So, let me premise this with saying that while I don't particularly care for free form myself, at least part of that is my lack of understanding of the appeal. I mean, yes, there is some level of "I can do things that I might not otherwise." Sure, that makes sense. But, on the other hand, all games have that benefit. (Unless of course there is somewhere I can sign up in real life to go fight goblins and loot gold filled tombs etc without it being looked down on!) And some people see it as a more liberating way of having a game without rules (which I can understand), but again a lot of game rules make sense. We can't fly in real life simply by flapping our arms up and down, so having rules makes sense. Common Sense has it's place, of course, but then what I may or may not be able to do doesn't necessarily reflect on someone else, which is where game rules seem to shine. You get a consistent understanding of the results.


So...what is the appeal of Free-form, and how does Free form have it that others don't? I ask because, there is a LOT of free-form on RPOL, and I just don't get it.

I no longer play system games online, myself.

I prefer to write to tell an interactive story, not to 'overcome challenges' or 'solve puzzles' or, even worse, 'beat the GM'.

The rules in freeform are to tell a good story.  When you've got players invested in that, it's a good game.

When you've got players invested in grandstanding their character, monopolizing the action, and/or not playing for the good of the story or game, it doesn't work so well.

I was a 'system game' person when I started out, and I didn't know what to do when there were no guidelines.  *shrug*  However, once I figured it out and what I liked about it, I prefer flavor over the rules.

Whatever floats your boat -- I'm just glad that there are lots of options available so everyone can have fun.

I prefer system games, but sometimes free-form, or collaborative writing as I call it in my mind, are the best way to go if the players and gm/moderator are all on the same page. The result are usually quite pleasing for all parties if that is so.

I've been curious about freeform games as well.  How do you keep players from derailing a story?  I understand creative writing, and working together to create a story, but I also know this site is filled with people who tend to want to slant a game to make themselves the star.  It's human nature, and the internet makes it a lot easier to indulge in.  So how do you keep a free form game from becoming a fight over dominance of the story?

I'm not asking this critically, I am legitimately curious how you all have had it work successfully.  What if, for instance, the game is about contemporary relationships, and three players end up all wanting their characters in a relationship with a fourth player.  That seems rife for players one upping each other and using the 'no rules' aspect to sabotage each other.

The fourth player decides.  It does generally require players talking to each other to come up with a good outcome, but I've mostly seen that the gravitation happens rather fluidly.

If sabotage is occurring, and it's not done in a collaborative manner with all those involved enjoying it, then that's when the GM steps in and gives the player engaged in it an ultimatum, or the boot.

There are rules.  The rules are just of the 'play nice and have fun' variety.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:20, Sat 07 Jan 2017.

so would you say a free form game likely entails, or needs, a lot more ooc communication than a ruled game?

I run games, they are and have always been freeform and I have never run into the case where someone tries to derail or sabotage my game. Mainly though, most of my games include friends, but they are game of throne games where like if I put a GM character designed to move the game forward, I tell them, they can engage but can't do certain things to derail most as I said who play in my games are my friends so they tend to listen. However at times I get people who like to try to tell me how to run my game or that my game should follow their way of thinking and then cause trouble, it's rare, but it's happened to me and I have removed said person from my game if they can't accept the GM word and continues to argue it out.

That being said, games like DnD and pathfinder and such, I know nothing about them and so I stay away from them. It's more about the writers and their ability to work together to tell the story fully.

I think it's a spectrum.  On one side, you have things like Pathfinder, Deadlands Classic, Traveller, and other various "crunchy" systems with a lot of widgets and rolls and systems and charts and tables and minutiae.  These games are very simulationist, in other words, if your character attempts to do anything, these rules attempt to resolve what happens coherently, and they take into account your character's condition, health, the relative humidity, lighting penalties, etc.

In a system like this, if Charlie and a genie are in a room and about to battle, we can probably calculate from the onset who will win by the laws of probability because the system assigns a rating to everything and we can always calculate the mathematically best thing to do or the most probable result.  In addition, a system like this is so deep and nuanced, we can give the genie or Charlie specific modifiers which greatly impact their ability to harm the other, meaning if this is a world where genies reign supreme, the modifiers and superior mathematical abilities of the genie will probably spell Charlie's doom.

On the upside these systems feel very satisfying because the nuance gives you a sense of control and mastery, and it adds a certain element of challenge when you have to do things like manage hit points, spell slots, etc.  But, this game is probably pretty hard to run because there's a lot of book keeping PLUS the fiction elements of the game like character personalities and the description of the world Charlie and the genie live in all still have to be made.

Now if you slide down toward the other side of the spectrum, you get things like Savage Worlds or some of the simpler editions of Dungeons and Dragons type games where you have a pretty comprehensive ruleset but it's only an 85% solution, i.e. the rules will cover who goes first in combat and critical things like that, but they don't have a lot of nuance or try to compensate for every possible thing.  They might include some modifiers but not all by any means.

Here, Charlie and the Genie both have statistical values, but not quite as many.  Generally we have ratings for the general kinds of things they might try to do to each other in a fight, but we don't get into how much damage a cutlass might do vs. say a scimitar, we just call both of those things swords and go on.  We can still make a lot of meaningful mathematical predictions and analyze the results (in fact it's easier because there are fewer mathematical permutations), but we lost of the nuance from the previous systems.

So you still have a lot of that element of having to manage resources, but there's fewer specific things to track.  We might not have 100 hitpoints and dozens of specific conditions to track, we might only have 3 wounds and a few specific conditions to track.  The upshot is, this game is probably a lot easier to play and a lot easier to run from the book keeping perspective, which frees up the GM more time and mental RAM to do more of the fluffy stuff.

Then further along, you have things like FATE, Apocalypse World, The Window where the rules are really more about the probability of something happening in the fiction.  Systems like this take the approach of "Your character is really good at making fishnets, so your ability to make a fishnet successfully is quite high, but your ability to make a nuclear submarine is probably quite bad because that's not your character concept."  The other systems do this too, but they do it by adding in all kinds of modifiers, making you pay for the resources, etc. and there's a lot of calculation that goes into just exactly how valuable is the fishnet you make, how much does it weight, does it add to fishing rolls, etc.  Here it's just... "You're pretty good at that so BAM it happens.  Next."

At this point, there's usually only a few rolls but they tend to be very meaningful ones, and something happens as suddenly the "fluffy stuff" starts to dominate how those rolls resolve things.  The challenge shifts less from mathematically optimizing your character Charlie to be really good at swinging a sword or whatever to thinking about things like "Does the genie have a long beard Charlie can pull on?"  Also it's a bit harder to mathematically optimize and analyze things because the situation and the assumptions made radically change what you might roll and how.

The upshot is, the skill of the game shifts from how well you choose to build your character's attributes, skills, feats, etc. to how well you play the game and get dug into the moment.  It's not necessarily good or bad in some universal objective sense, it's just a different kind of fun.  On the downside it can feel "floaty", like the characters are all too abstract and interchangeable, and the resolution can feel like it's more of a question of how persuasive the player is versus how tactical the player is.  Also, at this point the rules are so simple the GM is focused nearly entirely on story elements, making the game easier to run and play.

Freeform is the total opposite end of the spectrum.  Here it's just "Charlie is in the room with the genie."  We agree, tacitly, there's a room, there's a Charlie and there's a genie, but we have no idea can Charlie defeat the genie in a battle in terms of probability and statistics.

How this situation resolves is all a matter of satisfying the whims of the players and Gamemaster.  It doesn't matter what kind of sword Charlie has or what powers the genie has, what matters is, what's interesting in this situation, or what seems like it would be likely to happen in this situation?  It's purely subjective and honestly there's no telling.  The challenge now has nothing to do with stacking modifiers or flanking opponents on a battle mat, it has to do with conceiving what would most likely happen or deciding what kind of permutations have to happen to achieve a desired end, i.e. if you want Charlie to defeat this immortal magical being, how does he do that exactly?

The upshot here is that to a lot of people, it's more fun to just make that stuff up rather than have to reference 3 books worth of rules and statistical values and go through a lot of rigamarole to figure out what happens.  Something to point out here is that on the other side of the spectrum where systems are crunchy and deep, the math dictates the fight before it ever begins, for the most part.  Here, anything can happen.  Also, this game is much easier to facilitate and to play because, well, the actions are all arbitrary, there's no rules to consider at all.  The downside is, this is too abstract and meaningless for a lot of people to be any fun.  A lot of people can't suspend disbelief without an underlying set of assumptions about how a fictional world works that's pretty robust.

