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.