material qualities of the ball, and his or her own physical and perceptual skills. And "being playful" means that we are taking some usually more rigid activity (like giving a lecture) and finding the interstitial spaces where playfulness can arise.

John Kim wrote: I guess the difference between these games and a freeform narrative activity (open play-by-post) is the understood relationship of the GM and the players. I'd still consider this freeform, though.

I'd see the purest form of Freeform Gamism to be: Freeform RP. Just a vague social contract and the understanding that you don't step on other peoeple's toes. But the reason you're playing is to to face the challenges inherit in the medium. Because combat is, in most freeform styles, a matter of whether the player wants the character to die or not, you'd have to make that player want to take a dive.

I could see a political popularity contest working out far better. Infact, alot of online freeform gaming is basicly a meta-popularity contest.

Alot of different things you could do with puzzles. Like having a game focused on a murder myserty and success is claiming who did it.

Hi there,

Sirogit, what you describe could fit any GNS profile. Characters facing challenging situations is inherent to the activity.

What makes it Gamist is whether the actual, real people have put their social esteem on the line based on their ability to strategize and show their "spirit" (guts, etc).

Best,
Ron

John Kim wrote: I would say that most mystery-solving and puzzle-solving in games is freeform Gamism.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,

Sirogit, what you describe could fit any GNS profile. Characters facing challenging situations is inherent to the activity.

What makes it Gamist is whether the actual, real people have put their social esteem on the line based on their ability to strategize and show their "spirit" (guts, etc).

Best,
Ron