The point being, it's all a series of trade offs.  I'm a little closer to the "crunchy" side myself, but the thing I've discovered is, as I get older, it's a lot easier to stay into this hobby by swimming in the mechanically shallower end of the pool.  And some of those games are pretty neat and do things the more mechanically driven games just can't.

For example I have played a character right now who has an evil artifact that gives the character a steady stream of unpredictable powers and curses; basically it's literally a godmode item with purely self imposed drawbacks that I make up.  You could NEVER make this character work as conceived in a highly detailed system like Pathfinder because the abilities are not balanced or fair and are way too random.  But will a character like this work a treat in say FATE or a freeform game?  Oh yes.

There's also the practical considerations to make: freeform games are the lowest barrier to entry type of game you can make since no one has to own any books or other resources which cost money, etc.

I guess, as a long time player and gm/dm of crunchy games, and possible potential free form player, the freedom is something that actually scares me a bit.  having faced so many various situations of players abusing rules, system, and trying to hijack games, taking the rules almost entirely away seems like a recipe for disaster.

for instance, if it is a freeform fantasy game and I want to make a knight who excels in certain areas, I would almost expect another player to come along and state their player was slightly better than mine in those same areas.  How do you resolve who is better?  like in a dual, who wins?  Does the gm arbitrate, or do the players have to find some sort of agreement ooc?

It may have something to do with the communities you play in.  If you have run a lot of freeform games, I am guessing you've weeded through a lot of problem players and don't have them in your games anymore.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:58, Sat 07 Jan 2017.

I don't go to many other free form games, but all my games have no god moding, no using outside knowledge of events in the game if your character hasn't been informed and no openly arguing with the GM or another player, and so I guess it depends on the people in the free form game, most tend to follow my rules.

On the other hand, Gladiusei has a very good point. There is a point to rules. It helps arbitrate the outcomes of things. Sure, some players may or may not agree with the GM, and sometimes the GM is just wrong, sometimes the player is just wrong. We're all human after all. This isn't something that I think really has anything to do with a "better" system.
So, to pull the conversation back into what the thread is about, what's the appeal? The answer, so far, seems to be the "little to no rules" concept. Is this correct?

Assuming that that is correct, I don't get this idea at all. Sometimes, you just need a way to figure things out. Player 1 wants to build a house, or go explore the universe, or whatever it is that they want to do (I'm just pull idea's out of my 5th point of contact), rules help them. Sorry, no, you can't build the house, you don't even have a hammer. Or, as was brought up earlier, two people trying to contest for the position of best fighter, archer, craftsman, tank driver, etc. That can easily be part of a story, but in Free-form you're not really going to be able to establish that dynamic in actual feasibility, and the GM can't really arbitrate that without violating the neutrality concept behind the fact that they are the GM.

Or at least, so it seems to me.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 11):

I disagree that the GM can be neutral to arbitrate a free form game.
I think the problem here, Lord_Johnny,is that you're thinking Freeform games are just dice games minus the dice.
It's a whole different dynamic.

Basically,  the players and the GM all get together to tell the story.  You, as a gm, don't get bogged down with small details like if someone's arrow hits a specific target, you look more at the big picture,  like what strategy do you use to start the battle,  or what alliances do you make before hand?
You have an idea about what everyone can do as their character, then you set them loose.    You have a plot, and consequences for certain elements being ignored or handles badly,  like in real life, but you let the players tell the story of how they deal.with them

There is also a casual agreement between gm and players that the ayers will trust the gm to be able to handle disputes and interactions fairly for everyone.
It can be a lot of work, but the pay off is being able to play in more detail and depth than normal hack and slash games

that still doesn't really answer my question, though, which Lord Johnny picked up.  If two players directly oppose one another on how they want the story to go, how is it handled?  Do you simply devise stories that normally keep players from opposing each other?  or do the players have to come to an agreement?

also, I'd love to hear an answer to my previous question about free form games having, or needing, a lot more ooc conversation as well.

I have the same problem ...

I see games that use rule systems being played as either strategically or as an interactive story or both, but in either case, the players and GM have agreed in advance (by the selection of the rule system) what they can and cannot do, whereas in freeform that has to be continually negotiated.

In my experience, Freeform games should be done so that direct combat and conflict between players should be avoided.  Sometimes outlawed specifically (which means it's good to have more going on for them to do), but the better freeform game is one where there are plenty of reasons to work together, and stay aligned.
Freeform games are one of trust, where the players and gm try to write a story together, and trust each other to do so.
Freeform isn't about competition, it's about making sure everyone gets to tell their story, and enjoy themselves.
If you want to have a game where you backstab your friends, then unless that's the point of the game, freeform isn't for you.

Most freeform games have rules about checking with the GM before doing anything that affects other players.   It's just a part of the pace of the game.
The same way you shouldn't say as a D&D player that your five points of damage automatically kills the goblin, a freeform player wouldn't say that their psychic blast automatically stuns another player's character.

As far as derailing the story or trying to dominate the game as a player, that's something that must be dealt with by the GM.
A story is usually vague enough that it's harder to derail, but there should also be an understanding that players won't try to ruin the game for other players.

Freeform games are more work for the GM, so the GM has a right to expect more from the players.
You're there to tell a story, to explore a character and a game world, not to beat up other players.

I guess I understand, but it is still an aspect of freeform I would be wary of.  In a less direct sense, I would be bothered I think if I couldn't tell the story I wanted to tell.  Which sort of makes cooperative creative writing a challenge.  If I designed a character to tell a specific type of story, and that type of story become impossible because the gm or the other players went in a different direction, that would be really frustrating.  It seems like this is the type of conflict which is more likely to happen in a free form game, not necessarily direct player fighting, but a conflict on where to take the story.

I think that's a possible problem in any type of game, honestly, and probably more so for myself since I have become accustomed to being a gm and not a player.  Free form just feels, to me at least, like a type of game where the odds are better for that type of thing to happen.  I suppose it would require a lot of prior planning and discussion between the players and the gm, to understand where the game might go.

Freeform games are about the story, not who's better.
In answer to the question about "another player making a knight who's better than mine", I'd answer that the game should be designed so that isn't an issue.

Most capabilities should be detailed specifically before the game starts, but the GM is the final arbitrator of who's better.

If you want to make a freeform game about knights, say a Knights of the Round Table game, then you would design the game with certain specific characters as options (someone plays Lancelot, someone plays Bors, etc), or you'd have the game where everyone is mostly even and there's only a clear winner based on other factors (if someone cheats, or was drinking the night before, etc), or you'd make it a game with very little combat (all politics or personal drama) so it's not an issue who's better.


One thing about freeform games, you can't just take a D&D party and make them freeform.  They're not designed for it.  The goals and mechanics aren't right.
Freeform games are like a bunch of people going around the room telling different parts of the same book.  If you work together, it's a great story.  If you want to fight each other, then play a game with dice.



As far as the question about "telling a specific story", it's important to remember that a freeform game, like other games, is about cooperation, not writing a novel.  You have your part, either as GM or a player, but you would have to talk about your needs or limits before hand.  There's usually a good vetting process before any freeform game, and certainly none of them are perfect.
If you want to have a character who's story is that he wants to be rich, then the GM should be able to fit that in, and not have the entire game in a dimension where they don't use money.
It's all about the GM understanding the characters being used, and what each player wants.
I've not always done this perfectly, but I try

In a good game, "continually negotiated" just means the GM is on their toes for new ideas.  The players should all have characters that are well defined and described, so that no one has powers that are too vague.
And if anyone has "generic magic or alchemy", then it's up to the GM to say no, and the players need to respect that.
That's part of the cooperation. The GM tries to be as fair, firm, and consistent as possible, and the players have to let the GM be the final word on the matter.

For me, I have horrible luck with dice, I mean for whatever reason, I can never get the rolls I want or need unless it's something that is really not important, this makes playing my character who should be skilled, pratically impossible to play.  That's why I play free form games, I know what my character can do, and what they can't.  Also it allows for a far more interesting game.

Take combat for example, in a system game two people roll dice, and things happen.  In a free form game, combat becomes a chess match or a dance, in the best of games.  Player one makes an attack, player two, has to think of some way to either, dodge, defend or counter.  If he can't the attack must go through, if he can, depending on HOW he does it, the other player reacts.

