ASF freeform and Jeepform
I’ve suddenly become interested in freeform roleplaying, and shown that Sven’s propaganda campaign the last couple of years have worked. It was the fact that he led me to We go by Jeep combined with lending me the freeform scenario book Från Atlantis till Blekinge which translates to “From Atlantis to Blekinge” (FAtB). The page and the book are in Swedish. If you read Swedish you can get the first part of FAtB “Att spela friformspel” (”To Play Freeform Games”) as a pdf here.
Right now I feel like I’ve finally come to terms with my cautious attitude towards freeform. My attitude was based on a couple of things which are central to freeform, but something I’ve tried hard to remove from my table-top gaming: the pre-scripted plots and the omnipotent gamemaster.
In FAtB you get three fleshed out freeform scenarios. These consist of a story only known to the GM and a bunch of hand-outs to the players. The stories are described in scenes with clearly marked ending points; when the GM feels the scene is over the characters find a hidden door and move to the next scene, for example. When the players should get hand-outs is also marked in the text. The players each get a character, in one of the scenarios they have two, which they should read and then play.
We Go by Jeep doesn’t seem to share this view of freeform scenarios. In the wiki post Jeepform they say that secrets between players (and between gamemaster and players?) are unnecessary. This is counter to ASF’s view. I haven’t read the Jeep scenario “No Traces of Alex”, so I can’t comment on how their scenarios look, but perhaps I can get back to that.
Both ASF and Jeep focus on the story, but perhaps in different ways. I’m not that familiar with Jeep’s view, but I can tell that ASF considers story to be something that’s already existing and for the players to discover. Perhaps a more favourable way of saying that is that the structure of the story exists and the players create the story while following the path laid out by the scenario and the game master.
This is completely counter to what a table-top player wants, especially a collaborative table-top player as I’ve called myself lately. The fact that whatever the players do their characters will be lead to the next scene and then the next by the GM felt very strange. I guess one will have to change the focus of what the point of playing is. If the point of playing is figuring out the pre-made story, then ASF’s scenarios will work. They will also work if the point is to feel like your character, as long as you make the choices necessary to lead to the next scene. As long as the players are ok with that, the pre-scripted plot can be a great boon rather than an obstacle.
The omnipotent GM is less of a problem, both according to ASF’s and Jeep’s view. The reason is that the GM is encouraged to interfere as little as possible, therefore making the power constructive rather than destructive. According to ASF (and I think Jeep agrees) the GM is the only one with the full view of the story; its wanted content and direction. This makes him important, since the players can do whatever they like without fear of ruining anything, since the gamemaster can always use their contributions in a way that doesn’t destroy the scenario.
But there’s one very interesting role that Tobias Wrigstad (Jeep member) attributes the gamemaster: the role of the informed audience. This has to be the best description I’ve seen of what the ideal freeform gamemaster is doing. He sets up the scene, lets the players loose and then steer them by nodding or thumbs up when necessary. Most of the time, when everything is going smoothly he’ll only watch in silence, but even then, by actually being silent, he’s reassuring the players that they’re doing the right things! This is so beautiful.
This post is a small introduction to my current views and thoughts on freeform. I really hope I can get some comments from perhaps Sven, Tobias Wrigstad or Barkå, as they’re very much more informed than me. If I’ve done We Go by Jeep any injustice I hope Tobias will slap me in a comment.
I think you got it. There are some small points that I feel different about but but it's mostly a matter of opinion, like:
“This is completely counter to what a table-top player wants, especially a collaborative table-top player as I've called myself lately.”
This really varies from group to group. I do not personally mind playing a scenario with heavy railroading and “discovering the plot”, as long as I know about it from start.
But if we talk ASF-style free form you are right that the story and discovering it isn't usually the point of the scenario, but only a backdrop for character interaction and immersion. In this case railroading is even less of a problem. Sometimes the players are helped by not having to bother with making an “external story”. They can focus on what happens between the characters and their “internal story”.
I agree about the differences and are discussing them in mail with Tobias at the moment. But you should also look at (if you don't want to play it, I could GM it again) Under sommaren. That scenari has a playing style different from the other two and quite much represents a ype of friform that I like. There is a predetermined basic flow of events. But these events are very undramatic. The drama is all in the conversation between the players.
I can understand your critique about the very strict predetermined plotline. But maybe you are also missing part of the play style. There can be much player directed drama *during* these scenes, even if start and end points are known. Nut of course this requieres players that want to play this way.
