Lee Short ([info]losrpg) wrote,
@ 2005-11-30 21:47:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
On Freeform Play, Part the First
In this thread on John Kim's LJ, Mark W raises this question about freeform play in general and ADRPG in particular:

the case, there's _something_ going on that makes play work. It clearly isn't anything about the publicly acknowledged rules. Unless you can give me a better explanation, I'm going to believe that it's a culture.

When you're saying "it's a culture" here, I think you really mean something like "it's because each of the players is mentored by an experienced player," because otherwise it has no relevance to the topics in the parent thread [newcomers may wish to view that thread to understand this]. Saying that "it's a culture" doesn't really answer any of the important questions, because "the culture" includes so many things (including the rulebook). Certainly ADRPG is a culture. But Ultimate Frisbee and Rockclimbing are cultures too, and those cultures can't produce satisfying freeform RPG play. So the questions we have to answer are: what are the elements of ADRPG culture that allow it to produce satisfying freeform RPG play, are they unique to that culture, and how can we communicate them?

It's clearly the case that the ADRP rulebook has none of these answers, and that a good guidebook for freeform games would have them. The ADRP rulebook consists of X pages of solid advice on how to create a character sheet for a freeform Amber game, Y pages of NPC background, and Z pages of haphazard "how to GM like I do" advice -- none of which answers these questions.

Your answer to those questions appears to be "because each new player is trained in by experienced ADRP players." I disagree with this. When white-box D&D came out, new players somehow figured out how to get functional play out of it, or the hobby would be dead today. The only thing that white box D&D had that ADRPG lacks is a functional combat system. That combat system doesn't address any of the issues you've raised here: those holes existed in OD&D, too.

When I got my white box OD&D in junior high, there was literally not a single other person in our junior high who played the game. There was no one to mentor us, but somehow we figured it out with the two kids from down the street. We loved it; we played so much our mom was sure our grades would suffer.

I've got a bunch more to say, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.



(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2005-12-01 07:30 pm UTC (link)
That's exactly the analogy I'm making, actually. Are you familiar with Ron's "A Hard Look at Dungeons & Dragons" and the discussions that led up to it?

Amber fandom went through exactly the same process as early fantasy roleplaying - given a tool, with only the vaguest possible idea of how to make it useful, but with an intense desire to do so and a clear vision of what the end product should be like, individual groups made it up as they went along. As these groups encountered each other, their individual solutions to the "how can we make this work" problem conflicted, merged, and redivided.

There is some explicit mentoring that takes place in groups with culturally-mediated rules. What is more important in most such groups is a subtle process of learning through reward and punishment. Play that conforms to expectations is rewarded. Play which is incorrect is discouraged. Players who can learn to conform stick around. Players who either cannot learn to conform or decide not to do so fall away.

This is not to say that such a group is in lockstep. There may be local variations. An especially convincing, functional, or charismatic deviant may even accrete a subculture around him/herself.

We do not learn our own culture because some individual sat us down and explained it to us. We learn it because we go through a constant process of seeking acceptance and praise from others while avoiding conflict and censure. RPGs are no different.

Mark W

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]losrpg
2005-12-02 06:27 pm UTC (link)
OK, then -- there were tens of thousands of people who made functional games out of OD&D. A significant percentage of those who tried it. These tended to be people with
-- flexible gaming tastes and willingness to compromise
-- ability to unambiguously communicate what they wanted from a game
-- the ability to negotiate a workable set of unwritten rules

These same people are the people who can make freeform gaming work. They also tend to be the type of people who are attracted to it -- making a successful game all the more likely if everyone in the game fits this profile. They don't need rules to help them make a functional game. Given that, there is no reason why they should be willing to trade off the great flexibility of the freeform approach for a better chance at a functional game that inflexible rules would give them.

You don't have flexible gaming tastes. You are not willing to compromise in that area. Given that, it makes sense for you to want rules that define a very specific game. But there are many people for whom that tradeoff does not make sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]losrpg
2005-12-02 09:47 pm UTC (link)
That should be "they don't need written rules to help them make a functional game".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…