Freeform and/or Rules Lite gaming

[Aryxbez]

I dont think any game can actively promote or encourage railroading through its rules (though I think the opposite is possible - the promotion of sandbox/player-driven gameplay through rules).

If you're willing to accept the opposite, than I think it's small minded to deny the former. Older D&D encouraged a more railroaded style of play, given the linear natures of Dungeons for example. Rules in a game will guide the type of behavior it encourages, so I find it doubtful, that a ruleset "couldn't" encourage Railroading, intentional by its Author or not.

Even your example of Dogs in Vineyard, although sounded interesting, did imply a notion of railroading in a strict procedure that must be followed. Though, maybe that could be miscommunication, and it's actually just a consistent part of the games ruleset. Albeit, if that resolution requires a DM's fiat/approval, then it's not so useful at its goal of task resolution in a cooperative storytelling game.

[Mask_De_H]

I'm with Frank on this one.

The concept of an aspect isn't difficult at all; the description of Aspects as an idea is fucked because the designers have this weird fetish for prescribing every mechanically useful descriptive piece of fiction as an Aspect when they are different things with the same mechanical effect.

You have the superstructure of Aspects. These grant either a +2 to a check or a reroll when activated.

Under the concept of Aspects you have:

• Traits and Flaws, which are your character aspects. You can pay a Fate Point to bullshit something because of your Trait/Flaw. The MC can use these against you. If they do and you accept, you get a Fate Point.
• Status Effects/Advantages/Disadvantages, which can only be used X times and are mostly made through the Create an Advantage ability.
• Consequences, which are sticky Status Effects.
• Hazards/Set Pieces, which can be used by any character in the zone. Some Set Pieces are constantly granting a bonus/penalty, and can only be invoked for a reroll (thus getting around the "why does darkness only matter when someone pays a Fate Point" issue)

[K]

When the answer to a rules question is "whenever the DM feels like", you need to burn a lot of page space to reach the level of a reusable rule and not make it seem like your character has no power at all.

How broad of a scope can an aspect cover? How often can a player use it? How good can an Aspect be? Can I take "Good At Everything, Like a God" as an Aspect? Is that better than "Best Garbage Man in Brooklyn"? What's the difference between a Character Aspect and a Situation Aspect, and how should they be played differently? What are the limits to a Compelling Aspect? When can I get a free Invocation?

Not answering those questions basically means you are forced to reduce the whole system to a single line on a 3x5 card that reads "the DM decides everything, so sit back and let him tell you a story."

[Atmo]

When the answer to a rules question is "whenever the DM feels like", you need to burn a lot of page space to reach the level of a reusable rule and not make it seem like your character has no power at all.

How broad of a scope can an aspect cover? How often can a player use it? How good can an Aspect be? Can I take "Good At Everything, Like a God" as an Aspect? Is that better than "Best Garbage Man in Brooklyn"? What's the difference between a Character Aspect and a Situation Aspect, and how should they be played differently? What are the limits to a Compelling Aspect? When can I get a free Invocation?

Not answering those questions basically means you are forced to reduce the whole system to a single line on a 3x5 card that reads "the DM decides everything, so sit back and let him tell you a story."

EXACTLY what i think about FATE.

[silva]

If you're willing to accept the opposite, than I think it's small minded to deny the former. Older D&D encouraged a more railroaded style of play, given the linear natures of Dungeons for example. Rules in a game will guide the type of behavior it encourages, so I find it doubtful, that a ruleset "couldn't" encourage Railroading, intentional by its Author or not.

Hmm.. you have a point.

Though I never read a game that encouraged railroading in its rules. The nearest I came of it was with Vampire the Masquerade, which actually adviced the GM in its text to railroad the players through stories.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Though I never read a game that encouraged railroading in its rules. The nearest I came of it was with Vampire the Masquerade, which actually adviced the GM in its text to railroad the players through stories.

Rune is an explicitly railroaded game. Appealing to the viking concept of wyrd, the encounter chains are entirely linear.