Now if your playing a Dragonball Z game... I can't help you the stuff they pull is truly Insane.  But for the most part a free form game, depends more on strategic thinking and descriptive prowess than blind luck.  That's what I like about it, because systems just boil down to luck, and I as a player never seem to have any.

Edit: Anyway, that's how I would answer your question gladiusdei, As a gm I'd have you both fight it out, and see who would win, could you think of a way to counter the other guy, or could the other guy out counter you?
This message was last edited by the user at 12:17, Sun 08 Jan 2017.

For me freeform has been ruined by the 'look at me, I'm so awesome' type of players. Their characters always hit and always dodge. That's why I stay away from it. When there are dice involved you take that power out of the hands of players like that.

Not to say that all system players are better, there are bad players on either side I just prefer having a concrete way of settling disputes and resolving actions.

True Vane, you have to have players that agree to play fair, I'm not saying dodging is bad but it should be based on if they can find a way to dodge or not, based on the skill set of the characters.

Dodging isn't bad, I've had characters that dodge and enemies that dodge as well. That's a part of combat. I'm talking about the 1/4th vampire, 1/4th werewolf, 1/4th demon, 1/4th angel characters that are so beautiful and intimidating that no one can touch them or talk back or even avoid their attacks.

^^ That was an exaggeration but I actually was in a game with characters like that. It got so bad with the ridiculous characters that the GM allowed, I asked to be removed.

I have friends that are in long running freeform games and they love it, they tell the stories that they want to tell with great partners. That's just not for me. I have had too many bad experiences with terrible players and in some cases GMs showing favoritism. It boiled down to a 'Tag you're it, No I'm not' situation.

In reply to Vane66 (msg # 23):

Oh god, been there, and I am sorry for you.  For me I've been in the opposite position highly skilled character who couldn't do ANYTHING she was supposed to be good at, because the dice never rolled her way.

So I started leaving system games.

I've had bad rolls and that's sometimes part of the fun when you have a good GM that can roll with it.

Regardless of the system, or lack there of, it really boils down to quality of players and GM. My personal experience was that players and GMs are more invested in system games because the time it takes to build and craft the characters. Freeform is great for new players to jump right in with their uber character and get a feel for the game.

I am a "Ruleset" gm. Heck the system that I prefer looks extremely intimidating to anyone who is not familiar with it (BRP). As a GM, the above situation is ample opportunity for the unknown old man/woman to appear and reveal to the character that they have acquired a curse. "Low and behold. For the sins of your ancestors you have been judged. All of the evils that your bloodline has spawned is now in you. It is up to you to cleanse your family." Thus starting a wonderful side adventure that would result in the GM helping to fudge your rolls later as you overcome your own personal demon.

Actually I have that somewhat happening right now in the game I'm running. More than once the character in question has absolutely flubbed a roll at the worst possible time. Has it been infuriating? yes, but the end result was a manor house blazing in an inferno as two "elementals" battled in the courtyard as a rebellion wages around the party. The character in question now has a nifty trinket that allows me to do GM'y things "legally".

Free-form or Ruleset and their like/dislike, I think, stems from the ability of the gm to make the game fun. For me I like the dice randomness and their ability to add in events/results that I now have to "overcome", as well as, sometimes add unintentional comic relief.

Me, like many here, who came to find out really had no "idea" what a freeform is really like, thus have stayed away. Thank you Lord_Johnny for asking the question.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:16, Sun 08 Jan 2017.

Oh absolutely - it was a good question indeed !  :>

Convinced me it's not for me, but at least now it's more of an educated decision.

If I was playing freeform ... then I'm absolutely sure I'd be rolling dice anyway.  I like the spontaneity that dice rolls provide ... sure sometimes you're really, really hoping for an epic result and you find yourself staring at a natural 1 as your best laid plans come crashing down but that's the will of the gods or the fates or whatever afflicts characters ... and I've been on the other side of that coin too, character dying on his feet, down to 1 HP when a critical hit saved his bacon.

I still can't shake the feeling that freeform basically boils down to collaborative story writing more than gaming ... but then freeformers might believe that system based gaming is just a strategical exercise (like chess).   And perhaps for some on both sides of the gaming fence it is that way.

Not knocking it - story, strategy, freeform or system we're all here to have fun and each to their own.  :>

I usually play systemed games. But one thing that freeform I think does better than a system game, is putting the emphasis on character interaction. I don't think they handle 'quest' games very well - eg, save the princess, find the treasure etc.

Years ago now; I was on another community, though this was chatroom-based rather than forum-based, where everything was freeform. No real GM, though everyone stepped forward from time to time because it was about one of their characters. When it came to fights, we usually did it err... well not realistically, as not everyone had any kind of combat trainining, but fairly. We usually acknowledged who would win in a fight between two characters. We all had an insanely powerful character or two; though they rarely got involved directly.

But well, it worked because we were friends. No, most of us never met IRL (though some of us did), but we were still friends. So when someone said "I'm sorry; but this character has done this training, had this heritage, and you expect to beat him in a pure sword fight?" it was usually acknowledged. But we were all about character interactions. Sure, some fights did crop up; but that was never the heart of the game. There were jokes made by the hard-core gamers amongst us (some were more writers or artists than gamers) that it was more like a daytime soap than an RP. Be that as it may; I still think the best character interactions I've ever had have been in freeform games.

DnD and Pathfinder, which are often my go-to games, suck at it. Others are quite good, but usually, that's when the system is somewhat... vague. It may have detailed rules, but it lives it up to GM interpretation a lot.

I've played a lot of "crunchy" games in real life, but I find the crunchier the system, the worse the experience online (especially in forums).  What would be a mildly annoying 10 minute rules discussion at the table can turn into a multiple day PM exchange that slows everything down on a forum.

Also, if it's a game system that is new to me, given the average life of a forum game, I've got to be pretty sold on the game's longevity to go read a 300 - 700 page (hello Exalted) rulebook.  Without knowing the players or even the GM necessarily, that's hard for me to justify investing the time in, much as the game might be interesting.

Freeform doesn't always mean no stats.  A lot of freeform games include some basic stats for your character, but they're guidelines and not dice to roll.  For example, if I have a combat score of four and you have a five, you will probably beat me in a fight, but we could justify it to have me beat you if I responded particularly well, if your character wasn't feeling great, etc...  If I had a combat score of one, however, then it'd take pretty close to a miracle to justify my beating you in a fight.

Freeform is, at the heart of it, about cooperation.  If you have a bad group of players, then that's going to be a bad game.  It's just that in freeform you have fewer rules to reign in bad players, so the train wrecks tend to be just that much larger.

I'm definitely a systems player, and I far and away prefer GURPS, but I find myself playing a lot of freeform with my kids.  When we're on the train or bus, we usually play some kind of variation of a Pokemon RPG.  Right now we're doing a mash-up of Star Wars and Pokemon (with Team Rocket playing the role of the Sith).  The kids love it, but it's frustrating for me when it comes to refereeing battles, especially when they battle each other.  We've done paper-rock-scissors, or used dice-rolling apps, but we generally just make it up as we go along.  I would much prefer some kind of rules-light system to arbitrate fights (PTU is too involved for our purposes).

I haven't had much success in freeform games on RPOL.  The games with the most compelling stories and character interactions, be they on RPOL, PBEM, or face to face, have all been GURPS games.  The freeform games I've joined have seemed to be about pairing up romantically, which isn't what I'm looking for.

I like this idea, but it fails to really get to the heart of the problem. There are going to be people who go "well I didn't drink last night, or go sleep with the tavern wench. So I am at tip top form. Always." How does a freeform handle this? In my experience, the GM glosses over it because they either can't/won't make a logical call, or the player in question throws a hissy fit because pointing out that they aren't as strong or skilled (based on their background information) means that you're trying to play their character or God Mod.



Sorry, you lost me on this one. No one is trying to say that other systems should be made free-form. I asked "what is the appeal of Freeform?"

And, so far, it seems that the answer has grown to also include "Good Story." I don't really buy that, because that's a Player and GM issue, not a game form issue. I've had a couple of free form games where a player was all PO'd that something was played realistically. "Oh your magic rifle can shoot that far huh?" in response to a "Look through a scope and see them". Which is silly because quite frankly, yeah some rifles can shoot for over a mile, and simply looking through a scope (or binoculars or whatever) can easily see things over a mile away. On the reverse, I've seen good Pathfinder games where the entire game session was about character building (in character) and roleplay that was truly spectacular. So, I have to disagree that Free-form is simply better than "dice systems" because of the roleplay aspect. After all, every system is about roleplay. Some systems just have ways to help arbitrate some aspects of game play that I, personally, don't see in Free-Form. So again, what is the Appeal?




