I've asked this question a couple times in the past, and gotten some good answers, but I'm still dissatisfied with the general attitude that /tg/ has on the subject.
Clearly, freeform is different from most systems, in that there is a large degree of self-moderation involved. You are not limited by dice, or classes, or stats for the most part, and this can lead to abuse if the people with whom you are playing are not of the highest caliber. At the same time, these same factors provide for unparalleled freedom and flexibility that is simply unattainable in other systems.
I posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming, as it is at its core a way to collaboratively and interactively tell a story with others.
I would love to have everyone's thoughts on freeform, your experiences, and strategies to promote the development of better roleplaying across all systems.
Pic unrelated
>>46229565
The issue with that is that someone could feel like their story is much more important than that of another and push it into everything.
>>46229630
I agree that this is certainly an issue. I suppose that it is the duty of the GM to enforce reality upon the expectations of the player. Having different aspirations isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if you're reducing another player's enjoyment of the game, something is wrong.
This certainly occurs in other systems, but it is mitigated by the limitations of the rules enforced by the system. That being said, powergamers and mary-sues still exist outside of freeform. Perhaps the answer is for the GM to encourage player to adjust their perspective, and recognize that having other players to contribute to the story is the best way to develop the depth of his own character?
>>46229565
>but I'm still dissatisfied with the general attitude that /tg/ has on the subject.
Good for you.
>I posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming
Objectively wrong - freeform is not gaming. Games have rules. Freeform is role playing but it is not a role playing game.
/tg/ used to be way more hostile to freeform, but that's slowly dwindled as /tg/ has accumulated quest fags and other layabouts who don't actually play or care about tabletop games.
>I posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming,
This is my personal problem. I played pretend at the age of 8 and it was fine. I've found I can still play pretend at my age now and it will still be fine. The difference is I want to make a game out of playing pretend, with legitimate rules and systems. Freeform doesn't have that.
I'll agree that a good freeform can provide in a way a game system can't, but the reverse is true. But I don't come onto /tg/ to discuss make believe without dice, cards or another form of conflict resolution.
>>46229942
Just citing my reasoning for making the thread hombre.
For argument's sake, I would say that freeform has more rules for proper play than any other game, the rules which govern the reality of the setting. Failing to abide by those is breaking the game, and thus the story.
I've hosted and played quests, and some have engaged me. I also immensely enjoy tabletop. What makes you think that the two groups don't overlap?
>>46229993
This is all true, but I suppose like many other subjects, freeform doesn't really have a place for civil discussion besides /tg/. Like I said above, as a thought experiment I would say that freeform has more rules than any other system, but they're more situation, logic, and story based than deciding outcomes with numbers.
>>46229565
>I've asked this question a couple times in the past, and gotten some good answers, but I'm still dissatisfied with the general attitude that /tg/ has on the subject.
It's the same reason why /tg/ hates most things: /tg/ hates the player base. Honestly this is 90% the reason why anyone hates anything: someone he hates plays it. The more hated persons play it the more likely it will became a "worst thing ever"
>>46230089
>For argument's sake, I would say that freeform has more rules for proper play than any other game, the rules which govern the reality of the setting. Failing to abide by those is breaking the game, and thus the story.
those aren't rules because everyone perceives those differently. Sure the general idea is the same as long as none of them are contested. But the moment there is a conflict of interest the differences will became VERY visible.
>>46229565
>large degree of self-moderation involved
A lot of people can't even self-moderate in the context of an actual system.
>not limited by dice, or classes, or stats
And thus there's no way to make people not go "teleports behind you".
>provide for unparalleled freedom and flexibility
Buzzwords. What 'freedom' do you need that can't be made possible within the confines of a system?
>>46230089
>For argument's sake, I would say that freeform has more rules for proper play than any other game, the rules which govern the reality of the setting. Failing to abide by those is breaking the game, and thus the story.
This is a ridiculous amount of logical contortion. Why not call writing a book by yourself a game? Stop being retarded.
>I've hosted and played quests, and some have engaged me. I also immensely enjoy tabletop. What makes you think that the two groups don't overlap?
They can. There are still plenty who don't.
>>46229565
It's like communism.
It could be a good idea that works great; but there's always someone that fucks it up for everyone.
I was in a freeform of just people from /tg/, so you'd think that everyone would know what they're doing and we'd all avoid the bad stuff. But, no.
I think Angelanon still namefags around being a completenutcasenuisance, especially the CYOA threads.
>>46230255
>And thus there's no way to make people not go "teleports behind you".
Don't you still have a GM who can say 'cut that shit out'?
>>46230180
True, and where most of the drama from freeform comes from. I would argue that it is the GM's role to moderate the situation's resolution, and the player's role to abide by the outcome. Can you think of any examples for us to talk about? Something like "Player A shoots at Player B at point blank range, Player B insists the shot misses" is a little too straightforward (assuming no mitigating circumstances). Let us assume that both players are quality.
>>46230255
It sucks that you have that perception of players. Freeform does involve a lot of trust, if you don't have that, there's little point to even starting a game.
I would disagree. The mechanic which prevents them from doing this is the reality of the situation. If you have a player doing that sort of thing, it's a bad or inexperienced player.
I apologize, I do have a tenancy to use those without further elaboration. I simply meant that some systems simply don't have the rules regarding certain situations, where as freeform takes into account most (if not all) situations. Needing to house-rule something into a system is what I mean.
>>46230270
Just a though experiment, I'm trying to consider what separates a game in the classical sense from freeform. I find the precise definition of a game is harder to pin down than what one would initially suspect.
A fair point. It makes me wonder what people are getting out of quests though. Any thoughts?
>>46230401
Since when does freeform have the connotation of having a GM?
>>46230426
Always. You need someone to provide, manage and narrate the story.
>>46230426
Freeform just means no rules or extremely limited rules. It doesn't necessarily mean complete anarchy.
