Quote from: David R"shared imagination" space -am I using the term correctly ?

Probably not, but there's no telling with Forge terms.

In answer the original poster, I think I've only played one game with freeform traits: Dogs in the Vineyard. And there it ran into the munchkinism problem, not really because any of us were munchkins except possibly me. I found myself feeling really frustrated at the conflict between wanting to introduce some trait, and having to think up some way to justify it. But that may have been exacerbated by other elements of DitV such as the way Raises and Blocks have to be structured.

I still like the idea of freeform traits as in Risus, OtE, and Heroquest. With a more straightforward conflict system of "pick appropriate trait and maybe a limited number of 'augments', then roll", I think they could work fine for me. It would have to be understood that the use of a trait implies a certain amount of player narrational authority which could entail some tortuous interpretations of a scene, but that I regard as a possible bonus. I'd still be a little concerned about players always going to their best trait, though--some kind of limiting system might be nice. Like having to "exhaust" a trait after use and only refresh by spending a point and/or performing some action.

As for having a common vision (that's a probably a good plain English way of saying what you mean, David), I see three approaches. (1) Forget about it and don't be so uptight about protecting your established setting. Accept that choice of traits implies a certain amount of shared world-building. (2) Have a good game-type textual document available to use for inspiration. E.g. if I were to run Talislanta with one of these systems, I'd just use the archetypes/templates as inspiration for selecting keywords/traits. (3) As others have suggested, select your players carefully.

Basically, if people can get GURPS or Hero to work, I don't think freeform traits are that much more of a problem. What do you do to prevent a player from making an inappropriate "cyborg killer" in those systems?

Freeform traits. Nope. I hate em.

Quote from: Abyssal MawFreeform traits. Nope. I hate em.

Why is this the case? Consider me genuinely interested. Is it because you feel that a pre-existing list of skill or traits provides a more solid basis for creating a character? Less leeway in definitions? Or other reasons entirely?

Cheers
Malcolm

Quote from: Elliot WilenProbably not, but there's no telling with Forge terms.
As for having a common vision (that's a probably a good plain English way of saying what you mean, David), I see three approaches. (1) Forget about it and don't be so uptight about protecting your established setting. Accept that choice of traits implies a certain amount of shared world-building. (2) Have a good game-type textual document available to use for inspiration. E.g. if I were to run Talislanta with one of these systems, I'd just use the archetypes/templates as inspiration for selecting keywords/traits. (3) As others have suggested, select your players carefully.

You're using "speak English motherfucker" on me Elliot ...never thought I'd see the day  

I think your three points nicely elaborate why some pregame collaboration is necessary. IME traits like these necessitate a departure  from a more traditional style of play.

QuoteWhat do you do to prevent a player from making an inappropriate "cyborg killer" in those systems?

Hmm, I thought the problem was that there is no concensus on what traits are rather than a deliberate effort to create disruptive characters...but I could be reading it wrong.

Regards,
David R

It depends. In non-tactical games where a good representation of your imge of the character is important, they're useful (as in Wushu).

Otherwise, it has to be balanced out by other means. I especially like Risus' approach - a broad cliché can be used often, but you won't often get damage boni for creative use of inappropriate chlichés. A narrow chliché is less often of use, but you get more often a chance to use an inappropriate chliché to increase damage, if you are able to think on your feet.
That allows for interesting strategic decisions.

For me, the biggest advantage of freeform traits is that, in the right system, they sweep away a ton of complexity and allow you to jump into the action.  I haven't yet experienced any extreme abuse of them, but I could see how it could be possible.  I've played Over the Edge, Wushu and Spirit of the Century.  The latter is, in a sense, relatively crunchy and balanced.  The other two I played with people I already knew were open to that sort of thing (though there was one con game that went fairly well).

I find that freeform traits tend to encourage players to think more creatively about responses to situations.  Furthermore, they tend to be designed around the idea that PCs should be able to do cool stuff.  The end result, that I have found as a GM, is that there tends to be way more "hell yes!" than "no, you can't do that" and that's what I'm looking for in my games.

These are my thoughts right now.  I have some vague nagging doubts that I can't put on paper yet, but they are hanging around.  I need more games with them to see if it is valid or not.  Has to do with the relationship between the trait and the mechanic and that searching around for excuses to use the trait to get the bonus.