I wrote. “But maybe you are also missing part of the play style.”
No you didn't. I read your text too sloppy. Sorry.
Hi, and first of all: thanks for writing in English. A very commendable and valuable trait for blogs talking about Nordic freeform RPGs.
Viva! +1 for the discussion itself.
About our wiki effort, I can only say things are getting started. We, the Nordic RPG community, need a lot of basic ground covered. We need the places to start at. Nordic-style freeform role-playing games have no described history of its styles. Anywhere.
Game authors may publish their scenarios, but their “artist statements” if you will, are sorely lacking. That makes for lousy portability to other RPG cultures.
I just read your comments, and will be quiet for a bit, to mull on it.
Aided by Thorbiörn and a wonderful Scotch Whiskey, I wrote this reply in the middle of the night. I then did the right thing not to post but to wait and reread after a good night's sleep. I now see that several people have beat me to it; Jonas Barkå uses the terms internal and external story quite nicely. I'm going to steal that. Anyway, that's what I mean below.
Transparency and secrets: our view is indeed what you state, but we don't go as far as to ban secrets entirely. We just don't wan't people to routinely keep secrets “just because that's how we usually do it”. Secrets should be kept only when it is really meaningful to do so — and we firmly believe that this is very seldom the case. (To be clear: no secrets means no secrets between any actors, be they gamemasters or players or what have you.)
I'd also like to add that a lot if not most Jeep games have been a lot like the ASF games in the FAtB book, but not all. I should admit that I haven't experienced that many ASF games as a player. I've read all I could get my hands on and curiously interrogated people that played them (I seldom have the time as I am most likely having a scenario of my own at the same con), but we all know that the picture is not complete without also playing it. Some examples of Jeep games that differ, I think, are No Sign of Alex (2001), Ca 1980 (2002) and The Upgrade (2004, 2005).
In No Sign of Alex, every piece of information is available in the characters from the beginning. The individual players' process of reading, sorting through and interpreting that information is actually where a lot of where the game is decided.
In Ca 1980, at least the last two thirds of the game, the players know all information beforehand and for the last third are encouraged to freely tell the story about how the other events came about. (That part mostly didn't work that well, though, and I can write about that later.) The first parts on Ca 1980 is actually scene-based.
While The Upgrade is more a showcase for role-playing methods than a scenario, it is a completely transparent game with no secrets, no real ownership of characters, and without linearity. Hence, there is really no story to the game, and as such it cannot possibly be as good as a “real freeform game”. (I'm actually at least half-serious here.)
Oh, and for a an additional discussion of scene-based freeform, look here: http://blog.wrigstad.com/?page_id=8. The bottom line is that often, a predecided sequence of scenes are there to make sure that situations that are relevant for the story and/or message actually occur. Maybe the sequence of events are not relevant, but what happens during these events is. The players should only need to focus on what'r relevant for the game. I'm sure you get my point.
Story is a very complex thing. Looking at some of our games, we effectively mostly agree with ASF, but I do think there is more to it. If we have a predecided story, the reason is to convey something to the players. This can be anything from a specific feeling or a premise like “a fascination with sports leads to certain death”. However, I don't think that the idea that the story is owned by the gamemasters and the players are discovering it piece by piece is entirely true. See the three games I mentioned above, for example.
So, I'm not entrily convinced that this is not what a table-top player wants. Scene-based games usually work patch-work style, meaning that a scene quite seldom leads to *the next room*. Rather, if the game is about jealousy, maybe when the scene about two people breaking up is deemed finished, it might lead on to some other scene with different people in a different city in some other situation that gives another view on jealousy.
My feel is that table-top games are much like larps in the sense of a simulation. Sure, you have more degrees of freedom in a table-top game than in a larp but still, the playing of one specific character (which I guess is still generally the case, right?) and immersing into that character is not a good tool for telling stories. Sure a larp or a table-top can just as well be about jealousy, but I think they will work very different from the freeform game and have to tackle a lot of problems as there is not a unified focus on the story as such, but several different personal games that are hard to get to work together.
Tobias, I fixed the line breaks in your comment, and html-linkified the links.
I'll add my thoughts after lunch.