>>46230419
The problem with freeform, is that in forsaking all mechanic, you've lost your ability to decide the result of confrontation without unavoidably making a completely arbitrary decision.
Player 1 wants to fight Player 2 because Player 2 felt up his boyfriend's butt in the tavern while everyone else was busy describing their individual eye colors to everyone in explicit detail.
Player 1 swings a sword at Player 2. Player 1 is an expert swordsman wielding the blade of the apocalypse. Player 2 is an expert acrobat, martial artist, and utility caster who can go ephemeral and utilize shadows to become intangible.
So who wins the fight GM? Oh? It's Player 1? That's bullshit, I call favoritism, you guys always take his side! My character absorbed the soul of a vampire lord for this shadow power and I can't even dodge one swing? This is a load of shit, I'm going home.
Or it's
Really? My fucking world ending sword doesn't hit him just because he stood in the shade for a second? This sword is literally forged from the crease between two universes and sharpened to an edge. I can't believe you let him have that power, this is horse shit.
Congrats, your GM is now referee, babysitter, God, and the Devil himself all in one anytime anything happens
>>46230419
>Can you think of any examples for us to talk about? Something like "Player A shoots at Player B at point blank range, Player B insists the shot misses" is a little too straightforward (assuming no mitigating circumstances). Let us assume that both players are quality.
I've played a looong time ago on a play by post forum. It was the biggest in this country which meant one forum with a few thousand players and at least 3-4 times as many characters.
At first it didn't had much rules so you can imagine the chaose it created. People always *teleported* and whatnot. And it was a fantasy setting so there were swordfights and whatnot.
Have you ever seen several alpha nerds going in a 5 way fight, neither of them actually knowing anything about swords or swordfights but they all are pretty sure that they are experts on this? And all of them write it down their movements with a precision that NASA would find overkill. To a split second. So their precious character will come out as a winner. Not unscratched of course, that would be cheating, but just enough injuries that doesn't really do anything, at least according to them.
I have shitton of examples, and it all boils down to people were shit. When they later tried to make rules or god forbid storytellers for the game it remained shit. It's always the people. No matter what rules you have or don't have it always boils down to the people who are playing with. if they want to play with each other it will be all right. If they want to win against each other then the only thing that could save you if they are genuinely nice persons. But that's like finding an unicorn
>>46230624
A situation where that could occur seems to me like the setting (and thus the rules of the story) are lacking in coherency. If it did arise, then one would expect it to be a climax of the story. As with most systems, you wouldn't expect your players to start off with god-like abilities right off the bat. Having a competent GM is just as important as having competent players, no?
I would also say that the GM is always the referee, babysitter, God, and Devil, regardless of the system.
>>46230624
The problem in this scenario is obviously with the players for creating a shitty implausible situation in the first place. It's not the GM's fault that resolving such a situation leads to shitty and/or implausible results.
>>46229565
>I posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming
Looks like you don't understand what a game is, then.
>>46230626
I've always been a sucker for utopian ideals. I know there are good freeform players out there though, I've worked with them, and they are worth finding.
Part of why I made this thread was to gauge interest, and perhaps eventually see if a system could be devised to sort out the players which are bad, from the ones that are just inexperienced.
>>46230812
Thanks for your reply, I highly recommend you read the rest of the thread, and get in on the conversation. How do you define a game?
One question before I make a post, but does online forum roleplay count as freeform?
>>46230851
I don't see why it wouldn't, as long as a consistent logic is being applied. Shoot.
>>46229565
I did some freeform RP back in the day. Was fun. Especially when we did nation RP where we play as an entire country rather than a single person. Good times.
>>46230851
Yes.
>>46230825
>How do you define a game?
game
ɡām/
noun
noun: game; plural noun: games
1.
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
'
Well would you look at that. Freeform has neither skill, nor strength, nor luck factors involved.
>>46230825
>I've always been a sucker for utopian ideals. I know there are good freeform players out there though, I've worked with them, and they are worth finding.
you like the people, and the time you spend with them, not the game. Totally different.
No matter the system if you play it with people you like to spend time it (and it's true for them too) then you will have a good time. If some of the players are assholes or all of them... well you know how it ends.
And no, not every person is 100% nice all the fucking time.
When there is an argument that the players and the GM can't solve thats because one or more of you can't compromise for whatever the fuck is the reason. That means HIS fun became more important than all the other peoples fun. Basic human behavior, can't really blame them.
Anyway tl;rd it's the players that are important in every system, the rules are there to shape the fun, but if there are no fun to be shaped then you are fucked
>>46230698
I don't think you addressed a single point he made beyond your weak pseudo-intellectual musings about a GM always being judge, jury and executioner (which is untrue). Regardless of the specifics of his example - which, in case you missed it, were playful jabs at common freeform tropes (and not at all far fetched in my experience) - the fact remains that you have no means to resolve conflict between players (players, not characters). Are you really going to pretend those don't exist among 'competent' players?
>>46230924
>freeform doesn't involve skill
NEWSFLASH ANONS: acting is no longer a skill
>>46231059
>*teleports behind you* is skill
You've already lost the argument, no one thinks freeform is a kind of game why are you even trying to argue.
You would be better off asking for light rules to guide your "free"forming so it doesn't turn into a invincible shield contest.
>>46230698
>>46230782
The names are stand ins. If you'd prefer a more realistic scenario, it'd be quite easy to imagine.
Ragnar is the big choppy barbarian with little regard for decency or rules, might makes right. Junius is the son of a dour noble whose oppressive home strangled his dreams until he couldn't stand it any longer and went out adventuring with the Barbarian and several others, he hates bullies and authority. Oh look, something both of them are invested in. Could be a girl, could be a chance at worldly gain.
Oh no. Conflict. They get into a fistfight at the bar.
Etc, etc. The problem with freeform is that you've espoused freedom, but cuffed your players hands. If they don't play with full consideration of the group or story as a whole, then they're shit players who are fucking up your narrative with their cursedly human motivations and actions. If all your growth and conflict is to be so structured and staged, you might as well just write a novel. You've completely removed the dynamic element because everything the players do has to be "GM Approved For Progress Of Session".
