I posted this question on RPG.net a few months ago, and was surprised at the results. With a very different demographic on theRPGsite, I thought I'd pose the question here.
 
I'm not a fan of freeform traits... like you see in Risus or Over the Edge (which, I should point out are two games I otherwise love). I've thought about it a bit, and come up with two reasons.
 
Firstly, they require complete consensus amongst the players (and GM) on the nature of the game world. If you have this, then your game is going to be awesome. But invariably you get at least one or more players with no idea. For example, try playing a Firefly using Risus, and you might get one player with Captain Tight-pants (4), another with Cheery Engineer (3), someone with Wisecracking Pilot with a Penchant for Loud Shirts (4) and then... Cyborg Killer (6).
 
Of course, as the GM you can always veto a badly designed character. And at least with an established setting, like Firefly, you can give the errant player a copy of the series to help them understand the world. But when it comes to a more obscure setting, or a GM-designed setting, how do you explain the "vibe" you are trying to create? What do you do with a player who just doesn't "get it"? A more structured system will help.
 
The second issue is dealing with competitive players. A free-form trait is always open to interpretation and competitive players frequently try to push the envelope. They want a trait to apply in as many situations as possible. And since it is their character, they often have strong views on exactly what a trait represents. As the GM, you can sit down with the player and try and clearly establish where a trait will (and wont) apply. But you can't prepare for every possibility, and the longer a campaign runs the more likely you'll come across a scenario where the GM and player dispute the applicability of a trait. It might be just a coincidence, but a lot of games with free-form traits are seem to be used for short term games.
 
Of course, the beauty of free-form traits is that they give a perfect picture of a character. In Risus, three or four traits will give you an excellent description of Captain Mal. Compare this to the official Serenity RPG. Captain Mal's stat-block, without an accompanying background, is just a bland set of numbers.
 
So what's the verdict on free form traits? Do you like 'em, or do you hate 'em?

Likes free-form traits 3D

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFirstly, they require complete consensus amongst the players (and GM) on the nature of the game world. If you have this, then your game is going to be awesome.

I like 'em a lot. But your post got me thinking esp this part, do these kinds of mechanics only work for groups that really "play well together" ? There's not much of a safety net with freeform traits.

Regards,
David R

Never played a game using freeform traits, always have been wanting to.

So, on a purely theoretical guess I'd say that while clearly abusable, games with such traits are generally so light rules-wise that your typical minmax0r wouldn't want to play them anyway? Not a lot of crunch in Risus or OtE to sink your teeth in.

Quote from: David RI like 'em a lot. But your post got me thinking esp this part, do these kinds of mechanics only work for groups that really "play well together" ? There's not much of a safety net with freeform traits.

Regards,
David R

I would have to say yes. I can see the old group I played with from the comic shop. Having the killer cyborg problem of Tyberious's example. I could also see at least one of them copying cliches like math homework of the guy next to him.
I think it helps that the group has a good understanding of the setting too. Other wise you can fall into the same traps.

Quote from: David RI like 'em a lot. But your post got me thinking esp this part, do these kinds of mechanics only work for groups that really "play well together" ? There's not much of a safety net with freeform traits.

I don't think it's just a matter of whether the group plays well together. It's a question of whether the group has a consensus on the game world. If everyone in the group has an excellent understanding of the game world, then they are going to produce cohesive, appropriate traits.

The reason why I selected Firefly as an example was because I ran a one-shot session a few weeks ago set in the Firefly universe using the Over the Edge system. Much to my surprise, I was the only one that had seen the series (one of the players had seen Serenity, but not Firefly). So chargen, which was expected to be quick ended up lasting 30-45 minutes. In retrospect, for a one-shot game I should have used pre-gen characters. But for longer games, pre-gens are less appropriate.

So what do you do when there isn't a shared understanding of the game world? I had one player treating the game world like the movie Serenity (which is obviously the same world as Firefly, but has a slightly different tone) and two others that saw the world similar to Star Wars (which for a one-shot game, is probably close enough). And that is with an established property. If I'd been running a homebrew setting, the differences in perception would have been much more pronounced unless, as the GM, I had put in a lot more work.

