I am a firm believer that, barring a computer simulation, human beings are much too complex to reasonably break down into a few numbers. In game terms, I deal with fixed attributes but philosophically I like freeform traits a lot better. I think it's not just possible to capture the character better with freeform traits, but it should make it easier to create a more realistic person. I've often thought the best middleground was a system with very general static traits (Body, Spirit, Mind - BESM style) that have broad numeric values, but with freeform descriptors added to that.

Quote from: TonyLBI'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.

In Risus, the GM is encouraged to adjust the difficult of a task (ie, the target number) according to the appropriateness of the skill being used.  So if two characters are trying to sneak past a sleeping guard, the guy with Ninja (3) might have a difficulty of 10, while the guy with Silent Mover (3) might have a difficulty of 5.  So the skills of the Ninja are appropriate for the task, but not as specifically appropriate as the guy trained in moving silently.

It took me a while to grok this because it means that the difficulty of the same task might be completely different for different characters.  Not only that, the difficulty might be different for the same character, depending on how they approach the task (ie, depending on which of their traits they use).  In most games, the difficulty of a task is fixed and there is only one skill/trait for performing that task.  The only variable, is the level of the skill.  In Risus, there are two variables - the level of the trait, and it's appropriateness.

It's strange, because it basically relies very heavily on GM fiat to succeed (and cooperative players).  And that makes me uncomfortable.  And yet, all games rely on GM fiat.  So how is Risus (or other free-form games) any different?  Why does it feel like it requires a greater level of player-GM trust?

but you aren't branching out, you are just calling whatever skill something else. it also makes it awkward to gm when you have to say make a roll on your guns skill when the system deliuberately encourages each player to call it something unique.

Quote from: signoftheserpentbut you aren't branching out, you are just calling whatever skill something else.

Depends on who 'you' is to a rather large degree.  Some of us are indeed branching out.

Quote from: signoftheserpentbut you aren't branching out, you are just calling whatever skill something else.

It can be. But if that's more evocative or fun, why not? Also, a number of things can be subsumed under one trait. Ex-Army Ranger could contain skills, ad and disadvantages, for example.

Seanchai

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIt's strange, because it basically relies very heavily on GM fiat to succeed (and cooperative players).  And that makes me uncomfortable.  And yet, all games rely on GM fiat.  So how is Risus (or other free-form games) any different?  Why does it feel like it requires a greater level of player-GM trust?

IMO because they aren't a set of codified detailed rules for the players to rely on in case of any disputes they have with the GM.

Regards,
David R

As the Funk will know, I personally favour freeform traits - but they're not appropriate for every group of players.

For me, the key issues are attention and imagination of the players involved.

If the players were paying attention when the game world was being described, then they're more likely to come up with appropriate traits. Note that the game world could be partly player-created, too - I've not read it, but doesn't Burning Wheel have this approach? If the players contributed in some way to the game world's creation, they're more likely to come up with appropriate stuff. Failing that, if there was something for them to read or watch to get an idea... But of course, that requires effort, and as Abyssal Maw so angrily expressed it above, not every player enjoys making that sort of effort for a game session. So with a group of such players, I think a laundry-list of traits would work better.

Imagination's important, too. Of course people vary a lot from session to session, sometimes you're overflowing with ideas, other times you go blank - but in general I think it's fair to say that some have got it, and some don't. So for those freeform traits, some people will come up with Strong As An Ox while others come up with Strong; Gymnast's Grace vs Agile; Adopted By A Pop Star vs Orphan. Obviously the first in each lot evokes images and ideas in people's minds, the others, not so much. So if you've got a bunch of players who come up with the imaginative version, great! If not, it's time for that big list again.

Something to keep in mind is that many people's efforts and imaginations are greater than you might expect. It's just that game sessions usually don't call on their efforts and minds much. It's a bit like how when you go to the gym for the first time ever, at first you really struggle, but after just a few workouts you find you're actually much stronger than you thought, it's just that you'd never really called on your strength before. In the same way, lots of people have never really been called on to make an effort or use their imaginations much in a game session. Or they have, but maybe not with character generation.

But sometimes players just don't have that imagination. So, it's time for the big list.

I guess that's a third issue - if you're going to use freeform traits in character generation, you'll want a bit of player input during the actual game session, too. It'd be a bit rough to demand all this imagination from players in character generation, then shut them out in the rest of the game.

But for character generation, I think some sort of compromise works best. You could have for example freeform traits for attributes and dis/advantages, but a fixed skill list, or vice versa. You could have a list to choose from just to inspire people. You could have the GM help out actively during character generation, rather than saying, "go away, and come back with a completed character."

So perhaps that's yet another issue - GM and players ought to riff off one another's ideas. So when you get "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)" - well, everyone turns to the last player, and says, "um, listen mate..." and everyone adjusts a bit. Aim for consensus and compromise - no different to the laundry list character generation.

Quote from: signoftheserpentbut you aren't branching out, you are just calling whatever skill something else.

Only if you're using the same skills as in Game X.
Or indeed, only if you're using what would be termed "skills" in most systems anyway.

A PC in one of my UA games had "Jumpy" as a skill at 20%. What's that another name for?

Thing is, it was never pegged down precisely what "Jumpy" covered. That's the beauty of freeform skills (and also why consensus is important). You can describe the character with their skills and bring those skills into play when it becomes appropriate.

That's why even renaming "guns" can be worthwhile. The guy with "Special Forces sniper" might be able to ID a gun from the sound of it being fired, but the guy with "Pop a cap in your ass" knows his way around gangster posturing.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor me, the key issues are attention and imagination of the players involved.