The barbarian could very well knock the noble's block off and start some very interesting party dynamics. But would the noble get the chance to rebutt? Could he? Would he win the fight if he did and humble the Barbarian? Who knows, because you've restrained yourselves to only constructed and planned development. There will be no dynamic dice roll that the Barbarian flubs, and gets knocked out by the noble, thus humbling him and forcing him to try to play a more aware person. The player's characters only develop to the consent of all parties on one singular direction. That sounds quite stale and repressed to me, the group decides everything in the name of the individual if you play like this.
>>46229565
>posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming
Not trying to be contrarian but in order to game one requires a system within which to operate.
It is the truest form of collaborative storytelling, though this isn't always a good thing, but not exactly the purest form of gaming as it misses many core requirements, such as a quantifiable challenge, rules and basically a system.
I posit that, realistically, freeform RP is a strong tool for worldbulding but not a good tool for actually gaming.
>>46230883
>>46230885
Alright then.
I was a part of a roleplay forum for almost eight years in my youth. It was a semi-realistic sparklewolf roleplay. It was as pretentious as it was edgy. It had some of the absolute shittiest drama you could imagine.
The forum went through several phases of how to deal with character vs. character conflict.
At first, it was, do whatever you want, there are no rules. That didn't last long, because the chaos that erupted was, not unexpectedly, too much for the moderating team.
Next was the three hit rule - as in, you could dodge three attacks before you had to take the next one in full. This forced players to not always avoid three times in a row, because the roleplayer you were fighting against would attempt a finishing move and you'd be... pretty much fucked because you wanted your character to be a special ninja snowflake.
As the userbase matured and the forum stopped gaining new members, the three hit rule was taken away, and the rule was, "don't be a powerplaying asshole." And lo and behold, fights almost always worked out in terms of dodging/taking attacks. No one attempted any powerplay because we were capable, as a general rule, to moderate ourselves.
And this was an edgy, pretentious sparklewolf roleplay forum. I'm not saying freeform is perfect, but I do believe that it is very possible to use freeform, as long as you're not roleplaying with 12-year olds.
That being said, there were other issues that were never really resolved. I still don't know how they could be resolved, to this day, but I'll only bring up those issues if anyone's interested.
>>46231117
>X is not a skill because there's people who are bad at it
Okay anon, you win. Your argument fu is just too strong for me.
>>46231059
Do you actually think that's even remotely applicable to the listed definition, or is this just a poor attempt at playing devil's advocate?
>>46230924
PnP doesn't really fit that description either.
>>46231184
Are you arguing that acting is not a skill or that there's no acting involved in freeform? Because either of those are objectively wrong.
>>46231179
There is no objectivity in acting. Therefore it can't be used as a metric for a game.
Fuck off this is why people don't like freeform babies. You don't know how to lose. Which leads directly to *teleports behind you* nonsense
>>46231198
>PnP
>Doesn't have luck factors involved
Reread the definition.
>>46231198
>Decided by skill, strength or luck
>What are dice rolls
That being said, if you play through a session and don't make a roll, does that mean you never played a game?
Or what if the Freeform actually has rules at character creation to prevent "MUH SPESHUL SNOFLAK" Then is it a game?
>>46231276
Let's see that description again... >>46230924
metric, metric, metric... no, sorry anon, it's not written there.
But fine, if you really want to say that it doesn't affect the result of the game here's another skill: planning.
>>46231308
>That being said, if you play through a session and don't make a roll, does that mean you never played a game?
Yes. It means you were role playing, not necessarily playing a game.
>Or what if the Freeform actually has rules at character creation to prevent "MUH SPESHUL SNOFLAK" Then is it a game?
The character creation is a game, the rest of it would not be.
>>46230924
I would argue that you need to be an extremely proficient story teller to have a quality game. There are clearly good and bad freeform sessions, so what defines the difference, if not a measure of skill?
>>46230943
I apologize if I didn't address the points you brought up. I've reread that post, let me try and get to the heart of what you're saying.
I think it'd be better to describe what each party failed to do correctly.
Player 1 failed to take into account the immensity of what a battle with Player 2 would mean.
Player 2 failed to realize that his actions might provoke Player 1 into an engagement, which could be potentially ruinous.
Both players are at fault for being whining.
The GM, more than either Player 1 or 2 is at fault for a colorful bouquet of reasons, principally from allowing his players this level of power right off the bat, and not instructing his players that there are consequences for their actions.
>>46231130
Fair points, I would sa that this is what separates freeform from other game mechanics.. The player who can come up with a better, and/or more creative reason for their victory traditionally should triumph. Everyone walks away happy that something interesting and cool happened. It's up to the GM to judge that if the player's can't come to a mutual decision. The less often the GM needs to intervene in circumstances like this, the better the payers are.
>>46231336
You're fucking retarded. No wonder you like freeform so much.
Metric is important because it determines Win/Loss states, which are necessary for something to be a GAME.
Skill may involve win/loss states.
Strength contests may involve win/loss states.
Games of luck certainly contain win/loss states.
You're not even being clever. This shit is literally common sense. You're the type of cancer that argued on /v/ years back the visual novels were a type of videogame.
>>46231308
How do you resolve conflict? If there's no form of arbitration other than "I have the biggest swinging dick and refuse to back down", then I would posit you're not playing a game. At best, you're telling a story collaboratively. (Which in itself isn't a bad exercise) Without some sort of limiters and randomizers to arbitrate outcomes and decide who wins and loses, you do not have a game.
>>46231418
>At best, you're telling a story collaboratively.
Isn't this the point of freeform in the first place?