[talozin]

Older D&D encouraged a more railroaded style of play, given the linear natures of Dungeons for example.

I realize that I'm nitpicking here, but the really old school D&D was in fact just the opposite. Something like the Temple of Elemental Evil is notable for how nonlinear it is; there are something like eight different ways to get into the dungeon, and your decision-making process once you get there will have a huge amount of influence over your experience of the adventure.

Old-style tournament adventures did tend to be much more linear. But if anything, I think D&D has gotten more railroady, not less.

[Koumei]

The most rules-light I've played would be Maid. And that one is pretty simple: argue a case for using your highest stat. Roll 1d6. Multiply by your stat. Most tasks need a result of 5 or more. "Really hard stuff" (or stuff where you're explicitly supposed to add your results together) might need 10 or more. Or there are opposed rolls.

Now it's not very balanced with character creation, and some of the special abilities could do with a bit more explanation (including "Yes, this is purely MTP, it doesn't actually do anything mechanically" being specified for some). But overall, it takes like a minute to figure out how everything works, and most abilities make enough sense that the game doesn't stop for people to debate the meanings of things.

-

For actual Magical Tea Party, I've played a bunch of freeform games. Firstly, most games at conventions are systemless, but also, back in the day I played systemless anime games on rpol.net and similar. One game lasted several years and was great. Yes it was Sailor Moon. I'm still in contact with half the core cast. I've also played in some that were terrible, so it really depends on the maturity of the group.

[Mask_De_H]

Again, K, this is mostly a result of shitty explanation of the mechanics in the system as opposed to problem with the mechanics in the system.

When the answer to a rules question is "whenever the DM feels like", you need to burn a lot of page space to reach the level of a reusable rule and not make it seem like your character has no power at all.

This is true.

How broad of a scope can an aspect cover?

Shittily explained, but depends on the classification. At its simplest, it's whatever you can bullshit past the other players.

How often can a player use it?

As often as they have Fate Points to burn and the aspect is valid, but each aspect can be tapped once. Advantage/Disadvantage class aspects can be invoked at least once for free. If you succeed with style, you can invoke twice for free.

How good can an Aspect be? Can I take "Good At Everything, Like a God" as an Aspect? Is that better than "Best Garbage Man in Brooklyn"?

This one is pretty much Player bullshit/MC fiat/game specific. If the Garbage Man has more Fate Points, he's mechanically better. Good At Everything is easier to bullshit your way into usage.

What's the difference between a Character Aspect and a Situation Aspect, and how should they be played differently?

Situation Aspects are set pieces, unless they're made with Create an Advantage, then they're standard buffs/debuffs. Situation Aspects need to be interacted with to take effect in current rules, Character Aspects are just there and used to explain character shit.

What are the limits to a Compelling Aspect? When can I get a free Invocation?

Do you mean "when can I compel an aspect"? That one's whenever you feel like it/MC fiat. Both sides of the table have veto power there. If you're asking the compel version of "can I take I Am A God", then that's game and table specific. You only get free invocations off of an Advantage/Disadvantage, unless a stunt gives you a specific rules exception.

Not answering those questions basically means you are forced to reduce the whole system to a single line on a 3x5 card that reads "the DM decides everything, so sit back and let him tell you a story."

That'd be true, if these questions weren't answered.

[Koumei]

Your answer to most of those questions boils down to "Ask the MC". So uh, the rules really are "Ask the MC to make something up. You're allowed to argue you're case but whatever."

[OgreBattle]

Ok, I just threw together a game attempting to be Rules Lite. Tell me if it qualifies as Rules Lite:

Resolution Mechanics
-Roll a d20+modifiers to beat DC.
-Gain X successes before Y turns pass.
-If you fail 3 times in a row you are knocked out of the challenge



Character Creation
You are a murderhobo adventurer. Choose 6 skills from the list below to be Proficient in, and then choose 3 skills you are proficient in to be Focused in.