Seeing as the comments were screwed by my habit of using hard line breaks, I've posted them here as well: http://blog.wrigstad.com/?page_id=31
I think the main reason I've reacted negatively in the past, and still cringe when I read parts of FAtB and ASF's suggestions to the GM, is that it represents a view of the scenario and Gm that I've been trying to get away from. Let me explain.
I come from a traditional roleplaying background, starting with Swedish games like Drakar och Demoner, Mutant Chronicles and Kult. A switched to American games, mainly White Wolf with Vampire and Mage. A couple of years ago I found the Forge, and realized they were talking about a kind of roleplaying games I was very interested in. The focus in Forge games are usually transparent to use a Jeep word, in that all the players should have enough information at all times to make decisions and control the direction of the game. The rules are usually also transparent, meaning that everyone should know the possible outcomes of a dice roll, what modifiers affect it and why.
Railroading is usually considered a bad thing, mainly because it usually means force applied by the GM to control the game in ways that take away control from the players. This is something I've worked hard on removing from my gamemastering. When a scenario calls for the players to discover a certain object or a hidden door, I nowadays immediately see a raised warning flag. Too many times when I were younger I had to spoon feed the players with information, when they didn't say that they looked behind the book case to find the hidden door. Having to hint until the players catch up, or skip prepared parts of the scenario because they don't find the hidden door is not acceptable any more. I just can't GM scenarios that look like that.
During high school I used to view the GM as a director and the players as actors, acting out an improvised script from the guidelines of the “director”. The GM could always override player input if they were hurting the “story”, and I thought the GM acted for the common good. Somewhere along the line, maybe when discovering the Forge or collaborative roleplaying I lost all respect for the divineness of the GM. He's nothing special, and shouldn't have any more input on what constitutes an important or interesting story than anyone else. There are some very important tasks that are usually handled by the GM, but they don't have to be. Anyone can describe locations, decide rule questions or guide the story. These tasks can equally well be distributed among the players.
So what does this have to with freeform? Mainly that ASF in FAtB talk about the GM as “the director”, the players as “actors” that should play out the “script” which are the scenarios from the book. Especially the first scenario “Prometheus's Mistake” has lots of hidden doors, used in two different ways. The first way is when they're described with the room the characters enter and used to cut the scene when the players/characters find. The second is similar, but they're not described until the GM want to cut the scene. “Oh, suddenly you see a hidden door… which leads to the next scene.”
This is a giant step back for me as GM, and is why I feel a bit dirty even thinking about gamemastering the scenario. I have some ideas how to remove the parts that disturb me, usually by employing different techniques. I'm sure as hell is going to let the players know that if they want to move on to the next scene they'll just have to say so, and won't have to discover the hidden door before they are allowed to. I'll also do my best to figure out the premise of each scenario, which isn't very hard since it's part of the introductions of each scenario, and focus on getting that through to the players. I'll also have to focus on the mood of each scene more than getting the players to figure out where the hidden doors are. Perhaps I frequently won't give them enough information to find the hidden doors until I want to cut the scene, using the second variant described above. All this depends on whether I can find players and time this summer.
Finally I want to say that this has more to do with a certain type of freeform, a type that is quite close to “classical” roleplaying. We Go by Jeep's more experimental stuff like Alex and the Upgrade isn't the target of this comment. Being able to tell these two kinds of freeform is something I've learned in the last couple of days, since I really hadn't read any scenarios before that.
Thanks for fixing up my comment! I'll read your comment now.
“I'm sure as hell is going to let the players know that if they want to move on to the next scene they'll just have to say so, and won't have to discover the hidden door before they are allowed to.”
The problem is that the players have to communicate with each other regarding if to end the scene or not. This type of meta discussion between players ruin the immersion, which is one of the main qualities of freeform play for me. The point of puting the responsibility on the gamemaster to anvance the external plot is that the players can focus on their characters and the internal plot. Another way to solve it is to tie the scene advancement to in character events, like “The scene ends when you decide which of the two doors to open”. This is the method currently most favored by me and Sven.
/ Jonas
First a comment on the comment above. There are tons of ways of telegraphing that kind of information between players or gamemasters and players without resorting to off-game discussions. Techniques that suit your crew will manifest themselves. You should not worry. A bit of practice may be involved, though, naturally.
In REGN (1997), an old game of mine, the players are in total control of the running length of scenes (perhaps with one exception, I cannot remember right now). The end of scenes are closely tied to e.g., the end of the opera they are watching (something that can be controlled by all players, just stand up and applaud; if someone really does not want to end the scene, they will interpret it as the soprano's part just finished).