I agree completely with this. However, as much as I agree, this is just reiterating my, and it seems a few others as well, confusion about Free-Form. You repeated, in probably a better way, our questions. But you didn't answer it friend. How do you solve issues between players. I ask because, frankly, you're right. It isn't a novel, there is going to be differeing opinions and suchlike. How do you resolve it?



On the other hand, what about two people who are striving to be the richest guy in town? "Let's make some business deals!" Okay, now, who's business deals are more profitable? Still no way to resolve this issue.


I admire you're dedication to the gaming style, and by all means, if you enjoy it, play it! But there isn't any conversation on what the appeal for free-form is, that other systems don't have just as well.




Okay, I kind of see this, but I'm not sure that that is exclusive to Free-form. What I mean is, take Birthright for example. That system has a HUGE amount of emphasis on gameplay. All the way from Lord Bubble Blower being a jerk to Lady Bubble Guppie as the Regent of the realm, to how Lord Bubble Blower acts to the peasantry on adventures. It can all tie together. So, again, while I definitely agree that Free-Form has an almost exclusive emphasis on character interaction, I wouldn't say that Free-Form is the only style that has a large emphasis on character interaction.

So I ask the question again. What does Free-Form have in appeal that other systems don't also have?



Agreed with this 100%. I feel like I should clarify (to everyone) that I'm not here to bash on Free-Form. I'm trying to understand it, because in every case I've tried it, it frustrates me for various reasons, some of which is inter-player conflict, and some of which is GM conflict.




You're quite welcome. I have to admit, for honesty's sake, that I asked as much for my own edification as anything else. I see so many games that the premise looks great, then look at the system, see "free-form" and mentally think, "too many bugs in the system, too much hassle, not worth the effort". I'd really like to understand what it is that I'm missing, because the sheer number of free-form games indicates to me that I'm clearly missing something that other people enjoy.

Edit to add: Sorry, I can't seem to figure out what the BB code is going all haywire. I haven't done anything different to the first part of the quote that I haven't done to the rest of the quotes, but it won't fix itself. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:32, Sun 08 Jan 2017.

Not really. Not trying to be rude, but no, not even close to what I said.

I said that in a Free-Form game where two people are "equal" then the GM can't maintain neutrality in arbitrating things, because there is not system of checks and balances to say which is better. So, by definition, the Gm has to choose a side. Maybe that's the right call, maybe it isn't, but the GM isn't maintaining neutrality.

I didn't say that the GM couldn't be neutral, I am asserting that the GM has to be neutral, and in freeform games, when a situation like what Gladius brought up happens, the GM can't be neutral. Not that they shouldn't be, but that they cannot be.

I also am not saying that Free-form games are dice games minus dice. I'm saying that Free-form games don't have a clear way of settling issues, whether pertinent to the story or not, between two players. Yes, players can decide this, but in my experience player's dont. They get their tails in a knot and get silly about it. So...no, not a dice game minus dice, but a game that doesn't have a way to resolve a lot of integral parts of a story.

I've GMd several Freeform games here on RPoL, one as lead GM for 5+ years

While I see Freeform/Sandbox games primarily for conversation between/among player characters, I admit to having priorities/inclinations/and such as a background/purpose in how I believe the game should progress in game time.

Most game guidelines are upfront, or may be inferred, through the game info. I clue in the players when it seems as though they might be pushing these boundaries. I freely use the die-roller for randomness and direction- when I wish.

I haven't found it too difficult to handle PC vs. PC confrontations, although I did have an interesting time when a newbie playing a male bruiser decided to try to confront/threaten my own female character 2/3 of his size.

Freeform games are not all the same.

Good point, and the type of free form (if that makes sense?),I would imagine, could probably change the dynamics of the game play quite a bit.

If I mat ask, for the sake of the conversation about dealing with these type of issues, how that player v player scenario worked out?

I ask because I've had a lot of issue getting into games where someone doesn't want to be hurt (which makes sense) and isn't willing to give even a passing glance to reality. (For instance, the bruiser would whoop the behind of your female in a straight up physical match...unless there is something rebalancing the scales like a weapon or training)

Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that I simply had the "luck of the draw" that put me in amidst players who acted that way and they be the exception to the rule. Life happens like that at times. But, again off only my own experiences, it seems like a lot of people don't want to admit limitations to their characters. So...I don't see the appeal, because playing with people like that is very frustrating.

So...what IS the appeal to Free-Form?

I disagree that Birthright does it any better than freeform does; and that many game systems do. Most do it far worse. The few that do character interaction as well are rare, and niche.

However, the appeal, to put it simply, is that it appeals to a certain kind of player. Players who like a lot more freedom in what they do. And yes, you need co-operative players, and it often does licensed material quite well; though you have to have a frank discussion about who gets to play who/what.

I don't like freeform games a whole lot; and the only pure freeform I play here is a Doctor Who game; and the players all get on well, and we don't tread on each others toes.

Lord_Johny, to well, qoute myself.



If however you have players that can't do something like that... well, that's where the GM steps in and either applies to the ban hammer or some other ruling.  Free form, can Not work if people don't keep in mind the limitations of there characters.

However what the appeal to free form, to me at least is I'm not at the Whim of some random dice or whatever mechanic, I'm NOT one of those people who can't take a hit, I will try my hardest to dodge and deflect every blow I can, but if I can't think of a way to avoid something I must get hit, it's the one covenant of a free form game to me.


Edit: As for playing with people who, god mode, free formers don't like playing with them either, so we generally don't when we find them.  I just can't stand making a good legal backaground for a character spend all my points or whatever, to make them good at something and then have the dice, fail to refect that at every turn.  so it turns my character concept into a laughing stock.
This message was last edited by the user at 00:39, Mon 09 Jan 2017.

I didn't say it did. I said that Birthright has just as much as free-form. Please don't put words in my mouth. That bugs me a lot. Thanks.

In reply to Alex Vriairu (msg # 36):

I get that. On the other hand, not everuone, even when the best at something, is always going to be at the top of their game.

Now, I've had games where I couldn't roll above a 3 on a d20 to save my life (or well, the character's life) so I definitely get where you're coming from on this one. Completely.

On the other hand, I also can always think of a way around or out of a situation, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would actually succeed. To me, that is why a dice (or any other system than pure freeform) system is "better". Again, that's just me.

That said, thank you for confirming the appeal is a more "no rules" thing than anything else. Which...yeah that is a system difference. Thank you!

okay, if Birthrite or what ever it is that that system is, has better character interaction to you than freeform, then isn't that just ONE system, which again limit's people who play systems to that one form. Why is that so different than freeform at that point? It's still only one way of doing things, one set of rules, just like freeform is, only difference is a system base. I think there are people like myself who don't grasp the concept of systems and don't understand why we have to have a roll of the dice to tell us if we can make a move in a game or not. To me, that is the problem with system games, is I have to hope my move goes through, where as with freeform, I can talk to the other player, get what they are "willing" to let happen to their player "and yes sometimes this even means death" but not be limited to being told, well your power points are gone because of this dice roll so you're dead, that's it, that's just the way it has to be. Which I see System games just far too strict for my liking and I've been writing freeform for many years. I see no reason for a system to be forced into a game even like Game of thrones, if you can find people who are mature enough to talk out their movements with their opponent at the time and understand neither can come out unscathed, but that the battle doesn't have to mean a characters death if they don't want it to.

Part of what you say is the draw to system games. Many of us see the system as a neutral set of barriers. You mentioned power points being expended. Ok now set yourself in the characters shoes, you know you can only maintain things for so long (your pool of points) do you risk using them now and being to weak to do what is needed later? Do you toss that spell and hope it works? Or even better yet you know your on your last leg and the only thing going to save you is that 1 in a million chance that you roll just right.

THAT is the lure of system games to many people. Beating the luck of the dice is a HUGE rush as your whole group stares at those rolling cubes each using their own willpower to force luck to turn to your side. Having it succeed, or not, still leads to tales of legend later.