Uh ... wow, dude.  No.

There is a long list of good reasons to prefer easy, pre-made options over a blank page and unlimited freedom ... "inattention and lack of imagination" aren't even on that list.

Are you trying to say that playing "Mortigan, a Fighter," is only for people who are incapable of the (supposedly) objectively better technique you prefer?  Because I think that's what you're saying, intentionally or not.

Quote from: CaudexOnly if you're using the same skills as in Game X.
Or indeed, only if you're using what would be termed "skills" in most systems anyway.

How would you not be, unless you are playing a game using a totally different reality? I mean a game with a real world setting like UA will invariably share similar skills and players will invariably pick similar skills (ie the ones that are useful, as opposed to 'pigeon fancying' or 'lepidoptery' - by and large, that's gaming).

QuoteA PC in one of my UA games had "Jumpy" as a skill at 20%. What's that another name for?

At a guess, nervouseness, which i wouldn't call a skill. How would you ever use it as a skill?

QuoteThing is, it was never pegged down precisely what "Jumpy" covered. That's the beauty of freeform skills (and also why consensus is important). You can describe the character with their skills and bring those skills into play when it becomes appropriate.

That seems silly to me. He has a skill which no one can define.

Why bother with mechanics at all then?

QuoteThat's why even renaming "guns" can be worthwhile. The guy with "Special Forces sniper" might be able to ID a gun from the sound of it being fired, but the guy with "Pop a cap in your ass" knows his way around gangster posturing.

Those are functions of traits other than skills; bakcgrounds for instance.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt can be. But if that's more evocative or fun, why not? Also, a number of things can be subsumed under one trait. Ex-Army Ranger could contain skills, ad and disadvantages, for example.

Seanchai

I thought it would be evocative and fun, but it wasn't. It was pointless and made more work than it solved.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you trying to say that playing "Mortigan, a Fighter," is only for people who are incapable of the (supposedly) objectively better technique you prefer?  Because I think that's what you're saying, intentionally or not.

No. If I'd wanted to say that, I would have said that. It helps if you read the thread, mate. I realise that actually reading posts you're responding to cuts into your writing time, but it does make the writing more relevant and useful and interesting.

I wasn't talking about games in general, I was talking about games with complex and detailed game worlds. Detailed game worlds require detailed characters, and simple game worlds, simple characters. Funk was talking about detailed game worlds, and freeform traits, and making sure the two matched. He felt that if the players don't know about the game world or are a bit clueless, then they couldn't match their characters' traits to the game world without a laundry list of traits to choose from.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk[Freeform traits] require complete consensus amongst the players (and GM) on the nature of the game world.

In other words, if your freeform traits are going to be more complex than "Mortigan, a Fighter" - if your freeform traits are going to tie into the game's world, and if that game world is reasonably complex and detailed, then freeform traits will require players who pay attention to the details of the game's world, and who have imaginations.

Freeform traits do not work well unless they tie well into the game world, and the group's understanding of it. Traits, freeform or laundry-listed, can't tie into the game world if the players don't know anything about it, or if the players have no clue.

If the game world is simple - "walk into a place, kill things and take their stuff" - then the characters will be simple, too - "Mortigan, a Fighter." If the game world is complex, then the characters will be complex, too - "Jim Bob, a Fighter Who Hates Boffer LARPS And Is An Insomniac". You can have simple characters in a complex world or complex characters in a simple world, but it rarely works out well. (Cue TonyLB telling us, "but for us we mismatch like that all the time and it's AWESOME!" Yes, thanks - I'm talking about the general trends.) Complex characters require details; these details can come from a laundry list of stuff, or they can come from players' and GMs' imaginations.

Complex and detailed game worlds, if they're to be any fun at all, require effort and imagination from players. Which is why game worlds like Harn and Tekumel and Transhuman Space are widely admired and rarely played, and game worlds like Eberron are rarely admired and widely played. It's not that playing a stupid fighter is "inferior" to some more complex and detailed character, it's just that it's easier and takes less thinking. As Abyssal Maw's comments so well demonstrated, many gamers don't like the thought of making an effort and using their imagination for their rpg sessions. That I often enjoy effort and imagination does not make me superior to him.

Read the thread, TonyLB. Or stay out of it, and focus on not making a dick of yourself in the Pistols thread. It'd be nice if at least one of the two debaters there would at least try to stick to some vaguely coherent and logical train of thought.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Jim Bob, a Fighter Who Hates Boffer LARPS And Is An Insomniac".

You're a HackMaster character?

Quote from: signoftheserpentI thought it would be evocative and fun, but it wasn't. It was pointless and made more work than it solved.

Doesn't sound like it's for you. That's cool.

Seanchai

FYI, JB, Burning Wheel in itself doesn't have collaborative world creation, but that is a part of the "Burning Sands" add-on and of Burning Empires.

I have a nit to pick with your most recent post.

Quote from: JimBobOzDetailed game worlds require detailed characters, and simple game worlds, simple characters.

Not true at all, in my opinion. Simple game worlds work with either simple or detailed characters--it's just that detailed characters are helping to define the game world more. And detailed game worlds work with simple characters. The place you need to watch out for is detailed/detailed, because then if you don't have  a "bible" to work from, its easy for the details to clash.

To carry this a bit further, detailed characters can also clash more easily with each other, regardless of what's already been settled on with regard to the world. Again, this is because detailed characters themselves define the world implicitly, and two different characters with wildly different details are going to imply different, incongruent worlds.

You can get out of this by relaxing the seriousness and heading more into comedy or gonzo...which I think may be why S. John Ross's original idea of Risus is as a comedy game.