>>46231236
Okay then. So things in freeform are determined by acting competitions? Because that is what you are claiming right now. That if xX_Sephiroth_Xx's portrayal of his half angel half devil immortal's condenision toward those bound to a mortal's lifespan is more compelling than Goku69's projection of the angst of the last of his kind, the legendary double saiyan, then he will always decide the course of the story? What happened to all that collaborative storytelling?
>>46231352
>There are clearly good and bad freeform sessions
But it's subjective, so it's not a game.
If someone can't randomly enter your game and a win/loss can't be determined IT'S NOT A GAME.
Give me an example of a game that does not have win or loss states.
Even if "acting is a skill therefore freeform is a game" argument that means LITERALLY ANYTHING EVER IS A GAME. Meaning the word "game" becomes completely pointless. Everything involves some kind of skill to some degree.
>>46229942
This.
>>46231153
Thank you for providing an example of how environments such as yours progress, I had a similar experience,with a MineCraft roleplay server. The community is still together seven years later, and has aged like fine wine, we're forum based now. This is sort of what has brought me to the pulpit in defense of freeform today.
>>46231451
Yes.
But for some reason OP feels the need to insist it's not only a game, but ~the pinnacle of gaming~
>>46231352
So you expect every fistfight in the world you run to be solved with a series of MacGyver-esque asspullery slowly escalating from "I punch him in the face" to "As he punches me, I lean with the blow, spin, grab a vase from the table next to me, crash it into his skull while I kick his feet out from under him". The inherent problem here is that if the two parties are invested, neither are going to want to lose. If they're not invested then why are they fighting in the first place?
If your arbitration for who wins the fight is going to rest solely on who can type up the larger paragraph of absurdly convenient situationally appropriate bollocks, then both players are going to be typing you four page theses on why their character should win until you just end up flipping a fucking coin in your head or picking whose description of the vase you enjoyed more thoroughly. In both cases, I would feel that justice would not be done to the players and that kind of resentment would build up tension even in the most patient and understanding of people.
>>46231478
It's a definition conflict then? I'm not saying you're incorrect, freeform is not a game by the standards which you have elaborated, but I don't think that invalidates it as a way to mutually have fun with others.
If you saw children playing pretend, you would call that a game though, would you not?
>>46231413
>No wonder you like freeform so much.
I don't even really like it, I'm just defending that it is a game, but sure, keep implying things, it's your main argument here.
>Metric is important because it determines Win/Loss states, which are necessary for something to be a GAME.
Not by the definition posted in this same thread. Please, show me where it says that a game absolutely needs winners and losers. Oh, wait, it doesn't.
In fact, it doesn't even say that it NEEDS to have skill, luck and/or strength.
But please, keep changing the requisites for things to be considered games as we talk, it makes it all the funnier when I can just go up and read the definition to see that you're 100% wrong and pulling shit out of your ass.
>>46231458
May I know where exactly is it written that games need competition? I seem to have lost that info somewhere.
>>46231498
I had a feeling. Online forum roleplayers lurk here but tend not to mention it, since it gets a bad rep and all.
I'm not so sure ours has aged as well. It definitely still has its merits, but I've gone my separate ways from it for a multitude of reasons as it gets slower and slower.Mostly to develop my own forum roleplay world that allows more creative freedom into the fantastical while simultaneously strapping down on how to moderate conflict without bias.
>>46231568
Oh god, I know this situation intimately. Been in it on both sides, in fact. This is actually my biggest obstacle with designing an online forum roleplay. How do you decide who loses, if the players cannot? The moderating team will always have to deal with the select few who have pissing contests like this and won't back down, and I'm unsure the best course of action for both the team and the players. It gets complicated real fast.
>>46231413
So since PnP is in fact a game
Who's the winner and who's the loser?
>>46230419
its not hard to pin down. a game has rules (and no your autistic interpretation of "rules" doesn't count), free form doesn't. that's it. but you already knew that "thought experiment" being an autistic interpretation of "trolling" and all.
>>46231568
This is certainly true, and of everything I've typed in this thread, the response you are referencing is the bit I am least satisfied with.
I tried to mitigate what you're referring to by saying "better and/or more creative". For instance, throwing a vase might be more creative, but if I chopping at you with a sword that very well might be more effective/better.
The situation which you describe with multiple paragraphs of bullshit would, of course, but stupid. Players should be invested in furthering the story of their character, and of other's characters, ideally. Winning all the time in every situation does not make for a very interesting story. Do you have any further thoughts on this? It's difficult for me to articulate.
>>46231597
>It's a definition conflict then?
Depends on what you mean by conflict.
Someone can roll dice to themselves and guess that number. That's a game, because they can be objectively correct or wrong. That is a game.
But, who can draw the most beautiful painting . which requires skill, is not a game it is a contest because there is no objective standard for beauty.
>>46231618
I just pasted the google definition. Have another, fagtron.
Literally the first link.
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
Well would you look at that, the very first ( simple even ) mentions rules.
You're just making a fool out of yourself at this point.
Everyone experiences freeform roleplay at some point on the kindergarten playground.
>Nuh uh, you didn't hurt me. My invincibility shield was up.
If you aren't immediately against freeform, then you were probably The Kid With The Invincibility Shield.
>>46231714
Win/Loss states are not determined by the overall game, but by every time you roll and follow the rules to determine if you succeed the roll.
When you play PnP, only the dice rolls ( or equivalent ) and rule following are the "game" part. Everything else is the non-game "role playing".
>>46229565
Okay, so where do you guys find freeform play-by-post stuff that isn't riddled with children, weeaboos, and the like? I just want to do some co-operative writing and play with emergent roleplay with some dorky adults instead of autistic children.
>>46231735
>
Full Definition of game
1
a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
This is in the link you just provided, anon. You literally just porved yourself wrong.
>>46231813
Oh you're just trolling. If you stop reading in the middle of a sentence that doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
>>46229942
>quest fags and other layabouts
why so srs about playing pretend?