Quote from: RoninI would have to say yes. I can see the old group I played with from the comic shop. Having the killer cyborg problem of Tyberious's example. I could also see at least one of them copying cliches like math homework of the guy next to him.
I think it helps that the group has a good understanding of the setting too. Other wise you can fall into the same traps.

Yes!  I forgot about that issue.  Some players, when faced with a blank canvas feel completely lost.  I've never seen a player copy ideas from another, but I have had players create hopelessly derivative characters (a fault that I am guilty of myself).

Hate them with every fiber of my being.

I'm a beleiver in the role of a well codified set of rules forming the substrate of social contract and a big beleiver in the benefit of forethought in game design.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo what do you do when there isn't a shared understanding of the game world?

I think this is where pre-game collaboration comes into play. In my current OtE campaign a lot of collaboration went on before the campaign started. This helped us get into the same "shared imagination" space -am I using the term correctly ? - which made the rules less ambigious than it first seemed.

Regards,
David R

I can't say I've ever played a game with them, since they are almost universally confined to the ultralite rules-sets out there, which have always been deeply unsatisfying when my group has tried them. So I can't comment from first-hand experience, but as far as theory goes, no, I think they're a bad idea for all those reasons you mentioned. Sad to say, as much as we might wish the contrary, munchkinism runs deep in many gamers (hell, I'll admit to some min-maxing tendencies myself), and I suspect freeform traits would just be too easily abused.

I think David is correct in saying that this is something that works best in an established group, or at least one that works well with each other and the Game Master. I've purchased a few products that had free form traits, but to be honest we've never had the opportunity to play them.

Although I have played with the same core group of players for going on 17 years now I can't honestly say how it would work. I know at least one player would abuse the shit out of it, but the rest? I just don't know.

If I played them like they were the "One True Way" of gaming, I'd really dislike them. If I used them like they were the only gaming set that I'd use for a long time, I'd be anxious about balance. If I saw them in the midst of a group I was spot-on with, then I'd think it was a mistake.

That said, I get a lot of crunch in my daily gaming. D&D. Exalted. Then there's the medium games - True20, Tri-Stat. I think there's room for Fate and Risus, at that.

And my homebrew system uses them in addition to a few set stats so you can always roll against any challange. You can find the link in my sig (it's DREAM). It's not, like, balanced. But when I've played it, I've really enjoyed what the free-form traits did for the play. (I had an AP posted on rpg.net, but it wasn't very popular because it wasn't really a published game; it was just a free set of rules similar to some other games in the past).

An issue with free-form traits, though. Once you've seen one, it's easy to think you've seen them all. I don't know how accurate that is, though. Just something I thought when I compared my game to Fate. They act different, but there ya go.

I like FATE, FUDGE and Unknown Armies, but I play those games much less than I play D&D and other d20 variants, where the opposite is generally true. I suppose I like them, but not enough that they overpower any other consideration.

I like them a lot. As a participant in a game, they allow me to describe key parts of my character in exactly the way I want to. Looking at people characters, you get a really good idea of what they are like. And I love how they can range from the simple to the complex.

In a Cold City game that I ran, one of the players decided that her character would be a macho former USAAF fighter pilot (the game was a slightly pulpy take on Cold City!) called Buck Rockefeller. One of her traits was the excellent "American Man!" (complete with punctuation). We all instantly knew that she meant that her character was an all-American, rugged, square jawed type in the mould of Steve McQueen in 'The Great Escape'. And the trait worked very well in play.

Yep, I do like a freeform trait or two.

Cheers
Malcolm

I've tried lots of games, the above mentioned free forms as well. I find out, that they really worked in a group of players that were friends and played because they were friends. They wanted to have fun together and were really careful not to ruin the fun to anyone else. These were nice and precious moments I like to remember.

I tried the same free-form games elsewhere, almost instantly leading to failure. New groups, random "con" games, too competetive players and one-shots pretty much failed.

Since than I usually use some d20system or other game for this or that occasion and free forms I have for meeting with my old group in anniversaries or such.