Sadly I'm seeing far to much black and white in this discussion. I run a system game, but I do not simply let people die "just cause". The dice are a tool, a mere arbitrary form of judgement. Your example of "you lost a roll, your dead." does not generally happen outside of a Gary Gygax game. (Tomb of Horrors, you are faced with 3 plain doors in an empty room. You open the left door, sorry your dead) Any GM worth their salt does not simply kill off characters. Most GM's I know follow the Pg 5 Rule. (Not sure the official name) Any and all rules contained within this book are optional.

Personally as a GM I WANT my characters to use appropriate OOC knowledge for their character rather than simply rolling. Sometimes your head is not in it that day and are missing the most simple of issues, that is the randomness of the dice.

I'm not saying system is any better than anything else. It is completely personal choice. I for one can no longer play any form of D&D thanks to a horrible GM about 20 years ago. The system just turns my stomach. It is the GM that makes the game, not the "rules". The "golden BB" dice roll at the right time simply made, or broke, the tension.

I'm sure that is the lure for those of you who play system games, and for you, that's great...whatever works for you. But for me and many others who just don't play system games...EVER, for us the appeal is not there.

Have to agree, for me random chance is something to be avoided at all cost, I hate randomness, with a burning passion.  If I succeed or fail it something let it be because I did or didn't see a way out of it, or past it.  Not because of something I have no control over.

As someone who plays a roughly equal mix of freeform and rules-set games, I can honestly say that the biggest hurdle to enjoyment of both styles, for me, is personal immaturity among the players.  The kinds of people who have the "I always win" freeform characters also min/max and exploit every loophole in a game system.  And a good GM is highly instrumental in dealing with either one.

As an example, in one freeform game I'm in, there was a character who was a xenobiologist...game's a military-style, fighting-the-evil-alien flavor.  During an in-game briefing, he started spouting all these brand-new details about these aliens...which the GM shut down by having one of the NPCs dismiss his 'findings' as nothing more than fear-mongering rumors.

Freeform, in my opinion, still needs 'a hand on the rudder', as it were.  Someone needs to be the final arbiter of what works and whatdoesn't, unless you have an incredibly rare combination of players and GM who are all on he same page and manage to stay on that page.  It works best with players who are more interested in a compelling story than in being the guy in the spotlight and never looking bad.  When you're in a game with players who are willing to have their characters walked right up to the edge of death, without concern that the character will somehow look 'weak' or 'silly', it's great, and incredibly fulfilling and compelling.  Characters feel real and believable.  I've also found that most freeform games that last very long at all avoid character vs character conflicts...they're generally set up as an 'Us vs Them' scenario, with little or no reason for players to have any need of figuring whose character is 'better'.

That said, as I intimated earlier, I've seen immature, selfish people try and 'game the system' to make sure that their character never displayed any flaw.  I've also seen GMs go out of their way to put min/maxed characters in situations where they were all but guaranteed to fall flat, giving the 'Joe Average' characters a chance to shine despite having never been built with a spotlight in mind.

It's harder to abuse things with a rules-set, of course...and it's hard to enjoy a freeform game with players you don't trust.  If you've made up your mind that freeform is going to be a disastrous experience, odds are good that you'll never truly enjoy it.  But I feel that way about gaming in general...my favorite games have all been in groups where I felt like everyone was there to tell a good story, regardless of whether or not their character was 'the headliner'.  And the best GMs I've played with have found ways to give evry character their time to shine, freeform or system-based game.

I play lots of system game and lots of freeform games. And rules-lite games, and heavy tactical games. And I've GM'd all of them as well.

It's not so much that freeform games have no rules, it's that instead of a pre-agreed-upon set of mechanical conventions, the story and the narrative and the tone and the atmosphere all combine into a sort of "system" that guides the experience.

How fast is fast? How strong is strong? How magical is magic? Are martial artists Luke Cage or Jet Li? A system game, in theory, comes equipped with a set of pre-conditions that help to define these things. In freeform, each group has to at least partially define them for that game, that story, that experience. Which, in my experience, leads to a lot of talk about tone and mood and story. What kind of story are we telling here? What sort of mood are we trying to set and maintain?

Because system games run into those kinds of problems too. From simple things like starting power level and allowed sources to more complex and subtle things like banning or nerfing abusive mechanical combinations and making calls when the application of certain rules stops making sense. In D&D 3.5, for example, by the strict application of the rules, Monks aren't proficient with their own fists, sometimes drowning can heal you under certain circumstances, and an 11th level Wizard can instantly create tons of pure iron and crash the local economy.

And the reason why every D&D character isn't generating infinite wealth by crafting gold coins is the same as why there are no giant robot ninjas in Gone With the Wind. Because in both cases there's a tension created by the overall experience that inhibits those kinds of choices.

Not only do freeform games benefit from these conversation, in my experience system games often suffer from not having them.

And all that being said, I agree with facemaker329 that, in both cases, jerks ruin everything and good players make the game.

 Didn't day that either. Ad previously pointed out, people putting words in my mouth bugs me a lot.

I am asking everyone to actually listen to each other. Not such a hard thing. I'm listening to you, please return the courtesy. IE, stop putting words in my mouth.

Since she was/is my character, has more than 1000 posts IC, I didn't think twice about pushing back!

She stuck a gun in his gut. After a bit of interesting dialogue, he backed down. Of course, she would have killed him IC, if he had tried anything. I'm the GM, after all! But, she had done nothing up to that point to bring about any confrontation. In fact, they had never spoken before, so it was the player causing trouble. He stopped posting thereafter.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:46, Mon 09 Jan 2017.

Ahh, the time on of my characters threw a frying pan 40 feet to Crit the boss and do enough damage to defeat it. Epic times.
It's times like that that stick with you.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 43):

That makes a lot of sense. Again, I am not trying to make anything seem like the bad guy (IE, the not as good form of play) I just don't understand the appeal of free form.

In reply to azzuri (msg # 46):

*nods* makes sense. Thank you for being willing to share!

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 48):

Nothing wrong with not understanding the appeal.  I don't understand the appeal of D&D, from 2E onward to the current iteration.  I've played too many other games (even games with systemized rules) that allow for much greater freedom of character development and action, so D&D's comparatively regular level-based advancement and relatively strict limitations on actions, skills, etc just seem constrictive to me.

With that said, I don't think anything less of people who enjoy it.  I've got a lot of friends who play.  Since it doesn't appeal to me, I don't.  I've tried it, a couple of times, and it just didn't 'click' for me the way many other games do...it could have been the DM or the group, but I don't think so.  So, I just accept that something about it is appealing to people but not to me, and I let those people have their fun playing it without trying to analyze just what it is that they enjoy that I don't.

One tremendous advantage freeform has, in a forum-based environment, is that you don't have to try and get a pool of players who are all familiar with an extensive set of rules, and you don't have resolution of actions during combat bogging play down (I've seen games that died in the middle of their first combat because of that).  It's easy to set up, what rules apply to the game are usually easily written up and posted by the GM so everyone's got easy access to them, and players don't have to spend hours putting together character sheets.  And that's probably one of the biggest reasons it's so popular.  People get tired of going through the actions of having to sort out players who actually know the system, or who are willing to learn it but need books/websites/pdfs for reference, of doing the math to put together characters, etc etc etc...freeform boils that all down into a pretty painless procedure.  I haven't joined a new game in a long time, now...but of the most recent, I spent less time writing up descriptions and backgrounds for the two freeform characters than I did figuring out JUST the stats for my D6 Star Wars character (and D6 is one of the simplest rules-sets out there, really...)

So, even before you get into the question of how to play one versus the other, the simplicity factor is a big aspect of the appeal.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 48):

Sometimes it's best to not even try.  I won't touch GURPS with a 10 ft pole online or off.  All it's advocates can tell me how wonderful it is until they're blue in the face, and I just smile and nod and walk away with my feelings unchanged one iota.

Bottom line - some personal preferences are beyond understanding.  For me, it's GURPS, black licorice, rap music, cold soups, any steak that's not well done, cold coffee, and sushi.

I can accept that some people like them, even love them, but I'll never 'get' the appeal.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:10, Tue 10 Jan 2017.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 51):

Well done steak = beef jerky/not even meat anymore



rare = good

medium rare = perfect

medium well = sure you wouldn't rather have a hamburger?

Let's not derail the topic with discussions about how a steak should or should not be cooked. ;)  We can start a new thread for that.

