Everything I'm reading is indicating that players who want freeform to work don't have goals like that. The characters might have that goal, but the player's goals are different. A player would play their character in the direction of the character's goals, and when these bumped into someone else's goals, then lots of sub-goals would arise. A player who has come to the game only willing to see one outcome hasn't really come to the game in good faith.

Edit: Come to think of it, a player who comes to almost any game with a "whole goal" for their character that doesn't take into account the vagaries of the rules, the other players and the GM, is probably going to have a hard, conflicting time as things develop.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:35, Tue 13 Feb 2018.

then that makes me even more confused, honestly.  Because everyone talking about the philosophy of Freeform is talking about working together to create a good story.  That would imply to me that each player has an idea of what sort of story they want to play.  So how do you figure out where to take the story?

and I'm not saying the example players only want one outcome. I was just giving an example.  Generally speaking, all players will have expectations of what they want to do with their character.  Those expectations will inevitably clash.  I wanted to know how Freeform players and GMs handle that clash, and how it has worked for them.

In general when two conflicting goals clash, it is good to sit down the players about why their characters pursue those goals.

In the example given, the knight marries the widowed queen and tries to rebuild the kingdom while another PC wants to depose her and become king. The former's story is a classical chivalric romance but how about the latter? He or she wants power, yes. With a new king on the throne, he could take power simply by becoming the chancellor or the local archbishop. Power will come but not as immediate as he would like. In the first place, why not court the queen himself if he wanted the crown? If he cannot be king, perhaps the PC could turn his efforts to ruling the criminal underworld, becoming a de facto power. There are plenty of means to satisfy the PC's ambitions that I think a reasonable player can agree to.

Ultimately I believe that most freeform players are attracted to such games because they have a kind of story they want to tell. Usually it is not such a hard and fast tale that it cannot abide divergence (at that point you might as well write a novel) so work with the players and usually some sort of compromise can be had.

As for fiat, it can be clunky. It falls to the GM explaining well the rulings and appearing impartial. Votes and ballots can also work since the story is shaped by the majority of the players.

I do think that giving out ranks or points to quantitate skills does work for some freeform games. There are no dice involved so they only serve to show relative levels of skill. Another system I remember is that each PC has a number of points they can invest in scenes. The more they invest, the more the scene goes their way. Every chapter or so they get a new allotment of points so it allows a canny player to save up and have a big effect at a crucial moment.

Do players complain or quit? Sometimes. There will always be those who will do so unless everything goes their way. I find that if players are well aware of what they signed up for, they generally are more congenial about it. If they know that they are minor nobles and that they will have to play a balancing game around the interests of the great nobles, then they would be fine with that. Spring it on them suddenly and many would baulk, seeing it as a fait accompli or the GM acting in bad faith.

If it's anything like improv theater, then it's like I said above: one person states something and everyone else builds off of that. Unlike improv, there's probably a lot of discussion up front and during the game and I imagine that goes like most other constructive discussions, with give and take, with an overall goal of compromise. Players who see that one player isn't getting anything they want are probably somewhat obligated to send a little in that person's direction.


"Expectations" is, I think, the wrong word. In a game with a lot of numbers, where things are balanced, and players can have a pretty good bead on things even though they have little direct control, then they can "expect" to get a certain outcome. "I'm going to take the two-weapon fighting tree, and then this rad paragon path, finishing with this epic destiny," might be a fair thing to expect in such a game, less so in a freeform game, even apart from the rules terms.

Or, apart from rules, on might make a tough-guy in a game and "expect" to get some good punches in. But to "expect" anything beyond that is just asking for clashes. If that tough were in a position where he was definitely going to die, rather than retire to coach boxers, but he's going to get some good punches in as he goes down, then the player should probably be reasonably satisfied.

I don't mean to pick on your wording, but I think it might be part of the confusion.

But you're sort of arguing with my wording and not actually addressing what I'm asking.

  I tried to join a freeform game a while back.  I went into it hoping to play a wizard struggling against a curse on his family line, and slowly giving in to darker powers in the hopes of breaking it to save his family.

that was my character pitch.  That is a hoped for character arc.  The game didn't get off the ground, but I entered it hoping to play something along those lines.

I assume many players enter freeform games with similar story ideas.  The type of game they want to play, the type pf character they want to be.  But those hoped for arcs will come into conflict in game when players start interacting.  So how do you decide which story works best?

as you said, it WILL lead to clashes.  That's what I am asking about.  How did games resolve those clashes.  They will always happen, because we're human. So what have people done to make it work?

As I said, I didn't mean to be doing that, but one's approach (which can be reflected in wording) matters.