If you are not trained in a skill you are -4 on rolls to use it
Proficiency has a +0 bonus, removing the penalty for being untrained
Focused grants a +3 bonus to rolls.

You gain a modifier to ALL skills equal to your level

Skill List

Athletics
Acrobatics
Endurance

Insight
Perception

Thievery
Stealth
Apothecary

Bluff
Intimidate
Diplomacy

Religion
Arcana
Nature
Streetwise
History

Or make up your own list of 17-25 skills appropriate to your game's genre

Running a Challenge

A challenge is typically 4-6 rounds and takes a number of successes equal to the number of total rounds to succeed at.


The nature of the challenge determines how effective/limited each skill is.

Determine the effectiveness of each skill for the challenge
Perfect: The skill is highly appropriate and gains +4 when rolled.
Neutral: The skill works as normal without any modifiers
Bad: The skill is inappropriate for the challenge and suffers a -4 penalty to rolls.
Locked: Using this skill cannot add a success

Certain Skills may have additional effects when a success is achieved
-Limited: After X successes are achieved with this skill it becomes Locked
-Unlock: This skill's success changes the effectiveness of another skill, such as making a Locked skill now neutral or a Bad skill becomes Perfect.
-Save: This skill's success allows a KO'd player back into the challenge
-Extend: This skill's success adds another round of rolling to the skill challenge

DC's and level appropriateness
Here's a guide to setting DC's for challenges

Too Easy: DC= Character level +2
Very Easy: DC= Character level +5
Decent Challenge: DC= Character level +8
Evenly Matched: DC= Character level +10
Tough: DC= Character level +12
Very Tough: DC= Character level +15
Incredibly Tough: DC= Character level +18
Impossible: DC= Character level +20

The mechanics are set on where success and failure happens, but when you roll the dice you vividly describe how the actions are carried out.

So a single 6 round skill challenge could be a dungeon crawl, with a boss fight being a 4-6 round skill challenge that is modified by how sucessful the dungeon crawl challenge was.

[silva]

I realize that I'm nitpicking here, but the really old school D&D was in fact just the opposite. Something like the Temple of Elemental Evil is notable for how nonlinear it is; there are something like eight different ways to get into the dungeon, and your decision-making process once you get there will have a huge amount of influence over your experience of the adventure.

Old-style tournament adventures did tend to be much more linear. But if anything, I think D&D has gotten more railroady, not less.

Youre not nitpicking at all. I was also of the opinion that D&D promoted railroading through its text, but recently I got the opportunity to read OD&D and it surprised me how it provides a very structured play procedure around dungeon crawling thats not railroady at all, on the contrary, its more open-ended/sandbox than the advice thats given in subsequent editions.

[Cyberzombie]

How broad of a scope can an aspect cover? How often can a player use it? How good can an Aspect be? Can I take "Good At Everything, Like a God" as an Aspect? Is that better than "Best Garbage Man in Brooklyn"? What's the difference between a Character Aspect and a Situation Aspect, and how should they be played differently? What are the limits to a Compelling Aspect? When can I get a free Invocation?

Those are questions best answered with a short list of examples of what are acceptable and not acceptable aspects, then letting a DM sort it out. You won't get anything perfect, but you'll end up with a skill system that is as balanced as any rules heavy system. Remember that in 3E we have skills like Jump and we have skills like Diplomacy and Perception, so it's not as though the bar is set very high.

[Mask_De_H]

Your answer to most of those questions boils down to "Ask the MC". So uh, the rules really are "Ask the MC to make something up. You're allowed to argue you're case but whatever."

The questions K asked that require "Ask the MC" as an answer boil down to "how much character shit can I get away with", which the answer to is "Ask the MC" regardless of system. Unfortunately for FATE (and rules-light/MTP games in general save Munchausen da gawd), there's no shit to compare to for what you're supposed to get away with Aspect wise.

This is a major flaw in the system, seeing as how Aspects are the building blocks of the damn thing.

