A couple of years back I had two last-minute cancellations which meant that I couldn't run what I wanted to run and it was too late to phone and tell everyone that it was off.  So I had two friends on my door step looking at me with puppy-dog eyes and nothing prepared

So I grabbed GURPS Discworld off the shelf (I'm one of these people who buys GURPS sourcebooks without ever playing GURPS) and flicked to one of the adventures at the back that I'd always wanted to run (if you know the book, it was the one about the missing bananas)

I looked at my players.  I looked at the GURPS rulebook: thick, menacing and largely unread.  I looked at my players

"Whose your favourite minor Discworld character - needs to be associated with the UU in some way?" I asked
"Ponder Stibbons." said Woody
"Wee Mad Arthur." said Darryl
"Wee Mad Arthur?"
"Pest control."
"Fair enough. Ok, we're doing this freeform."

We started off by cutting cards as a randomiser, but quite quickly abandoned any rules at all.  It turned out to be the most fun we'd had in a session since the infamous "Screw you fleshbags - you're on your own!" incident

Up until recently, I thought that this was a role-playing game - it was a game, we were playing roles.  Apparently some people think that this is not the case.  Can anyone explain to me why?

I have no particular issues calling it a roleplaying game. Were you "game mastering" the game in any way, or just part of the free forming? That I imagine some could take as a sign that you weren't really playing a game at all, but just doing some kind of improvisational acting.

Well I had the adventure, and I was playing all the parts that weren't Ponder and Wee Mad Arthur

Oh, I would absolutely call it a roleplaying game. I mean, you had rules! Well, one rule.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWell I had the adventure, and I was playing all the parts that weren't Ponder and Wee Mad Arthur

Were they any rules as such for conflict resolution? By conflict I mean any situation were it needed to be deternmined if the players were succesful or otherwise. All games have this...I suppose.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWere they any rules as such for conflict resolution? By conflict I mean any situation were it needed to be deternmined if the players were succesful or otherwise. All games have this...I suppose.

Not explicitly stated.  You see the OP contained a booby-trap, but since no-one's even coming close to the the tripwire I'll reveal it

The rules were implicit in 1) the choice of the setting and 2) the social environment in which we were playing

Firstly, we were all intimately familiar with the Discworld and the abilities and limitations of the characters we were playing and secondly this was gaming primarily as a social experience - the only way we could win was by doing our best to ensure that everyone else at the table was having a good as time as we were

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe rules were implicit in 1) the choice of the setting and 2) the social environment in which we were playing

Okay I dig this. I think some would disagree that these constituted proper  game rules, but I ain't one of them.

QuoteFirstly, we were all intimately familiar with the Discworld and the abilities and limitations of the characters we were playing and secondly this was gaming primarily as a social experience - the only way we could win was by doing our best to ensure that everyone else at the table was having a good as time as we were

This reminds me of a woman I know. In all her games, no matter what system she was running she never roles any dice. But yet she uses different systems. I mean she was pretty excited when D20 was first released and we used to joke with her that what difference did it make....her crew and her were not rolling dice anyway. But yet they were playing the game. So yeah, I define role playing games pretty broadly

Regards,
David R