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