>>46231721
This is the inherent weakness in freeform that I've been trying to expand upon to you. You either cuff your character's actions to the will of the group and shy from conflicts you know you're too invested in to allow yourself to lose, or you do whatever the fuck you want and damn the consequences and that leads very quickly to "I teleport behind him" type behavior. The mechanics of a game act as the truly impartial empirical scale for the characters to be weighed and measured in for the purpose of interacting in complicated manners. Without this, you really just have four dude trying to agree on who exactly loses this very important fight and why. It only has to happen once for people to become dissatisfied and frustrated enough to stop being as invested in the game.
That's why people use role playing GAMES.
>>46231806
My advice? Don't be an elitist. No, I'm serious, if you go to places with children and weeaboos, you will find people who are like you, just more chill and not afraid to get their roleplaying hands proverbially dirty with the inexperienced to find other dorky adults like them.
>>46231837
>>46231813
Nevermind, my mistake for not reading the whole page.
But it's nice that you have to cherry pick semantic arguments just for the semblance of not being entirely full retard wrong.
>a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure
First line there, which means I'm not wrong concerning definitions in any case.
>>46231837
Full Definition of game
1
a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2) : the equipment for a game
What the fuck are you even saying, that's the whole sentence. It continues in other definition of the word, but the sentence itself ends there.
>>46231352
>I apologize if I didn't address the points you brought up
It's not my post, but that's not relevant.
>Player 1 failed to take into account the immensity of what a battle with Player 2 would mean.
>Player 2 failed to realize that his actions might provoke Player 1 into an engagement, which could be potentially ruinous.
Or maybe neither of those are true, because each wanted the conflict and reasonably believed themselves capable of winning it. And now you have no way to resolve besides the GM's personal preference.
You're still obsessing over the particulars instead of the actual issue. >>46231130 spells it out more explicitly.
>The player who can come up with a better, and/or more creative reason for their victory traditionally should triumph. Everyone walks away happy that something interesting and cool happened. It's up to the GM to judge that if the player's can't come to a mutual decision.
Right back to personal preference. You just keep repeating the same shit over and over.
>>46231806
>Okay, so where do you guys find freeform play-by-post stuff that isn't riddled with children, weeaboos, and the like?
The issue is that freeform inherently attracts those kinds of people, and those kinds of people drive off everyone else. Every freeform place eventually becomes nothing but shitters.
>>46231838
>not taking board games seriously
I hope you step on a d4.
>>46231735
I just meant that our point of disagreement came for how we define a game. There are certainly rules involved with freeform, as I had said eariler in the thread, they're just more implicit than explicit, mostly based on the setting. If you have no magic in the world where you are playing, then throwing around a fireball with magic would be against the rules.
>>46231762
I was never That Kid to my knowledge, I'm curious about what makes you think this though. Can you elaborate?
>>46231695 (and >>46231887 )
Allowing for a more expressive environment for freeform RP was part of my mission statement for this thread. As I said to the anon who refuted me on the problem, tacking down this issue has always been... well, an issue. There's no really easy resolution, since the fault is with your players for being so pig-headed.
>>46231806
Another reason I made this thread was to gauge interest, to see if /tg/ would be interested in a freeform community. I'll make another couple threads over time, see how they play out, and consider hosting something for us grognards.
>>46231813
That is a wonderful gif anon, I will be taking it.
>>46231931
I did reply to >>46231130 . Perhaps judging outcomes in freeform are meant to be more fluid. and based on personal preference? I'm not entirely sure. Two different GM's might come to two different conclusions on how to resolve a situation, but I really do think that whichever one makes for the better story is one that you should go for. Is that reasonable?
>>46231891
By no means do I want to be part of some exclusive club, I just want to know if there is somewhere where it's actually possible to find diamonds among the fanfiction rough. It seems like there must be some exclusive club though, because pretty much everything else is... hard to get through.
>>46231899
>You know, when a word has more than one definition, all of them are correct. Freeform roleplaying is a game by some of the definiitions of the word, so whenever you say that it's not a game you're actually wrong. It IS agame, it's just not the kind of game with rules and competition, that happens to be another definition of game.
>>46231648
I don't know, can you fucking read, because it's literally in the same clause of the same definition.
The other guy might be a pseudo intellectual wankfest splurting clearly nonsensical justifications all over, but you're something else. Specifically, illiterate or just a troll.
>>46231998
And now I greentexted like a reard, that's my cue to go to sleep. Have a good night, anons.
>>46231983
>Another reason I made this thread was to gauge interest, to see if /tg/ would be interested in a freeform community.
Problem with this assumption is thinking that /tg/ has higher standards for a playerbase than these other freeform places.
>>46231998
Okay, you've just rationalized that literally anything is a game.
Wow, now what?
I guess /tg/ is now /games random ( as long as it's not in video format)/ now.
>>46231986
I getcha. Yeah, I feel that. If I had a place to recommend, though, I wouldn't be on /tg/ talking about this kind of thing in the first place.
>>46230126
There's more to it than that though, a lot of vocal haters go to 1d4chan (for example) and write/edit about whatever it is that pisses them off that day.
New people take the sentiment for gospel without genuinely experiencing the reason, but take the tone with them as they think it'll garner respect, or they won't be called out for being new.
So another, fresh group of people will perpetuate someone else's feelings because they think that's just how you're supposed to act, then justify it to themselves that they actually feel that way.
This is in no way endemic to /tg/ of course.
>>46232043
I wouldn't choose anywhere else to recruit from. There would likely be a certain amount of vetting involved. Not sure about what that process would look like yet.
>>46232019
Again, I apologize if I am not adequately answering your questions. I'm not making this thread claiming to know anything, besides that I have had fun with feeform in the past, and encouraging other anons to try something they might find fun. Can you give me snippets of greentext succinctly pointing the issues you're referring to out so we can talk about them?
>>46229565
The thing for me at least, is that I can justify telling a story while playing a game or wharever but just telling a story back and forth between a few people feels a bit sad and pointless.