Well, tying the scenes to in-game events is good, but I feel that it is really not necessary. There are so many ways of giving such signals. I imagine that you will find this a non-problem when you start to play.
Yes, I do realise Jonas second to last comments weren't meant for me, but I cannot resist commenting on them anyway. Did you read my rant about railroading? (http://blog.wrigstad.com/?page_id=8 — I'll stop pushing for it now, I just enjoy linking to stuff I've already written instead of writing it again.)
Here is an excerpt from that:
But what is railroading? A freeform (or at least Jeepform) view is that there are several aspects of a game that can be railroaded, independently or not. If a game is about relationships, and the married couple and one of the spouses' lover are stuck in an elevator in a skyscraper on fire, then the game might be considered to be railroaded only if the outcome and the development of the relations are decided beforehand. However, the fact that there are three scenes played in a fixed order (the lobby, the elevator, and firemen to the rescue) does not make the game a railroad. The players still have full freedom to take the game anywhere they like (e.g., play flashbacks of the marriage, the first time they met in mid-air in parachute school). Even if the scenes are discussed beforehand and the players know all the characters' dark secrets, it does not become a railroad if the players are free to develop the relations and the end (and the way there — which is not the same thing as the
scenes played) is open.
What do you think about that?
Jonas writes:
“When a scenario calls for the players to discover a certain object or a hidden door, I nowadays immediately see a raised warning flag. [...] I just can't GM scenarios that look like that.”
I agree. In freeform, that should never happen. Or rather, if there is something hidden that needs discovering, it will be automatically discovered. I mean, a freeform game is not about “cracking the plot” or things like that. If I want the scene to lead to the characters becoming really drunk so that we can move on to a wierd intoxicated collage kind of thing, then I'm going to put a poteen distiller where it can be seen, not in a concealed space. (I hope you look past the example and see my point here.)
Jonas writes:
“I lost all respect for the divineness of the GM. He's nothing special, and shouldn't have any more input on what constitutes an important or interesting story than anyone else.”
I wouldn't say that the gamemaster is the only one that knows the story. Sometimes, the direct opposite is the truth. I do however, feel that the gamemaster will always have other knowledge than the players as a consequence of his not having a character and experiencing the game “from the inside”. From your own description of my view of a gamemaster, I assume you know where I stand on this. He is not divine, but he is a resource that is good for the game.
Jonas writes:
“Anyone can describe locations, decide rule questions or guide the story.”
Sure, see No Sign of Alex for example, where in the standing play, the person that initiates the scene is the story guide for that scene. However, they can never achieve the gamemaster's outlook over the story/game. In the kind of collaborative games you describe, this is lost.
Jonas writes:
“I'm sure as hell is going to let the players know that if they want to move on to the next scene they'll just have to say so, and won't have to discover the hidden door before they are allowed to.”
Really great. This is how is should generally work.
Jonas writes:
“I'll also do my best to figure out the premise of each scenario [...] and focus on getting that through to the players.”
Even better. Keep me posted on this.
Jonas Barkå, yes! I wasn't very clear when I said “they'll just have to say so”, and had forgotten about these discussions. If I read you two correctly Tobias is basically saying the same thing as Jonas Barkå. In my book, having the characters agree on something is an as clear signal from the players as standing up, but with the added problem that you presuppose that the characters will agree on something. I'm not trying to nit-pick, I just think that having a player-level signal in the form of “when you leave the room you're out of the scene” or “when you're all standing the scene is over” frees the characters to behave the way they want.
Tobias, yes, I've read it and agree on all points. What I think about the skyscraper fire example? I think it would turn into an ugly form of railroading if the characters, and therefore the players, would have to figure out a way to start the elevator by using a character's cell phone as a battery, connect it with the wire in another characters pocket to the control panel and… not letting the players leave the scene until they've figured that out. I have absolutely no problem with predetermined scenes or even outcomes, as long as they don't ruin the expectations of the players.
What I think I do have a problem with is gamemasters or scenarios that take control of a character and force them to behave in a certain way. I think this is based on my experiences from table-top games, where I want the player to be in complete control. The gamemaster can say that your character's wife leaves him, but he can't tell you that your character feels sorry. That's up to the player. This is also part of what I would call bad railroading, the use of force that goes against the wishes of the other participants.