Quote from: Malcolm CraigWhy is this the case? Consider me genuinely interested. Is it because you feel that a pre-existing list of skill or traits provides a more solid basis for creating a character? Less leeway in definitions? Or other reasons entirely?

Cheers
Malcolm

I don't like using traits like this because they usually cover things that don't actually need to be codified by rules ("love for humanity 4d6" or whatever). I feel that systems that rely on these things aren't actually games. Instead, they become a ritualized form of theatrics where the players might just as readily drop them entirely and still play-act along. There's a vital difference between performing a part and playing a game.

If your'e just playing a game, this is a sustainable and fun hobby. It's poker night. It's really no different than getting together for billiards or Mario Party or bowling. It's something anyone can really enjoy.

If this is all really about performing a part, (and thats what freeform traits implies to me) complete with romantic notions about sitting around a campfire creating stories.. then while it certainly may be extremely fulfilling for some people, but it will never be that much of a draw for normal people who aren't interested in performance art. And it will inevitably be coupled with a lot of floppy psychodrama and amateur forgian psychology.  

The problem is historical: John Tynes got it wrong when he said gaming was all about improvisational radio theater.

My principal problem with them is that with sufficiently creative players flower arranging 3D is as good at picking a lock as cat washing 3D, which can lead to characters feeling very samey - effectivly EVERYONE has a skill in 3D in everything they try. Because skills are no different without GM fiat (yeah, well, its just YOUR OPINION that I can't use beat poet wannabe 3D to take roleplaying to the elysian fields where only hot chicks and intellectuals game!).

So, I like them in principal, but during play they leave me wanting something slightly more crunchy.

I think they're good for people who want more of an interactive storytelling experience but not so good for anything competitive.  Some people I know don't care much for number crunching, they wanna have fun plots and get into sticky situations.  Others want to create characters capable of stomping bad guys.

Some people are going to come up with what happen to be better traits for the game and people are going to vary in how they interpret things.  I don't want to spend much time deciding whether Wrasslin' and Sumo are equally appropriate to a situation.

I like freeform traits in many games, but not in serious dungeonhackery or hard scifi.  I feel I need more substantive mechanics for those situations.

I like the freedom of freeform traits.  They let people who walk up to the table already brimming with energy and inspiration channel it quickly and easily.

I like the way a class system, or menu of abilities to choose from can overcome "blank page syndrome" and get people stoked about the game immediately.

They're different tools, and I like them both.  I think the best of both worlds would be to somehow do both, but I haven't figured out how ... yet.

Quote from: TonyLBI like the freedom of freeform traits.  They let people who walk up to the table already brimming with energy and inspiration channel it quickly and easily.

I like the way a class system, or menu of abilities to choose from can overcome "blank page syndrome" and get people stoked about the game immediately.

They're different tools, and I like them both.  I think the best of both worlds would be to somehow do both, but I haven't figured out how ... yet.

What he said...


TGA

I've never played in a game with "freeform traits," so I can't really say whether I like them. I can say, however, that I don't understand them and am suspicious of them. Why quantify cosmetic descriptions? Would you actually have occasion to roll "fat guy with a beard: 6"? I'm sure there's something I'm not getting...


Player: I want to impress them with my girth and my manly whiskers.

GM: What's your "fat guy with a beard"?

Player: Six.

GM: OK, roll it.


Or is it a case where the PC is assumed to be able to do whatever that archetype can do? Such as...


Player: I want to impress everyone in the game store with my intimate knowledge of table-top games going back 20 years. I have "fat guy with a beard: 6."

GM: OK, roll it.

Quote from: Black FlagPlayer: I want to impress them with my girth and my manly whiskers.

Pffft! :rotfl:   That would be so awesome.  "Okay, I'm gonna need you to roleplay that out a little bit, first.  How do you go about this?"  "Hey baby, my torso isn't the only part that's thick and beefy!"

Whoo lordy.  I know you're talking about something you think would end badly, but ... oh God, that could be so funny.

Quote from: Black FlagI Why quantify cosmetic descriptions?

They don't have to be cosmetic, they're entirely open.  The whole point is to not stick to a pre-defined list.

Suppose the players are a group of rogues.  One could have Ninja 3, herbalist 1.  Another might have Slick Talker 2, Sucker Punch 2.  A third might have clockwork 2, cling to shadows 2.

The good is the openness, the bad is figuring how various traits compare and when they apply.