That someone else likes something else and doesn't like what you like doesn't invalidate your enjoyment, or theirs.  :-)

If you don't like freeform, you don't like it.  If you do, you do.

People can explain why they like it ... but chances are, like me with blood-oozing half done meat ... you'll never get it, and nor should you have to, if you've already decided it's not for you.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:28, Tue 10 Jan 2017.

I’m a latecomer to this party, but having read through the last 3 pages of posts with interest, it strikes me that System Players and Storytellers see themselves as very different. Personally, like drewalt, I see it as a spectrum, and apart from the extreme ends, it is a spectrum that most of us can play with if we want to.

However, the different styles of play require a different mindset, and this is where a lot of people who want to dip their toe in the ‘other' water make a mistake. Before you start playing the other type of game, you need to do what the OP is doing and find out what makes it tick.

Gladiusdei, you asked what happens if you generate a character that requires a story to move in a particular direction. This illustrates the point.

It wouldn’t happen, because in a freeform game you don’t create your character to take a story in a particular direction, you create a character that will fit in with the story you have collectively agreed to weave, and furthermore, a character that is sufficiently flexible to still have a part to play even if the game goes in another direction.

The initial concept of ‘I have this character and I want this outcome’ has no part in a freeform game - a freeform game is about ‘let’s start with this multi-character situation and see what happens while we help one another to develop our characters’.

Don’t take a bat to a football game and expect to have fun.

Lord Johnny, you asked how issues between players are resolved, and what is the appeal of freeform.

Such issues occur rarely between experienced freeform players, because they are not self-centred (I’m using this term literally, not in a derogatory sense). Instead, they are game-centered. Each person in a freeform game is like a ‘good GM’. In a way, they are all co-GMs. They are there to help everyone else have a good time, not to beat up the other players and have their pet character win an ego contest.

The problems, when they occur, are often due to inexperienced players who don’t yet know how to behave in a freeform game. Some of them can be educated in the ways of collaborative gaming, others cannot or will not learn and end up being booted out.

When experienced freeformers have a difference of opinion, they discuss the situation and its potential consequences, IC or OOC depending on the situation, and they agree on an outcome. If there is some point on which they cannot agree, the GM will make the decision.
And if you don’t trust the GM to make a fair decision, why are you playing in her game?

A major appeal of freeform gaming is to get away from the competitive banana measuring, and concentrate on role playing how your character’s thoughts, feelings, aims and ambitions are influenced over time. It can be a more immersive medium.

A dice-based strategy game, for example, would focus on collecting gold, buying armies and pitting them against your foes to win territory. A freeform strategy game would focus on negotiating with your neighbour to form an alliance that will outnumber your foe, and agreeing with him how the territory will be divided when you have won. Both are equally valid kingly or queenly skills, but each game type has a different focus. Each has its own payoff. Neither is exclusive - combat is not exclusive to dice games and interaction is not exclusive to freeform, but it’s a matter of emphasis. Trying to enumerate a romance is a pretty hopeless task. If you want to woo, go freeform. Likewise, trying to negotiate combat is pretty hopeless. If you want to kick butt (can we say butt?) go dice system.

Fireflights and Alex Vrairu, mention their dislike of random chance, but chance is a fact of life. Sometimes there are things that you have no control over. Winning a fight isn’t always about being the most experienced or thoughtful combatant, sometimes its simply about accidentally tripping over that rock. Trying to run a game that ignores chance, or that makes every well-planned undertaking successful, removes an important aspect of reality and makes suspension of disbelief just that little bit harder.

Personally, I prefer a semi-freeform or rules-lite game, where the PCs have a few broad numbers attached to them to ensure everyone is on the same page, since competition and combat is a valid factor in life and numbers better resolve competitive action, but I like to explore the develop the personalities of PCs too, in collaborative action, and too many numbers can tend to obstruct this.
I also find as I get older that I have less patience with massive rule books and charts full of numbers - especially in PbP. I want to spend my precious game time in my character’s head, not in the pages of my rule book.

Incidentally, IMO, no GM is neutral. It’s not a GM’s job to be neutral, it’s a GM’s job to provide a good story. If a GM has to choose an outcome, s/he will choose the outcome that is best for the game and provides the most interesting consequences. Sometimes this will work in your favour, sometimes it won’t. By the law of averages, this will often work out neutral in the long term, but fairness is not the same as neutrality.

And finally... a piece of advice to players everywhere, freeform or dice - don’t try to intimidate the GM’s character. It’s not going to end well! LOL.

that's not really what I meant.  I meant if you entered a freeform game with a character concept along the lines of 'I want to play a court jester and explore the nuances of courtly life from an outsiders perspective,' and the rest of the group proceeded to move the story in a direction where court activities were never present, then the story you wanted to tell is impossible.  Which may be an inappropriate way to enter a freeform game.  Kind of hard for me to know for sure, if I haven't ever played one.

ultimately, I get what you are all saying, I think everyone's opinion is valid for their own interests.  I can see the appeal of freeform games.  If I want to make a character and explore aspects of games that just don't normally come up in a more rigid game, a freeform game may be the best way to do it.  But most of the advice in this game revolves around playing with "good" or "experienced" freeform players.  As someone who hasn't had a chance to play freeform yet, it's a bit hard to know who that is, or how to enter a game like that.  Which is why fears of other players screwing it up come in.  Maybe they are groundless, though, so I guess only experiencing it would really answer my question.

the sad thing Gladiusdei, is there really is no way to Know, if you have good or experienced players, till the game is played.. but that's true-ish for any game.  Even in a system game, you can have people who know the rules like the back of their own hand, but not be good in a group.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:00, Tue 10 Jan 2017.

Hmmmm. I'm seeing a tendency of those who are explaining the Free form side to assume that systems with dice are all about conflict with each other, which while may be possible, is definitely not the focus. That said, conflict with each other is part of life. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and can absolutely be part of the story. Should conflict necessarily be the focus? No, not necessarily, but it shouldn't be a game stopper either. Conflict happens, people disagree, it's part of the natural order of the world. Implying that there shouldn't be any conflict really isn't natural, and definitely breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Additionally, I see a lot of assumption that those who are in systems (as opposed to free form) can't get into roleplay. Can we not do that? That is is pretty insulting to several people, myself included, who absolutely love to get in character, and play games. And, frankly, I who have no understanding of Free-Form at all (but played in a few free-form games for a few weeks) have had a far easier time getting into the setting and character than dedicated Free-former's and even the Free-Former GM in several instances.

So, rather than making digs on either side, I'd like to ask that we stick to discussing the appeal of Free-Form.

That said, let's move on to the real body of this post.

Ico, I see what you're saying, but disagree with almost every facet of your premise's.

First of all, every character, whether in a free-form or not, is going to be the "pet character" of the player in that game. After all, they are the character they are playing. If you're saying that the player, in Systems, are only looking out for themselves, I'm sorry you've had that experience, but I can assure you that isn't "normal".

Second, in my experiences with Free-Form, it wasn't me as the newbie who suddenly blew up and went rage monster on others. It was the person who was being quite unreasonable and unrealistic about things that, in reality, work the way another character (not even me, but someone else entirely) was saying they wanted to use something. Again, not the rank newbie, but experienced person. Now, obviously, this type of behavior doesn't reflect on experienced players in general, but my point isn't that it does. My point is that as long as players, in free-form or systems, are human, then we're going to have to put up with players who act that way. Both in and out of Free-Form.

Third, once again, it's very easy to get away from the banana measuring and get in the game in systems. Free-form in no way shape or fashion has anything close to resembling a monopoly on desiring and ability to get in character and work together. Role Play is, literally, in the title of Tabletop Roleplaying Game. Yeah, systems also concentrate on roleplay. They just have ways of dealing with specific things that I just don't see in Free-Form.

Fourth, You do have a bit of something here with the paragraph about the ways of dealing with something, but you kind of violate your own premise. ( Paraphrase: It's not about taking over people's things, it's about getting together with other player's and divvying up someone else's things.) Okay, so you really just said that it wasn't about the thing that you just said it was about. Whether it's two players doing it (and there are some games where that IS the story) or to an NPC, it's the same thing. You took over someone else's stuff. Additionally, I find this idea to be possibly unrealistic. If (to use *your* example) say I was a warlord with 400 well armed troops, and two people with, say 100 moderately armed troops each, sorry, no, you'd not beat me. It doesn't matter that there are two of you, you'd still mostly likely loose. But, in your example, Free-Form has no way of handling that type of situation, because there were two of you, so you won. That premise is whack. On the other hand, system games have a definite way to handle that.