>>46232207
An entirely valid perspective. Freeform just isn't fun for some people, I enjoy it though. Have you ever given it a shot? Just for the sake of surveying.
>>46231983
>Perhaps judging outcomes in freeform are meant to be more fluid. and based on personal preference?
...and as such, free form is not a game.
>Is this reasonable?
I am not sure what you mean. Your ridiculous claim that freeform is the ~supreme form of gaming~ (let alone actually being a game) is still not reasonable, no.
>>46231117
don't force your restricted views and limited understanding on others, you make yourself look dumber than you probably are.
>>46231179
don't expect to get too much value out of asking such a question here, which is doomed to get answers filled with inexperience and prejudice. I'm actually surprised how many constructive posts popped up here and the last thread.
I have to disagree with freeform being the "purest" form, but only because of the choice of words, its connotation is to much "its the best one" imho. I probably would say something like: it's the "most minimalstic" or "most essential" form.
People often misunderstand freeform as being completly without rules kinda like "everything the players want to happen, will happen", but even though there are few, there will always be some rules: If there is a GM, his/her word should define (or at least dis/approve) the outcome of any action and also what NPCs do or say. That's why I strongly recommend GMs for freeforms.
But if there's none, even then you need the approval of the group, the degree depends on individual groups. Often it works on some kind of veto system and a more or less rough consens on the setting and therefore what's possible there.
Freeform rpg is imho the easiest to access but the hardest to execute. I've already created single-session adventures on the fly with players who never ever played any pnp rpgs before and they have been great. But this requires the players to accept whatever the GM says (what many people simply can't do), the players working together well OT (not everyone is suited for every group constellation), everyone in the game to have a good grasps on the possibilities within the setting and the GM really sould be a "high quality" one.
>>46232329
As the next couple words in the section you quoted imply, I'm not entirely sure. I don't have all the answers, and anyone who tells you they do are lying. I just have my thoughts on the question you posted, so that's what I gave you. I do happen to believe that freeform is a game, since my definition runs something along the lines of >>46231813 .
What I meant by the last question is if you felt that, in freeform, generating an interesting story for everyone involved is a reasonable objective.
To be honest, I did use that initial stipulation to generate debate, which seems to be working. I've done some thinking on freeform as a concept before, and at one point I had come to the conclusion that RP is a fairly prime example of the "perfect" game, because it is the one which is most capable of generating the most intricate complexities, since its ruleset can encompass all the rules of the reality we operate in, and more. I may just be full of shit, which is entirely likely.
>>46229565
Personally, I tend to find it more interesting to work with and around explicit rulesets and let an element of random chance determine how an encounter or story plays out. In part, that's just to keep the curveballs coming so there's something unexpected to react to, but it also serves to keep interpersonal conflict sensible. There's a clear and objective result to any dilemma because there's a million resources to back it up. Freeform relies on referees and arbitrary "nu-uh's" that always leave another person the target of aggression and I think that's part of why the so often go toxic.
The other issue here is shared experience. If I tell someone I was playing 3.5, or pathfinder, or shadowrun or whatever, they immediately know the world, the rules, the history, and the impact of whatever story I'm going to tell. Even if you set a freeform game in an existing universe, telling the story will always be lackluster because the grand exploits aren't happened because you said so and nothing else. No close rolls no clever exploitation of the rules, just "hey I pretended this happened and everyone else agreed yeah it happened and it was cool." It will never be as entertaining to someone who wasn't there.
>>46231983
>Another reason I made this thread was to gauge interest, to see if /tg/ would be interested in a freeform community.
The issue is that instead of going "Hey, would anyone on here be interested in starting a freeform community?" You addressed /tg/ as a single entity as though you planned to change the opinion of the entire board. Comes across as a bit obnoxious.
>>46232404
It's not restricted and limited you shitty freeform degenerate.
Of course you would think having any semblance of structure or rules would be "restrictive and limited"
This is why /tg/ doesn't like freeform.
>>46229942
I would love to get into table top but I am A) too poor and its either table top or my master race PC hobby not both with my current salary. B) I have some really bad luck with parties and even worse with work hour set ups so I am often unable to get time to do my stuff around the house let alone play a table top game if I want to play a video game for more then 30 minutes. But I do enjoy reading stories of others adventures god, bad, or otherwise with table top games.
Nothing wrong with quest either, just lame as shit that they are all by default sen t to /tg/ now instead of allowed to remain on their home boards(animu quest should be /a/ territory)
>>46232556
Not that anon, but you're lying to yourself if you say that any tabletop game does not restrict what you can roleplay. Also, speaking on behalf of /tg/ is pretty damn shitty.
>>46232556
We get it /v/irgin, you're hip and cool and edgy and totally belong here
>>46232553
Your points are valid, not much more to say.
You also have a point in your section section. Thanks for calling me on it, I'll be more conscious of my phrasing in the future. I suppose I wanted to address /tg/ as a whole to get a wide spectrum of opinions, since it's usually people that disagree with something that have the best perspective on where its faults are.
>>46229565
> I've asked this question a couple times in the past
> Post not containing an actual question.
You are cancer.
>>46232593
>if you say that any tabletop game does not restrict what you can roleplay.
Rules are restrictive. That's where the fun comes from, winning despite and within the rules. Not because the DM allowed you *teleports behind you* for the umpteenth time.
> Also, speaking on behalf of /tg/ is pretty damn shitty.
You're retarded if you think there is no such thing as a board culture, and thinking that freeform is terrible is part of /tg/ board culture which means at least a noticable population of browsers think freeform is shit, and that's all that matters.
>>46232602
You don't even have a board, freeform degenerate. Every board has banned your shit except /tg/, and even /tg/ doesn't like it.
>>46232667
>Implying
I'm not OP and I've never freeformed
I'm just calling you out on dumbing down an intelligent discussion by acting like a stereotypical salty /v/tard
>>46230126
And then there are plenty of people who've played or done whatever the thing is, had a bad experience, and blames the system or thing, rather than the people involved.