[mlangsdorf]

I was also of the opinion that D&D promoted railroading through its text, but recently I got the opportunity to read OD&D and it surprised me how it provides a very structured play procedure around dungeon crawling thats not railroady at all, on the contrary, its more open-ended/sandbox than the advice thats given in subsequent editions.

By subsequent editions, do you mean Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, Metzer Basic, AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3e, and/or D&D4e?

Because all the Basic sets encourage non-linear dungeon crawls, both in their texts and in their sample adventures. Early AD&D1e was very much about non-linear dungeon crawls, except in a couple of the tournament modules (A3 probably being the worst). It wasn't until the rise of Dragonlance that you see heavy, consistent railroading in the published adventures, and those were counterbalanced by stuff like the original Ravenloft.

I'll grant the railroading rot had set in by AD&D 2nd edition, though D&D3e pushed back against that some, and D&D4e was a total failure in that regard with highly linear sample adventures and no space for out of the box thinking. I blame the two page encounter format from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

But that doesn't change that a huge number of people learned to play something called "Dungeons and Dragons" that was set up for non-linear dungeon crawling, and most of that happened after OD&D.

[radthemad4]

I still like Danger Patrol, but it's definitely beer and pretzels.

The mechanics are completely dissociated, and actual game play is mostly superhero improv. It's consistently fun, but I wouldn't really look to it for a model for real rpgs.

I just looked it up and skimmed through it. It looks like it'll be fun, and the fluff is hilarious. Thanks for the reference. Especially like the 'character sheets'.

[silva]

By subsequent editions, do you mean Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, Metzer Basic, AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3e, and/or D&D4e?

I meant from AD&D2 forward.

Those are questions best answered with a short list of examples of what are acceptable and not acceptable aspects, then letting a DM sort it out. You won't get anything perfect, but you'll end up with a skill system that is as balanced as any rules heavy system. Remember that in 3E we have skills like Jump and we have skills like Diplomacy and Perception, so it's not as though the bar is set very high.

Yup, very well put.

As long as RPGs continue requiring a human GM for arbitrating and generating stuff, there will be MTP regardless of systems. Whats important is the MTP to be well communicated and agreed upon between the participants. If this condition is met, there wont be problems. Take out the MTP and you dont have a RPG anymore - you have a boardgame.

[K]

Those are questions best answered with a short list of examples of what are acceptable and not acceptable aspects, then letting a DM sort it out. You won't get anything perfect, but you'll end up with a skill system that is as balanced as any rules heavy system. Remember that in 3E we have skills like Jump and we have skills like Diplomacy and Perception, so it's not as though the bar is set very high.

Yup, very well put.

As long as RPGs continue requiring a human GM for arbitrating and generating stuff, there will be MTP regardless of systems. Whats important is the MTP to be well communicated and agreed upon between the participants. If this condition is met, there wont be problems. Take out the MTP and you dont have a RPG anymore - you have a boardgame.

If you take the MTP out of a FATE or AW, you don't have a boardgame. In fact, you have nothing at all.

Secondly, RPing is not MTPing. Lots of people play boardgames or wargames and do RPing with those mediums. There is literally no way to stop RPing, but MTPing is easily stopped by simply providing workable systems. The fact that stopping MTPing makes for more fun games when you have workable systems because you aren't trying to get DM favoritism is just a bonus.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Does this count as a general freeform and rules-light gaming thread too?

I'd like to do a Magical Teaparty game loosely based on the Conquest of Elysium series. Powerful mages and warlords are struggling to conquer the land and eliminate rivals. The game should definitely involve a degree of resource tracking and troop management, but I'm not commited to accurately emulating the actual games. It'd be nice if there was some focus on domestic affairs too, like in King of Dragon Pass. Any advice for how I should approach this?

[silva]

Avora, I would suggest taking a look at MTPing games that already do this, like Reign and Pendragon for example.

If you take the MTP out of a FATE or AW, you don't have a boardgame. In fact, you have nothing at all.

The same can be said for any other roleplaying game, from Gurps to D&D to Vampire - take the MTP out and youre left with a bunch of useless rules.