Conflict can't be entirely avoided, but it can be reduced, and one way to reduce it (as is handled in improve) is to minimize one's preconceived ideas. If you establish that your wizard is cursed and is slowly giving in to it in hopes of breaking it to save his family, that's fine. That's just how things are now. But if five minutes into the game the paladin lays on hands and lifts the curse, then that's what happens. You, as the player, shouldn't have a problem with that, assuming no one promised you that arc, or even encouraged you to expect it to happen.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding, though, and you would have established upfront that the curse couldn't be broken that way, or maybe the GM, knowing the arc you hoped for, steps in and negates it. If curing everyone in sight was the paladin's arc, well, I guess the GM who let both of those arcs into the same story is probably prepared to deal with that.

Other than that, there's any number of ways. Random selection, GM fiat, GM fiat along with telling one player to describe what happens, something unexpected happening to interrupt the conflict, heck, even the end of that game and the immediate start of a new one. The conflict might be just that epic that no one sees anywhere else to take the story.

But the point is that it's about creating the story. If no one creates huge chunks of the story beforehand, lots of potential conflict goes away.

Communication can also be key. If you talk to the other players, see how thing could fit in with what they are doing and mesh stuff. Since unless your playing a solo game it can't all be about just you. There will be clashes with each other but if you reach out, I think that might help.

<Chuckles> The bane of Freeform games is the player whose RTJ says/implies that we wants something that is too selfish to work in a cooperative Freeform format.

Usually, he wants a one-on-one game with a GM. Freeform games don't work like that.

Or he wants to oppose a whole bunch of NPCs, in effect cause trouble with GM NPCs.

Even worse, he wants an opportunity to screw with a whole bunch of PCs, perhaps anonymously, who have been on the game for some time! Why should a GM agree with this!?

Having GM'd my one game for 6 years, I have a pretty good idea what character will work and what won't.

Such an RTJ is rejected out of hand unless the player is willing to change it. And, if that player lies, gets accepted, then reverts, he just gets deleted...

Engine, I get that. I also understand there are many ways to resolve it.  My post was asking freeform gms and players of experiences handling it, and what worked best.

and again, I'm not talking about my expectations for playing a game.  but in ALL roleplaying games, players have expectations. They quit over those expectations all the time.

 Players join a scion game hoping to fight big monsters.  The game ends up bogging down in a back and forth game of social interaction that the other players are really enjoying.  SO the one hoping to fight monsters vanishes.

players join a vampire game hoping to fight against the prince and overthrow him, when the story setting is that the prince was intended as their one true ally.  So the player ends up setting himself up at the beginning to conflict wit hthe entire party.

The D&D game that takes too long to get out of combat, or takes to long to get into combat, so players start vanishing.

Or players who make one aspect of their character much more of a focus than the GM realized until after the game starts, and finds that that one characteristic really doesn't fit well in game.  I had a player years ago decided several months into the game that her character would never be taken alive as a prisoner, and would rather fight to the death.  This was discovered after my story plan, which had already reached the point of her inevitable capture, was for her to be taken alive, only to discover the captors were good guys and they all end up working together.  But her insistence that she would rather fight to the death meant either I kill her, or kill my main plot plan.  Really an expectation about the game that should have been discussed prior to that point.

My whole post was to ask how freeform gms and players have handled these problems in the past, and how it has worked for them.  I am not asking for general ideas on how it COULD work, but how it has, or hasn't.  To simply say 'well, those players have unrealistic expectations' is to dismiss the problem I am addressing.  You might not always know their expectations until it leads to conflict, so it would still have to be dealt with.

and for clarification, my wizard character concept was put up as an ad in GM Wanted, that's why the game was created, so I guess it wasn't an unreal expectation for that gm.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:37, Tue 13 Feb 2018.

Maybe not, or maybe they just assumed it wasn't. You mentioned one situation above in which a GM had an expectation that didn't pan out because of player decisions.

If you were a player in one of the conflicts you're imagining, what possible resolutions would you accept? Would you undertake any kind of resolution yourself? Maybe the answer is you wouldn't accept any, and wouldn't offer any, in which case I don't think there's anything anyone might suggest that is going to work for you. Anything that has worked for anyone has worked because of agreement and compromise. Someone could give you an anecdote, but would that help you?

I understand. My character was, I thought, a friend of another PC. Then, out-of-the-blue, it seemed that that character put himself in danger, mine tried to rescue him at no small effort, but then he 'died' anyway- without the apparent understanding/agreement of the GM!

What a mess.

Engine, I'll say this again.  I'm not asking for hypotheticals.  I'm asking for actual examples of what worked and what didn't.  anecdotes is exactly what I am asking for.  If a gm that runs freeform games has used the same method over and over to resolve problems, and it works, that's what I want to hear.  Or if it didn't work, what might work better.