While it may be the fault of the people involved, the system or thing often does contribute, so those feelings aren't always unjustified.
>>46232666
Thanks Satan, here's looking out famalama.
>>46232654
>second section
I'd like to qualify my agreement with what you said regarding entertaining someone who wasn't there though. Why am I trying to entertain someone who wasn't there in the first place?
>>46232667
>Rules are restrictive. That's where the fun comes from, winning despite and within the rules.
Some people enjoy the system and the mechanics. Some people enjoy the creativity and the roleplaying. Some people enjoy mixing the two. In some way, the roleplay you're into is restrictive, because it does take away focus from the roleplaying aspect, which some people value a lot more than putting numbers together and "winning."
Also, just because a board thinks something, doesn't mean it is true.
>>46232752
>Dumbing down the discussion
I don't see how, I'm not the one claiming that freeform is a type of game solely because feelings and semantic arguments.
You should try reading the reply chain before claiming someone is bringing down the quality of the board.
>>46232593
That anon, agree with you and the core what I wrote about in the 2nd part of my previous post, what seemingly wasn't read and/or understood by some specific person (s).
>>46232666
>Not reading the subject
Good work retard.
>>46232807
>Why am I trying to entertain someone who wasn't there in the first place?
How else do you expect to get people to start any game/roleplay system besides making it sound fun? I've picked up and learned, what, four different rulesets based on great stories on /tg/?
If you want to get a group of friends who trust you without examples to play a system and then never tell anyone about how the game went, go for it, but you explicitly came here looking to start a community.
>>46232929
Valid point, sorry, I've had a fair amount of alcohol. I suppose it's the whole rather than the parts that make freeform interesting.
There's only one example of it out there, and the community is presented was pretty bad, but Edgardo.
>>46232929
Wait, are you saying that you can't make a roleplay story sound fun if there weren't specific game mechanics involved? Because you can totally do that.
>I posit that freeform is the purest form of gaming
IT'S NOT FUCKING GAMING IF THERE ARE NO RULES.
>>46233094
Please read the rest of the thread, I apologize if I triggered you.
>>46233094
Games don't have to have rules, anonPeople are seriously arguing that in this thread
>>46233121
>Please read the rest of the thread
I don't need to. You're wrong, full stop. Nothing you say is valid or worth paying attention to, because your premise is a failure from the outset.
/tg/ hates "freeform roleplay" because people like you represent it.
You're literally an inch away from stating, as if it's an accepted fact, that text roleplaying is superior to any other method of gaming because "reasons".
>This thread
Oh to be 15 and stupid again
Can't freeform just mean "exceptionally rules-light"? or simply "Dice aren't used"?
Freeform doesn't have to be completely rules free
>>46233142
>>46233164
I've never argued that. To make freeform work, you need to respect the mechanics of the reality in which the setting takes place. The rules you're looking for are implicit rather than explicit.
A popular example is "I teleport behind you". If there's no magic in the setting which you have provided for your players, it's implied that this is not possible without sufficiently advanced technology, or other fluff. If you are able to do something like that, a proper GM would have created a setting which has suitable drawbacks for usage of technology of that kind. You're crafting an entire world for your players to work with, and not inhibiting them based on particular mechanics. If it's possible, it's possible. If it's not, it's not. If it's easy, it's easy. If it's difficult, it's difficult. You can improve your odds by improving your circumstances or the tools you have available. I'm not entirely sure what I've written makes sense, but I have drank a rather sizable amount of vodka.
>>46233237
(You)
>>46233271
This is also true, thank you for explicitly stating this point anon.
>>46233271
Ok anon, there's a multitude of horrendous quest threads for you to choose from
>>46233361
Quests actually do use dice rolls thoughWhich means they do qualify as games, according to this thread
>>46229565
Honestly asking myself what your conclusion are after the second thread here regarding this topic...
>>46233333
At that point isn't it just easier to just use a game with rules, especially when considering the poor gm who's going to have to try and control what would eventually turn into a cluster fuck as players continue to try and push the bounds of the setting as there's no set limits on what they can do?
I mean it's pointless to argue any of this because I mean look where I am but it sounds like when you start creating a very complex setting, your going to need complex rules to govern that world or it just becomes "teleports behind you" eventually no matter how hard you try.
>>46233427
Touché
>>46233333
>If there's no magic in the setting which you have provided for your players, it's implied that this is not possible without sufficiently advanced technology, or other fluff.
So wait...there's a specific mechanic that inhibits them from doing something.
>You're crafting an entire world for your players to work with, and not inhibiting them based on particular mechanics.
Wait...so you're not supposed to be inhibiting what they can do using specific mechanics?
Which is it?
> If it's possible, it's possible. If it's not, it's not.
A tautology is a tautology. Also, "Freeform is better because it works well when everyone buys into the honor code" isn't really a good defense.
>If it's easy, it's easy. If it's difficult, it's difficult.
So you mean certain things have like, a difficulty class? And it's designed to prevent certain players from accomplishing the task without having requisite skills to beat that difficulty class? Because if nothing is preventing you from saying "Yeah, my character is good at this, it's easy for him" except HONOR CODE LOL, then....yeah, there's no point.
>I'm not entirely sure what I've written makes sense, but I have drank a rather sizable amount of vodka.
It's time to stop posting. Forever.
>>46233004
Of course you can. I'm saying it's easier to relate to when it's a system other people already know or can compare to one they know.
>>46233536
Okay. That's fair.
>>46233439
Most of the time it's much easier, yes.
On some occasion you/the other player don't have the time/motivation to learn about the mechanics of a whole ruleset. Then you may consider some kind of freeform (I assume having at least a GM). Still likely to come down crashing.
>>46233439
Competency is only one aspect of being a good player. Another is having good intentions regarding upholding the reality of the game. It's a rarity, but as I posted above, it exists.