Secondly, RPing is not MTPing. Lots of people play boardgames or wargames and do RPing with those mediums

Sure, I can roleplay even with Chess. But that doesnt mean Chess is a roleplaying game.

There is literally no way to stop RPing,

Yes there is. In fact, the very creator of the hobby - Gary Gigax - never roleplayed his characters. He simply treated them as pieces on a boardgame. And I know many players that do it too.

but MTPing is easily stopped by simply providing workable systems

False.

There will always exist a guy generating content and outcomes by himself without any system to hinder him. He is called the GM (or the very players, in the case of GMless systems). Until a system comes out that can procedurally generate whole stories and dynamically react to players choices in sensible ways automatically, MTP will always exist in roleplaying games.

[virgil]

The same can be said for any other roleplaying game, from Gurps to D&D to Vampire - take the MTP out and youre left with useless rules.

Useless rules /= nothing. Kind of self-contradicting there.

There is literally no way to stop RPing,

Yes there is. In fact, the very creator of the hobby - Gary Gigax - never roleplayed his characters. He simply treated them as pieces on a boardgame. And I know many players that do it too.

People can choose not to RP...and? How is that any kind of point?

[silva]

Useless rules /= nothing. Kind of self-contradicting there.

Nope. Both Fate and AW have rules too. And without the MTP for gluing them on a coherent whole they would be just a bunch of useless rules.

People can choose not to RP...and? How is that any kind of point?

Ask K. It was him who suggested RP couldnt be cut off from the game. I just proved that no only it can, but the very creator of the hobby did it.

(the element that cannot be removed from the hobby is the MTP)

[K]

Silva, it's pretty clear that you don't know the difference between roleplaying and Magic Tea Party. Allow me to explain:

Magic Tea Party is where events happen and actions are resolved because of fiat. For example, the stunt system in FATE is MTP because there is no way to know whether any idea you have for a stunt should be allowed or not. Even long conversations with the DM are no help.

Roleplaying is where you imagine that you are a character and take appropriate actions within the limits of actions you can take. Players RP when they do actions like choosing certain weapons, or picking a character name, or they decide on a course of action because they think their character would do that. DMs RP when they have NPCs react to events in ways that they think those NPCs would react.

RP literally cannot be removed from any game because players and DMs can choose at any time to perform certain actions based on what their character would do. Even in a game like chess, any player can decide that their piece performs an approved action because of some personal motivation and not the player's best tactical choice.

MTP can easily be removed from any game. You can fix FATE's Stunt system by simply writing a list of approved Stunts. You can fix DnD's skill system by writing a list of approved actions with DCs. You can fix diplomacy rules in most RPGs by actually writing a diplomacy system instead of leaving it to MTP.

You are mistaken when you think that some games offer more or less RP. There is literally no way to offer more or less RP.

[Mask_De_H]

Silva, you missed the mark a bit.

Remember, MTP means "someone makes shit up in lieu of or as the rules". RP means "someone makes shit up as a supplement to the rules".

And what you use as your final touche is mind-bogglingly stupid. For one, video games and visual novels and CYOAs are proceedurally generated, react dynamically and are whole stories. For another thing, the act of role-playing creates a story in and of itself.

I know this isn't 4chan, but please lurk the fuck more. Go back and read the arguments and shit-flinging of days gone past. Try to understand what the points are. Learn about more games than AW and D&D.

[silva]

K, I never said different games offer more or less RP. (where in my post did you saw that ?? ).

What I said is that GM Fiat (what you guys seem to call MTP around here) will ALWAYS exist in RPGs, no matter what game you use. Thats because the GM is the sole responsible for generating content and reacting to players choices and decisions.

No matter how detailed and structured are rules for small-scale level (like individual tasks) if the GM is the sole responsible for adjudicating the high-scale level (the fiction/story/narrative flow). And even in games containing rules for the high-scale level (like Fate, AW, etc) the ending result will be shared MTP (not the absence of MTP).

Got it now ? Wanna examples ?