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.