Quote from: Abyssal MawI 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.

Lest I be accused of bias - Swine!

Don't need to be covered - according to whom?
Are people who are performing a part while plaing a game "normal"
"floppy psychodrama" "amateur forgian psychology"

Man...SWINE!

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo what's the verdict on free form traits? Do you like 'em, or do you hate 'em?

I like them for some games and not for others. It depends on what I'm aiming for out of a game. We play both dungeon crawl type games and much more narrative ones. I like freeform traits for the latter (because I tend to like more crunch in my combat than not).

Seanchai

Quote from: NicephorusSuppose 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.

Yeah, but who says that "cling to shadows" isn't included under "ninja"? Therefore "ninja" is objectively better than "cling to shadows," since it also includes "silent movement" and "trained assassin." But I guess this is where the consensus comes in...

Quote from: Black FlagYeah, but who says that "cling to shadows" isn't included under "ninja"? Therefore "ninja" is objectively better than "cling to shadows," since it also includes "silent movement" and "trained assassin." But I guess this is where the consensus comes in...

Yeah, I have issues with this one as well.  The narrower a trait is ("Cling to shadows") the more it tends to drive play that is (for me) interesting.  But the broader a trait is ("Capable") the more easily it benefits the player.  The reward of effectiveness gets attached to the wrong thing.

I've seen several systems try to fiddle that around in different ways, but I haven't seen a solution that I think is good for all circumstances.

Quote from: James J SkachLest I be accused of bias - Swine!

Don't need to be covered - according to whom?
Are people who are performing a part while plaing a game "normal"
"floppy psychodrama" "amateur forgian psychology"

Man...SWINE!

Thanks I needed this.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Black FlagYeah, but who says that "cling to shadows" isn't included under "ninja"? Therefore "ninja" is objectively better than "cling to shadows," since it also includes "silent movement" and "trained assassin." But I guess this is where the consensus comes in...

In my limited experience, I think it works best when the characters occupy very different skill sets.  Then you don't have to get into one character topping another.  This basically falls under what you said above about consensus.

Quote from: walkerpIn my limited experience, I think it works best when the characters occupy very different skill sets.  Then you don't have to get into one character topping another.  This basically falls under what you said above about consensus.

Yeah I gotta agree its got to be a consensus. Like when my roomate and I played Risus the other day (Which is documented in the ap section) I told him that he could pick samurai as a trait. But he should pick a weapon skill. That way hes not good at all the weapons. So his character ended up like.
Bad Ass Ronin 4 (This represents additude, intimidation, dirty fighting, toughness, and etc)
Kenjutsu 3 (fighting with a sword)
Kyujutsu 2 (fighting with a bow)
Drunk 1 (knowledge of booze, judge quality, out drinking people)

I love free-form traits!  They're my favourite approach, though by no means the only type of game I play.  And while I do avoid playing with abusive players, I have often run and played RPGs using free-form traits at conventions and at the drop-in games at our local club.  If anything, I've had less trouble with them at convention than I have with skill-list games.  There's only so much even rules lawyers and min-maxers can do when all traits are equally useful.

For example, in a recent Roanoke game, which uses the Wushu system, we had a guy who comes from a background where players have to expect that the GM is out for a TPK every game, so he really try to stack advantages on his character: he was not only a blacksmith but also an alchemist and had made an orichalcum weapon, etc.  Well, in the same game we have a player who made a nosy widow armed with a frying pan.  You can describe what your character does with the big magical sword, but you're not going to be more effective than the widow with the frying pan if you both have the same rating (unless the big magical sword is paid for with experience or earned in-game as a reward).  

Another aspect of this is that skill-list games often offer skills of vastly uneven usefulness that cost the same.  Let's see, I can have Firearms or Cooking.  Well, sure I can occasionally find a clever use for cooking, but who wants to bet it will be as useful and show up as often as firearms?  Also, in a lot of games the combat characters only need a few skills that they can max out, while the characters based on knowledge skills need to buy a plethora of different tech skills which they end up not having the points to buy up, so thug builds are vastly more efficient than face or techie builds.  With fee-form traits, you can just pick "Fix Broken Starship", which is what both Kaylie and Scotty have.  

Some free-form systems I really enjoy include Over The Edge, Theatrix, Truth & Justice, etc.

Quote from: Black FlagYeah, but who says that "cling to shadows" isn't included under "ninja"? Therefore "ninja" is objectively better than "cling to shadows," since it also includes "silent movement" and "trained assassin."