People keep saying over and over again 'work together to create the best story.'  How do you decide what is the best story if there are several people's opinion on it?  I'm trying to see how it has actually worked in the past.



you're really throwing a lot of what you think I'm doing into your posts, and it just isn't what this is about.  It's actually coming from decades of gming games, but never gming a game that didn't have some sort of built in way to resolve issues.  So I'm asking what people have used in freeform games instead of dice rolls, etc, that has worked for them.  make sense?

and yes, I have expectations for games.  When you run a game, you always have expectations of how it will go, what type of game and story you want to play through.  That's why you work to pick the players that best seem to fit that idea, and eliminate player applications that go against the type of game you want to run.  But players also make decisions in game that go totally against what you thought they'd do, leading you to have to change.  Or leading to conflict.  Those conflicts are what I'm asking about.

Depends on the subject of the game. For Freeform I don't allow a motley crew of people to be present. If its a game about seasoned wizards then everyone is a seasoned wizard, if its about newly turned werewolves then everyone is both a werewolf and newly turned.



All player characters are inherently equal unless some obvious disadvantage or advantage changes that. Using the wizard example from before if you are a wizard who focused almost exclusively on glamours and another wizard is immune to mind altering then you don't have anything to bring to the table. That also brings up a point of always balancing powers with weaknesses, skills with ineptitudes.



PvE or PvNPC more correctly: The PC is superior to the common person unless they are common people. A sniper is a better shot that your local gun enthusist and the knight is a better swordsman that a brigand. Unless the NPC has some reason to be superior then they aren't. The King's Champion is literally the champion of the kingdom. Unless it's beneficial to the story for the PC to be greater (a.e. they are primed to take their place or need to defeat to them) then the NPC is superior.

PvP: If the game is about PvP then I judge exclusively off powers/weaknesses and roleplaying. If Player A and B are both "sword masters" but Player A tells me he "swipes for their neck" and B tell me "they parry the blow upward and turn the motion into a fluid downward blow across the chest" then B succeeds. This is also why I require my players to clarify all powers, skills, etc. with flavor text. A bandit king trying to fight a knight in a fair fight has probably lost. Regardless of how "swordmaster"y they might think themselves they aren't superior to a knight who has had the benefit of years of proper training, conditioning, etc.



Magic in a freeform game must have rules. It has to obey some convention regardless of how diceless it is. If you have a theurge who says they can summon angels to do their bidding then there needs to be equivalent conditions. So you summon a Seraph then 1) you have no other magical potential 2) this isn't going to be instant or propless (gestures, hymns, the whole nine). Always layout how a particular magic will work before the game even begins. These rules should be immutable unless something narratively changes that.



I do. I do all improvements narratively. I put obstacles in the path of my players that went they overcome them they are granted some permanent boon. Magic characters can also seek out more spells and such, which typically warrants a side quest more than a trip to the library. I've also seen people awarded a out-of-universe improvement resource (XP, Spheres, Influence, etc.) You get a base amount each week based on your activity + roleplaying bonus. Players that post more and better get appropriately rewarded.

Its not equal and that's the point.

I hope that answers all your questions but bare in mind all of this stems from my own personal experience as both a GM and player.

thank you, that's honestly exactly the sort of thing I was asking for.

No problem. Hope its helpful.

I wrote this long message, very deep, yadda yadda yadda. But I generally agree with Togashi and everything s/he's said (and engine to a greater or lesser degree). But I think the most important point of this entire thread is:


I can't stress this enough.

So that brings up another related question for those who run freeform games.  How much pre-planning do you do with your players?  How much do you talk out behind the scenes?  What seems to work best for you in that respect?

My two games are historical, so players, as well as the GMs, can research most items of concern themselves. I make everyone aware of the few things in which there is an 'alternate reality'.

We have a GM Thread in which the GMs may present ideas for discussion, for immediate things as well as for things that may be needed/occur in the future. Each GM has an interest/expertise for certain areas, and who is mainly responsible for creating/posting for his/her own NPCs. GMs come (and go) from the established players.

A few of the circumstances/NPCs were established at the start of the game 7+ years ago, like ownership of land, certain buildings, and a modus operandi for the main NPCs. Some of these have undergone minor changes after GM and player discussions.

A few things require much pre-planning and talk behind the scenes among players and GMs, but many are left up to the players themselves- after an ok from the GM first, of course.

I think a fundamental point is that freeform games (like most others) are about something. The GM will only accept pitches that are in line with the proposed story arc - and yes, there is often a story arc in all but the most anarchic freeform games.