A few other instances came up here, but in the interests of making a point vs belaboring you into the ground, I won't mention them.

Once again, it really boils down to a "lack of rules" as the appeal. You (general) don't want to learn all the rules, and so you don't with that system. That's fine, there isn't anything wrong with that, and by no means am I bashing anyone who has that motivation. But that is what things boil down to.

Then if you think that's what it boils down to perhaps we could consider the question answered.

Lord_Johnny, I absolutely disagree that there's in no way shape or fashion has anything close to resembling a monopoly on desiring and ability to get in character and work together. I play Freeform ONLY and I ALWAYS get into my character as well as work with others. If you have had that problem in freeforms, maybe it's the people you have played with in those games. Because I know in my games, and in the games I play in, I have never once experienced the things you talk about in this thread. We all work together, we work out how a battle can be fought, what damage your character takes on, YOU choose and you're not forced to kill your character unless YOU want to. That's the lure of freeform, plus freeform isn't just for battle games, you can have games where you're just about romance and drama, I don't see how you can play a system game based on that type of game setting, but maybe you can, who knows. The truth of it is, you may never get your answer fully on why people like Freeform, perhaps you should just accept that they do and move on?

Sorry if I misunderstood. In the example you give here, a court jester with that goal might be appropriate if the rest of the game as agreed by the players and GM in advance was about characters interacting in a court, but might not be appropriate if the game had other goals. What I'm saying is that in a freeform game you would spend more time up front discussing the game along the lines of 'I'm thinking of playing a court jester and exploring the nuances of courtly life from an outsiders perspective. Can we fit that into the game? How would my character interact with yours? Where do you all want to go with the game?'
Furthermore, these discussions take place throughout the game at significant points when further decisions become necessary. That way there is much less chance of the game sidelining your character and the GM will make sure that you get the chance to play your character.

Of course, there is no accounting for jerks, including jerk GMS. As someone said up thread, freeform games don't have a monopoly on them.

Try a freeform game. Try several - as you say, it's the only way to be sure. What's to lose? A few hours of your time? You lose that every month when a dice game dries up and you don't get to play your character out. Where's the difference? :)

I've tried, I've found it hard to find a game to fit into.  Guess time will tell.

I'm not saying that at all, I was responding to a specific point that I believed another contributor was making, but apparently I was mistaken.



Are you sure the other guy was experienced?
And in any case, all games attract jerks, using dice doesn't stop someone from picking a fight with another player. I've seen many arguments in dice games (which I've played for years) around whether a particular dice modifier was 'valid' At the end of the day, the players and GM either accept that behaviour or they don't.


I agree with you, and agreed with you above. Dice games definitely include role play, and are certainly better at resolving the mechanics of combat - but often they take such an inordinately long time over it (particularly in PbP) that you lose the flow of the scene. Smoother flow is one of the attractions of freeform.


Sorry, you lost me here. I'll take another look at it tomorrow.


That's not what I was saying. In a sensible Freeform game, like a dice game, if one side is outnumbered and outclassed it will probably lose, no matter the distribution of players. Dice games don't have a monopoly on realism. What I was saying was that instead of concentrating on buying, equipping and marshalling troops (which works well in a numbers game) you'd concentrate on the stories behind the conquest. What happened to make those leaders go to war? Can an outnumbered leader persuade a (well armed and numerous) ally to help him turn the tables? If so, how?


I'm happy to chat, provided it's in the spirit of mutual enlightenment rather than argument, and we're doing ok so far. :)
I don't think the attraction is necessarily the lack of rules (though for some it is), it's just that if you have a hammer, there is a tendency to treat every problem as a nail. Some games try to deal with every issue, whether it's combat, intrigue or romance, as a set of numbers to be resolved with a roll of the dice. Not having the dice forces you to explore other ways of tackling things, and it can be refreshing to think outside the box sometimes.

I think that there is an underlying assumption by some game creators (and game players) that people are innately untrustworthy, and unless they are constrained by dice and rules, they won't play fair or realistically. The popularity and ongoing success of freeform games proves otherwise, IMO. If they didn't work, they wouldn't exist, and Rpol's statistics show that they not only exist, they are vastly more popular than dice games.

For me, it's not rules vs not. It's not roleplay vs realism. It's not random vs player arguments.

It comes down to what facemaker said earlier:



All the problems mentioned (except possibly cursed dice) I've seen in both freeform and system games.
But, in PbP (the place I play freeform) freeform games are quicker to set up, quicker to play, and problems can be resolved as quickly or quicker. In a format where a short slow down can kill a game this gives freeform a huge advantage. To me, at least.
This message was last edited by the user at 00:13, Wed 11 Jan 2017.

As stated earlier I run a System game.

I'm going to think of this in my own context of a world I'm running. The Eternal Champion by Michael Moorcock. From what I have read this would not last long as a free-form game. Far to often brother kills brother, Allies turn in a heartbeat, even the main characters sword decides when to do what it wants sometimes. On the political side, yes it would work. On ANY confrontational side, from what I've read, it would fall flat.

I would think that combat in either system would slow it down. With a dice game you have the few posts of dice generation and desired actions listed.

IF I understand this right you would have something similar in a Free-form game. However instead of dice rolls it would be deliberation. Depending on the base system this may be just as "confining".


When I first started running my game I handled combat differently that most others as was evident by the reaction of my players. I knew that PbP would slow down traditional combat and quickly become boring. Luckily the system I favor is fast and deadly in the PnP version. After everyone had posted/PM'd me the actions I crafted a "combat scene" where I transitioned everything together into a cinematic sequence. The posts were usually quite long and designed for each player to enjoy reading, as if they were watching a movie. It would take into account all the hidden rolls, "Secret" actions that would easily be overlooked in a combat situation, and generally any significant information (obvious or otherwise).


I see posts about not want to learn a new system, I get that, I don't either. I hardly have enough time to run my own game. I see comments on simplicity being an appeal. I also get that, while I have always run/played a system game I've always been the more RP centered of most groups that I've ever played.

Now what I am seeing however is there are several system players here doing research on what it is like before possibly attempting a free-form game. Sadly I've seen more "No way am I playing a system game." yet as champions of both sides have put it "It really depends on the GM/players over the system/style."

Personally I'm not trying to convince anyone that "my" system is better. I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of what "Freeform" really is. Partially due to a game rattling in my head that may work better based on what I "thought" was the definition.




YES, this last part I would have to figure to be true. In my own game I helped craft the characters with several back and forth sessions. Thanks to the setting (Moorcock Multiverse) I helped hone their character by answering basic setting questions. I did what I did so I could make sure that I could "get" each player into the game with a character that did not invalidate their character (you can only have so many Drizzt Do'Urden before someone feels left out)

I do have to contest the "slowdown" part. The game I run it was clear from the getgo that it was going to be a slow post game. I'm only able to post 2-3 times a week. Thanks to that basic understanding my game is well over 3k posts and has lasted over 2 years.

In reply to fireflights (msg # 59):

You didn't listen. I said Free form doesn't have a monopoly on Dearing to get in character. I have already pointed out that it didn't, and used myself as an example.
Maybe you should accept that you're not correct and, in your own words, "move on".

In reply to Low Key (msg # 63):

That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I would think that it's the rules (or lack therein) that can put a slow down on the game.

And by that I mean, as others rightly pointed out, that it can slow a game down to have to go back and relook up rules. I absolutely agree that it can, no qualms about that statement. So, if Free-form has a "quickness" to it, I find a credible arguement to be made on at least part of that being a lack of rules to have to go over.

In reply to Mrrshann618 (msg # 64):

That makes a lot of sense. I'd ask what the game was (sounds fun!) but obviously this isn't the forum for that, so I won't ask.

That said, I think you hit the nail on the head for seeing both sides of this (divide? Question?) Topic.

Good games depend on the magical right combination of GM, players, scenario, and most of all timing, as in no one has to drop because of a RL crisis or the like, and everyone is up (at least most of the time) to giving their best, etc.  FF or rules can contribute, but that's just personal preference.

In reply to Brianna (msg # 68):

Agreed.