This can be a problem.  Suppose you write down "cling to shadows" because it evokes a nice character feel.  Then it turns out that the guy with "ninja" can do all your shtick plus others. Good chance that you feel screwed.  Issues like this are why freeform traits aren't universal.

I think it's reasonable to allow slight rewording within the first few hours of play to get something that is both useful and matches the character concept, like changing "cling to shadows" to "made of shadows."

Quote from: James J SkachLest I be accused of bias - Swine!

Don't need to be covered - according to whom?
Are people who are performing a part while plaing a game "normal"
"floppy psychodrama" "amateur forgian psychology"

Man...SWINE!

You can only claim swine if I claim my way is more "artistic" or that it will make you a better person. Which I don't. I'm merely making the claim that a person who is playing a game (any game, billiards, D&D, World of Warcraft, whatever) can do so week after week with very little worries about who he is or what his hobby is all about or why it is fun. It can just be fun and thats all there is to it.

I am claiming that this contrasts with the guy who spends every fucking weekend getting dressed up in rainbow tights and a dracula cape to explore his personal neuroses (i.e. "tell stories")with his friends.
My THEORY (haha, swine) is that eventually that second guy has to admit to himself that it's all about the dracula cape and the neuroses. He just wants to be on stage, even if it's just for the unsuspecting audience of his fellow gamers. The reality is, he has nothing to do with gaming and never did. He can be all pissed off that the dracula capes and the rainbow tights and the exploration of neuroses and Approved Moral Teachings isn't catching on.. or whatever. But he's never going to matter.

And yes, I think people who get caught up in the illusion that gaming is a performance are actually in the midst of floppy psychodrama. Here's to hoping they snap out of it, admit it to themsleves and get the hell out of my hobby.


I wonder if David R needed that...?

Quote from: David RYou're using "speak English motherfucker" on me Elliot ...never thought I'd see the day  

Why not? Well, okay, normally I'm anti-jargon when jargon becomes not an aid to communication, but the crux of discussion, which it wasn't here: your meaning was clear. It's just that you asked if you were using the term correctly...and that question has a metric ton of baggage.

QuoteI 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.

Thanks. I think one way to get away from the tension over trying to invoke your best trait(s) every single time is to just forget about going to the mat in challenges to the characters. I.e., no death, pretty much, and not even anything that fundamentally threatens the "core" of what the players value about their characters. Not sure how to establish the "core"--maybe it can be done formally, maybe not.

QuoteHmm, 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.

It sounded like a bit of both--thought not deliberate. Simply the fact that skill lists help to define the genre or "range of action" for the game; a free-form or over-extensive list of skills provides no guidance in that area.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, I have issues with this one as well.  The narrower a trait is ("Cling to shadows") the more it tends to drive play that is (for me) interesting.  But the broader a trait is ("Capable") the more easily it benefits the player.  The reward of effectiveness gets attached to the wrong thing.

I've seen several systems try to fiddle that around in different ways, but I haven't seen a solution that I think is good for all circumstances.

I've homeruled certain systems in the past to allow a certain number of "broad" traits and a certain number of "narrow" traits.  Donjon works like that, and works well (or, at least, that part of the game works well...I find the dice mechanics slow as molasses and intrusive as hell).

I think they are pointless. When i first ran Unknown Armies which has what might be called freeform skills all that happened was players gave them the names they were used to so why bother. Guns is guns is guns, whether you call it 'i shoots fast' or 'armed laser death skill'. Yes it might be very kewl, but it seems rather pointless. It may seem bland but for mechanical purposes and simplcity' sake in game a uniform set of names/traits/skills/rules is just better.

Quote from: signoftheserpentI think they are pointless. When i first ran Unknown Armies which has what might be called freeform skills all that happened was players gave them the names they were used to so why bother. Guns is guns is guns, whether you call it 'i shoots fast' or 'armed laser death skill'. Yes it might be very kewl, but it seems rather pointless. It may seem bland but for mechanical purposes and simplcity' sake in game a uniform set of names/traits/skills/rules is just better.

Well, not all play groups take this approach.  Some will really branch out on their traits/skills.

One bonus of freeform is that it's easy to adapt to new genres and playstyles.  You don't have skill lists or classes to retool.  Players just choose different traits.  If you don't care much about the crunch or the details, a light freeform system is very adaptible and quick to learn.