I do see a point in exploring this in a freeform game. Since you don't have to have the players possessing one character each, it could be really interesting to mess things up deliberately. I understand that some of your scenarios work this way; that you can have a scene that takes place in the future where you get the question “So, when did you realize Harry had a crush on you”, without even Harry's player knowing about it until then. I have no problem with this either, it sounds like great fun. The “Forge game” InSpectres by Jared A. Sorensen works exactly this way; the set-up is a ghost hunting docusoap with confessional interviews that the players can use at any time. In the confessionals they can either add a trait to another character (”Not until we reached the bar did we know Harry was an alcoholic.”) or add things that will happen (”When we left the bar the guys Harry had upset were waiting for us…”). The thing is that the traits don't have to be used, but the group as a whole get a bonus if they are.
Ok, that was me rambling. Anyhow, I have some thoughts on freeform, “fullform” and “formless” roleplaying (I need terms for these things), but I'll start a new thread for that.
Well, except that “when you leave the room you're out of the scene” presupposes that the characters will leave the room. Anyway, you know what I mean: player signals that doesn't have to affect the world of the characters.
Well, except that ending a scene by deciding that an opera is over is affecting the game world as much as forcing the characters to leave the room.
This is just me thinking out loud, if you guys know what you mean you don't have to explain it to me again.
Olle Jonsson wrote:
“About our wiki effort, I can only say things are getting started. We, the Nordic RPG community, need a lot of basic ground covered. We need the places to start at. Nordic-style freeform role-playing games have no described history of its styles. Anywhere.
Game authors may publish their scenarios, but their “artist statements” if you will, are sorely lacking. That makes for lousy portability to other RPG cultures.”
I find it strange that (as far that I’m aware) the Knutpunkt/Knudepunkt/Knutepunkt/Solmukuhta idea of mutual cooperation between the Nordic countries with English as the language of communication yet has to take a full step out to the net. I’m quite convinced that an open forum directed to Nordic LARPwrights and freeform designers would have it’s place. If Knutpunkt was blessed with a continuous homepage, instead of one for each arrangement this would be a natural place.
Or is the reason for the lack of such a forum that there is no real interest? To set up a good forum these days almost no time, so that isn’t the reason. I get a bit jealous when I look at the Forge and now the blogs that are being opened by Forge aficionados and where there is a lot of discussions. Even if there is a certain degree of mutual understanding the differences in our aesthetics and in what we want to achieve is too large. There are a lot of activity in Sweden, but a very small portion of is discussed anywhere on the net.
G-punkt exists of course, which works quite ok as some kind of notice board, but it is really not good for longer disussions and isn’t used for that. I think an open forum in English, moderated when needed, concerning discussion around Nordic friform and lajv might be successful. Such a place would also offer some kind of interface towards scenes outside of the Noridc countries. What do you think of this?
The responses I expect is a tired: “it’s impossible because of [insert obvious flaw here]” or even more likely “We have tried, but noone cares.” Or maybe there is such a forum on one of the big Danish or Norwegian lajv-portals, that I’m not aware of.
About the discussion here about freeform I have all and nothing to say. A lot of things on my mmind, but it would be long as infinity, so I skip right now.
On thing, though. Jonas Barkå said: “This type of meta discussion between players ruin the immersion, which is one of the main qualities of freeform play for me.”
I also like that kind of non-interrupted immersive play. But there are also a lot of other style of play that fit good with friform. I will actually leave the computer real soon, stop using my grandmothers telephone line and write some lines about that. My point is anyway that I think there is a big difference between the interruptions and common low intensive playing in trad table top and the interrupted friform play which all the time keep focus on the game events, but not neccessarily the same perspective.
(I'm not sure this last paragraph made sense, I will atleast talk more with Barkå about this. See you on LinCon.)
I get you and it makes sense. Immersion isn't everything. But I still think you (when designing a scenario) should considered why these non-immersive techniques are used, what you gain by using them and what you loose. My personal preferance is starting with immersive techniques and only replace them where there is a specific point in doing it.
“But I still think you (when designing a scenario) should considered why these non-immersive techniques are used, what you gain by using them and what you loose.”
You should be clear with the goals of the scenario and which playing style you are after. But I don't understand why at all you should always striver after immersion.
I more and more feel like we should discuss 'styles of play' instead of immersion. Immersion isn't a style of play. It's something that some people feel using certain kinds of play. I like that kind of play very much, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason as you.