Well...yes, and no.  It would depend on how well the GM vetted players, and how well he presented the game up front.  If you post in the game information for a freeform game, "You MUST be willing to let your character die to fit the nature of this game," and you get players who are familiar with Moorcock's setting, you might have some bickering over who dies...but in many of the freeform groups I've been in, you'd actually have people arguing that the other guy should survive and they'll take the hit, because it will make a cool twist to the story.  It would also require a GM who's willing to be cut-throat and say exactly when Stormbringer is gonna steal an ally's soul whether the Champion wants it to or not.

It would, I'd say, be akin to the Aliens game I played back in college...where the GM instructed each of us to make at least two and maybe three characters, because characters WERE GOING TO DIE.  It was known up front, it was part of the setting and we were all familiar with it.  So, we were more interested in trying to accomplish the mission and have each character death be a memorable event than we were in trying to make sure our character survived.  If we'd gone into the game expecting something different, we'd have been somewhere way beyond peeved when characters started melting in sprays of molecular acid alien blood...

So, speaking as someone who's done a fair bit of freeform...if it's an interesting setting and I'm told up front that there's a good chance that my character will die, I go into the game with a different expectation and approach and as long as my character doesn't drown in the castle moat because someone left a banana peel on the drawbridge or something pointless like that, I'm good with it.  If that expectation is NOT made plain going into the game (which has happened to me...had a GM kill my character less than a week into a Firefly game because, apparently, my waiting more than a day to post a response was just too much for him), I'm gonna walk away disgusted and not interested in ever playing with that GM again.

But the same would hold true if it was a system game and the death happened because the dice failed me, rather than because it made for a good story point.  In fact, I might even be more disgusted, at that point, unless the dice failed me at a cool dramatic point.

The point being, really, that anything you can play in freeform, you can play in a system game, and vice versa...it's all a question of how you set up the game and how much preparation you make in rounding up players who understand the scenario and setting and even genre, in some cases.

And I'll admit it...the first time I tried a freeform game, I was extremely skeptical going into it.  But the GM did a good job of screening all the players and making sure everyone understood what the game was--and was not.  And, yeah, it didn't last long, for one reason or another...but I had a whole lot of fun and decided to try it again.  Two of the freeform games I'm in have been around for years (looked at the RTJ messages last night...one started in October of 2010 and the other in February of 2011).  And it's due in large part to having GMs that communicate clearly what the game is going to be, and players who are willing to roll with the GM decision.  One of them has a very rudimentary character sheet for each character, with some very basic stats and skills...but that game can go months without anyone rolling dice (and it's pretty active...coming up on 57k posts...)  The other doesn't have anything of the sort...just a GM and a few players who are dedicated to the setting and willing to sacrifice player ego to make for a better story.

By the same token...one of the system games I'm in started even earlier, and it's still going.  And a lot of the time, the GM will just go ahead and roll dice for the players, if they're doing something that warrants a dice check but don't offer to make it, themselves.  There are HUGE portions of that game which read like a freeform game, if you look back at the IC threads.  We're all having so much fun, as players, that I suspect the GM could probably skip the dice rolls and just rule on successes based on how dramatically appropriate they would be and nobody would care...but he wanted a system and we all like it.  But, again...it's an established setting (Star Wars), so we all had pretty clear notions of what would likely happen, going into it, and it's continued on in pretty much the vein we expected (or, at least, the one I expected).

I find it interesting to see character death brought up here as something that might prove difficult in freeform.

I've personally seen system games' goalposts shift from expected high lethality to "well, it's only really going to be a death or so per month, even with constant posting", to "yeah, I toned down the enemy damage, but it'll increase as you get better stuff", to eventual realisation that it's not what was described on the tin. One most OOC verbalised instance seemed to have more characters disappearing as players left than dying, but it's not the only time its felt like the PCs are bubble-wrapped.

Can it not be cool to have your next PC carry the day for the last one (particularly if they're brought in because they have a connection to the last PC), or try to pick up the pieces? Blood & Honour interests me along those lines, though I've yet to play it - the group takes the parts of individual PCs, but they can die in a single strike and the focus seems more on the clan, province, and how you advance your family than any individual.

This sums it up. Of course, some things are easier (less work/preparation) in a dice game, and some things are easier (less work/preparation) in a freeform game, but if you can avoid the ‘Bang you’re dead! No I’m not you missed!’ on the one hand, and the ‘What do I have to roll to successfully seduce Jane’s character?’ on the other, you can make anything work in any game.

In reply to Novocrane (msg # 71):

While this is getting off topic a bit, I find I am much more accepting of "mechanical death" than "character death" such as to say I will willingly accept that something happens to remove a character from play/the game itself, but I will never under any circumstance let my character actually die.  Nor would I let a gm take over my character if I for some reason have to leave the game.

In reply to Alex Vriairu (msg # 73):

Unfortunately, you don't have a lot of choice about what happens to your character. A GM has absolute control over what happens in his/her game.

You might not like your character to die, but you can't prevent it, any more than you can prevent your own death in RL. You may be able to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution with your GM (which you can't do in RL, alas) but if not, tough luck. If a GM says your character is dead, your character is dead - at least in that GM's game reality.

Furthermore, what happens to your character in that game after you leave is also entirely at the GM's discretion. You may create a 'parallel reality' for your character with another GM in another game, but in the original game you have no control over your character once you leave. In that way, game continuity is not compromised by players leaving in the middle of a story arc. The GM will simply run that character as a NPC until s/he sees fit to delete it - and that will be at a time when it is convenient to the game.

Not wishing to be confrontational about this, I'm simply stating the fact that, the way Rpol is set up, the GM has absolute control over every aspect of the game - including all the characters.

Unless you're the GM, the fate of your character is out of your hands, like it or not.

I agree with you that all that can happen, but your leaving out one possibility, I just don't join a game where the gm would not respect those conditions. ^_^

I commend you on your telepathy/precognition. :)

I also wish you luck with your search. I can't imagine there are many GMs who would even say they would risk their game continuity in that way.

Actually if the GM decides to take over your character, in spite of any conditions that you may have agreed upon before hand (whether you voluntarily leave, or are ejected from the game), then I'm afraid there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop him.

There is nothing on this site which forces a GM to comply with any agreement with his players, other than his own conscience.

By the same token, in most games you are not restricted from emptying your character sheet and description before you're removed. I've yet to feel that need, and it does nothing for anything you wrote in your rtj, but it's not nothing.

In reply to icosahedron152 (msg # 74):

I can think of at least one game (Tenra Bansho Zero), in which player character death is entirely under the control of the player. As in the GM could blow up the planet, bring about the early heat death of the universe, etc. and the player would still be able to say, "How long does it take for my PC to recover?", and then continue from there. The rulebook example is falling out of a plane mid flight, iirc.

I am quite aware the gm my choose to dishonor the agreement, but I would hope most are better than that Bigbadron, dear I did not mean to derail so much with a simple comment.

In reply to Novocrane (msg # 78):
Most experienced GMs will copy all character information and store it off site, precisely to guard against one of those players from attempting to sabotage the game if they leave in a hissy fit.

Rule Zero allows a GM to house rule any eventuality into any game, regardless of what it says in the rule book. Of course, you are under no obligation to join a game if you don't like the house rules.

Well, like it or not in the world of Rpol games, the GM or GMs are your judge, jury, and executioner, and ultimately it's up to them to decide what happens to your character if and when you should leave their game, and I stress the term THEIR game.

It's a privilege to play in a game, not a right, and at any time you can have the rug pulled out from under you, and whatever happens to any characters you've created is ultimately at their whim. It's not fun, it's sometimes not fair and can be distressingly personal, but they have the final say and that's that, if you don't like it, GM your own game and run it your way.

My own personal policy is to let the player decide if they're leaving voluntarily or are being ejected and are remaining civil about it. If it's not so cordial or the player doesn't care, I usually just give the character a "riding into the sunset" sort of closing that leaves things open-ended and move on, their past exploits might come up again in passing mention, but the character itself will have no further bearing in the storyline of the game.

As for the merits of freeform? Well I personally like it because it's more about telling a good story and having fun than having to number-crunch stats all the time, not that there's anything wrong with that, mind. Usually in my games whenever there's a fight scene or some other conflict between characters, everybody uses the dice roller to decide what actions succeed or fail, who wins and who loses, you're free to describe just how you win or lose.

For better or worse, the Rpol dice roller is an impartial judge, and that way nobody can say the GM is cheating or playing favorites, and provided everybody plays nice and follows the rules, it usually works just fine in my experience.