>>46233486
I'll keep posting, and you can't stop me. The specific mechanic you are referring to is the setting, I thought I had put it rather well when I said the rules are implicit instead of explicit. Freeform doesn't need a rule which states that players cannot instantly teleport to a location without the resources to do so , for the same reason that other systems don't. This concept is just extended to pretty much everything.
The "honor code" as you put is is on the nose. To cite an example that I have used, there is a certain baseline which exists when a player makes a freeform character. This can be to whatever degree the GM wishes. A character which can craft the best sword is unlikely able to be the best at anything else, and so on. It's up to the judgement of the GM. If they overstep this bound, they should be called on it. As a player, you shouldn't be looking to exploit the flexibility of the system, you should be looking to use that flexibility to create the most interesting story you can, for everyone. Being a mary-sue is just as abhorrent in freeform as it is in other systems.
Just because freeform doesn't have a rule which explicitly states you shouldn't be a powergaming bastard, doesn't mean you should be one.
>>46233678
>for the same reason that other systems don't.
But...they do.
>A character which can craft the best sword is unlikely able to be the best at anything else, and so on
Says who? What if the player WANTS to be the best at crafting swords AND other things? What stops him? Your subjective understanding of the "setting"? What if his impression of the setting gives him recourse to say "My PC is perfectly competent at everything he ever does"? How do you overrule him? What criteria do you cite to prove that he is mistaken?
If there is a DM who can say no, then there is someone making rules. And if that DM were to, say, write down those guidelines into a list of things that are and are not allowed, CONGRATUFUCKULATIONS YOU HAVE A MECHANICAL SYSTEM.
I don't know why you're twisting yourself into fucking pretzels trying to maintain this concept of "freefrom roleplaying" even as you constantly concede point after point in favor of having someone making rules.
>Being a mary-sue is just as abhorrent in freeform as it is in other systems.
It's literally not. It's the fucking status quo.
>>46233807
I sense that you have a certain negative perception of freeform that I will not be able to easily overcome based on your last comment. I'm sorry that is the case, but I assure you, I have played over a span of multiple years with several dozen people in a vibrant community where this was not the case.
Again, I am not saying that freeform doesn't have rules. Please reference my previous points of conversation throughout the thread. The moderation is in service of the story, and is expected to be upheld by the players, and the GM.
I suppose it would be best to identify the objective of freeform. As with other games, you are putting yourself in the shoes of a character, and acting as that character would given various situations. The intent should be to achieve that character's goals. Do you disagree?
>>46229565
>>46233807
Your arguments work under your theoretical premise of "total freeform".
But that's far from reality, because "pure" freeform can't exist - human interaction always has rules and even when you put a bunch of humans together who don't know each other into any situation unbeknown to them, they will develop rules.
>>46229565
Thank you all for posting your wide array of opinions, that is exactly what I wanted from this thread. I'll take some time to compile what you said into a cohesive strategy for presenting freeform in an easily digestible manner, and working out some of the answers to the more difficult answers you've posed.
Have a pleasant evening!
>>46229565
The reason why I hate freeform gaming is because it only exists to ruin the tension of any story you could possibly tell through it. Instead, you're sitting around telling a collaborative story. Even assuming you have only upstanding people who are part of this, the story experience will come off as weak and a self-congratulatory
The reason why other games work out so well is the same reason why real life stories tend to be more amazing than fictional ones do. Both have hard written rules that you are expected not to break, or being unable to break, and extreme expectations of outcomes. Every person has that story of an amazing moment that happened at the table because someone rolled a nigh-impossible result at the most critical time. Take Wubba Wubba for example, a story by R.A. Salvatore. The crux of the story is that his DM rolled on a huge, HUGE chart of possibilities, and despite every single statistical outcome suggesting that the event should have gone badly for Salvatore, it instead goes wrong against another player. That story works so well because it works against odds. It was actually unexpected, and there was tension in the scene due to the actions of a player
How would that have happened in free form? "Oh, well this just happens so yeah". The story loses what makes it so magical and instead would have been transformed into a situation bordering on harassing a player at the table
Rules are put into a system not to spite a story, but to encourage one. To place obstacles in the shape of a functioning world that operate on a predetermined logic. The good stories are ones where a player or character operates in such a way that the rules both work, but are still at odds with the player. Stories like the Edguardo, the guy who gained 0 times 100 corruption and purified the world, the guy who rolled three nat 1s in a roll and on a random chart it was determined that him and adjacent enemy die
Rules help define a story. Not prevent it
>>46229565
>there is a large degree of self-moderation involved
This, I think, is really the problem.
In nearly every freeform RP I've been involved in with unrestricted access of players, there are one of two distinct endgames: time-traveling space commander wizards, or everyone pairing off into romance RPs and stop communicating with each other. Both pretty much end the RP, with the first being a power spiral that only allows for that specific level of play, and the second just into individual isolated pockets.
And so, a successful freeform RP requires a relatively enclosed group of self-moderating individuals who are willing to keep things at a relatively consistent tone and scope, so that things will remain roughly at the scale that everyone enjoys. Characters, powers, challenges, and basically everyone needs to be in agreement with what is acceptable and what isn't, generally with a healthy dose of conversation when things conflict.
Or, we could all sit down and play Fate Core.
That's kind of the problem. The biggest benefit for freeform RP is that it allows people to jump in and start participating immediately - there is no rules required to learn to begin. But in order to work, it basically needs to do away with that one large benefit, since people just jumping in and doing whatever they want can quickly undermine the whole thing. And when we're looking at implementing some sort of system to govern how everything works anyways, it's probably better to just bring in a rather rules-light system like FUDGE which can easily determine results (even without dice) than just winging it and hoping that everyone is on the same page.
As an aside, quick freeform RPs are fine and a lot of fun for some quick silliness or with just a quick interaction between characters. Basically, when nothing much will be happening and it won't be an extending playing of the game.
>>46229565
>I'm still dissatisfied with the general attitude that /tg/ has on the subject.
Then fuck off back to >>>/reddit
