TheRPGSite

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.

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 :(  :D

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... :D


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.

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 :(  :D

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.

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.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSimple 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.

Detailed and complex characters in simple game worlds just fizzle. You get the GMs coming onto forums to bitch about their players writing multi-page character backgrounds "when it's just a dungeon crawl" or whatever. The GM is annoyed because they're worried that the player's expecting the same amount of effort and imagination from them, too, or because the player's just taking the thing far too seriously for what it is, not adjusting to others' playstyles.

Simple characters in complex and detailed game worlds also fizzle, particularly if one or more of the other characters is complex and detailed, too. They just fade into the background and are forgotten contributing little or nothing to the direction or pace of the in-game events. I've seen this a number of times with some relatively detailed and complex game world, and the player who says, "I'll just develop my character in play" - they begin blank and go on blank, and end up being just spectators to everyone else's action, or at best, as comedy relief.

I agree that detailed and complex characters in detailed and complex game worlds can be the most trouble of all, since their complex details can be hard to have match up. That's a failure both of effort and of imagination; players and GMs can get so caught up in their own world or characters that they forget about the existence of others they need to adjust to.

It's easy to have complex characters in a simple world.  It's called character driven action.  The characters can react to each other and to other NPCs without knowing the details of the world around them.  

It's also common for campaigns to start with a single location in a simple world and the complexity gets filled in by the group as things go along.

I like free form traits for a few things:

PbP games in certain genres. For a lot of these games, the rules aren't that important, XP and character advancement are slow to non-existent, and the GM has to keep track of all the stats/rules/roles. A lightweight free form game can work quite well here.

One Shots where character generation needs to be kept to a minimum, and players don't need to remember exactly what each special ability/feat/super power does. Also, there is no character advancement and detailed numerical values for character stats don't need to be tracked in case a player wants to improve the ability later.

Modern games featuring "norms" - If everyone starts out as a near average human, free form traits are a good way to represent the various qualities that separate characters and make them stand out. No need to overly detail everything that's the same as everyone else. I like to run a lot of modern occult, mystery, intrigue, conspiracy games with lower powered characters and free form traits work good for this. Think of Scooby Do, the RPG. Detailed stats for all of the gang really aren't necessary, and a list of various skills, traits, feats, advantages, or whatever can be a little overkill, whereas free form traits can round out characters nicely.

Those examples are the minority of my games, however, and for the rest I prefer traditional games.

Tactical Combat requires detailed options of exactly what your character can and can't do. I like a little war game or miniature game tactics in my RPGs sometime.

Character Advancement in long campaigns generally works better if the things you are advancing are more tangible, or spelled out clearly in rules.

Character Generation is a game within itself oftentimes. How many of us have statted up characters for a system just for kicks. I know I like to do it from time to time. Free form traits simplify the character generation a bit and for some, detract from the fun.

Firstly, freeform traits don't belong to story games, nor do storygames necessarily involve them.  These are unrelated phenomena.

OtE predates story games, despite Ron Edwards coopting it.  Risus is most definitely not a story game.  I would argue that UA is pretty traditional too.

So, nothing to do with any trad/indie split notions that people may have.

I've run OtE as a generic system many times, it works well where there is clear differentiation between characters, badly when characters all occupy similar niches (for example a military game).

I ran a modern day conspiracy game, and not in some hippyesque story first way (not that there's anything wrong with that), but like I'd run any other game.  It worked very well, the characters felt more like real world modern day people than most games manage because the game measured characters in much the same way we often assess people in reality.

A presidential aide, a retired police chief, a club dj, a capoeira instructor and motorbike enthusiast.  They were adventureworthy, but nothing that one couldn't meet in real life.

So, it can work well.

Also, it can help with character differentiation, even if Combat Rifleman 60 and Amateur Hunter 60 have the same combat skill they feel different and that can add value without remotely detracting from the gaminess of the game.

Most folk here I think get that, but a few seem determined to dispose of dice or gaming techiques that weren't already here in 1981.  I use traits based when it fits the game in question, and it has nothing to do with story or adventure or any of that shit.  It's just another chargen method and I'm damned if I'm letting it be allocated to some faction without objecting.