As pnvq12 says, if it’s a game about rookie werewolves, the PCs are rookie werewolves. If the game is about a group of apprentice wizards on their first quest, no PC will be allowed to pitch a wizard with reality-bending powers. The whole point of a freeform game is that nobody is significantly better than anyone else - particularly if PvP is allowed (this, itself, is something to be discussed (or laid down by the GM) in advance.

Pnvq12 also made some very good points about commonsense grading of characters. The best brigand is not going to defeat a knight unless some rationale is created in the story to say why he should.

As you said, in all games, there are people whose ideas don’t fit with the game, and they are either ejected or they eject themselves. Eventually, you end up with a group of players who can tell a story together, so your question of ‘what if they don’t’ is moot. Players who insist that their brigand can defeat a knight are not going to last long in the game, one way or the other.

You already know what works or doesn’t work in freeform, and how it's all figured out, from the freeform games you LARPed as a kid. When you played cops and robbers, how did you decide on the scale of the robbery? How did you decide what weapons the characters carried? What happened to the kid who insisted that his cop always knew where the robbers hideout was? Didn’t play with you for very long, did he? Or maybe he was given a ‘wedgie’ and learned how to co-operate...
End result was a group of kids who played nicely together and had fun, and a bunch of misfit loners who didn’t.

As with any Rpol game, the GM is in charge, and s/he decides who gets to play.

Virtually none. If the game pitch allows for players to pursue individual goals then I have them present those as a part of their RTJ and flesh out those as need be. I prefer short term goals over long term ones because they never see the light of day.



Most of GM-PC conversation occurs behind the scenes. I think OOC communication leads to two things if used for "talking": confusion/miscommunication & the sowing of discontent. I only publicly make announcements in OOC but have also used dedicated threads in larger games.

icosahderon made some good points in their response that I'll highlight again in brief with some considerations.



Always overshoot how many people you think you will need/maintain. I expect at least 2 RTJs to fall through before acceptance and 1-3 players to fall out at some point during play. Never put a plot point on a single character, they will fail you. Include a rule about inactivity and puppetting. I have a 21 day inactivity policy before removal and a statement that clarifies admittance into the game is your consent to removal and official notice.



If you have no other rules then have this one plain as day. Rule 0 is law. If you don't like what the GM is doing then send a PM. If it can't be corrected then remove them from the game. Be fair in your judgement though, power and responsibility and all that.

This is finally a conversation I can sink my teeth into.

In short, the answer is it requires people who really know their characters and what they can do, and how things will look when played out.

I see each free form game as part chess, part dance.  If I as a player can make an attack, my oppoent will have to react in some way as according to her abilities, if she can with those abilities figure out a way to dodge or block it, it will fail to hit, and then I must react to how they dodge blocked/countered it.

For example, say I am a fighter, and i swing a sword at someone's chest while kicking at their knee cap.

the other person would have to figure out a way to avoid the sword blow, and the knee attack, they could hop back, but that might leave them on shakey footing, they could spin out of the way and try to kick me as I extend myself into the attack, they could attempt a back flip timed to hit me as I come forward, hell instead of hoping they could Jump, (which is a bad move unless your in DBZ because once in the air changing direction is near impossible  without help.)

either way, however they react, I will need to figure out how to dodge/counter/block their reaction.  This will continue until one of us can't figure out how to D/C/B once that happens a Hit is scored, and damage is dealt.

This goes on until one person is to damaged to continue the fight.

The method requires A) People who know their characters abilities and Limits and B) People who are responsible and can visualize how things play out. C) Very descriptive people.  But it's my preferred way of RPing.


Edit: Just saw this:



This again comes to a chess battle/ dance, Just on a grander scale, each player making a move and counter move, to their goals, the story that plays out, is the one whose able to outwit and outplay the other.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:18, Thu 15 Feb 2018.

No.

If Freeform Games had all of these rules, they would not be freeform Games. If you want to do all of this stuff, use a rules system. There are plenty out there.

I find no system that doesn't rely on luck.. I kinda like the system I use, works well for me and my roommate, thanks for your opinion though.

If by "luck" one means the element of random chance usually injected by dice in most systems, yeah, I get that.

The closest I've seen to an actual system that might work for freeform is FAE (Fate Accelerated Edition).  It gives a lot of structure, and even helps set up the game if you work through it.  It's a light enough rule system that the feel is very free, but there's enough crunch (barely) to define the limits of "let's pretend" for the game.

I might look into FAE, because you're right I do mean dice, i know the way I wrote it, it's based on Skill, which me and my roommate like.  We tend to try and figure out how things would realistically work out and use that in our games.