Why Freeform?
"If life doesn't offer a game worth playing, then invent a new one."--Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book
Introduction
What is freeform?
If you're familiar with roleplaying games (RPGs; tabletop, not computer), you've probably played a session of AD&D or d20 or GURPS or who knows what. If you're a dedicated gamer, you have a healthy collection of polyhedra--er, dice.
Most of you have probably roleplayed using a system. (See my RPG reviews for a short, noncomprehensive list of examples.) To understand freeform roleplaying, you first have to understand something about RPG systems.
RPG Systems
How do all these systems differ? Let's look at some trends:
One broad category of RPGs is the class-based system. A well-known example is Dungeons & Dragons (in whatever flavor). Why class-based? Because players pick a class, e.g. fighter, ranger, illusionist, etc., which determines what sorts of penalties they get in certain situations, how fast they advance in "level" (the higher the level, the more abilities and the more powerful), how many U"hit points" (a measure of "health"), how many attacks in a given time interval, how many spells a day, whatever. Only those occupations desirable to play have corresponding classes. It's rare to find a "bartender" class.
Classes are convenient because they define what your character can and can't do, and what other characters of a given class can and can't do. They're also a pain to adapt to custom settings: suppose "clerics" can only use bludgeoning weapons but the GM (gamemaster) has set up a culture where none are you. (GM, DM, Storyguide, whatever.) What then? Well, the GM can modify the classes to fit her world. That's a pain, especially if the players are less familiar with her world. Sometimes class restrictions don't make sense for a given campaign, or exist only for "play balance" (e.g. so characters of the same "level" are equally dangerous in combat). Sometimes they're limiting to a creative player who is capable of thinking up good reasons for his particular "cleric" to use a sword. This is why many GMs use "house rules" to make life easier on themselves and the players.
How do class-based systems differ from each other, mechanics-wise? Most obviously, they may have different classes. "Ranger" may be its own class in some systems; in others you may have to settle for a general "fighter" or "warrior." Even when classes have the same name, they may have different associated abilities and restrictions. Different actions may award "experience." You can tell a system is oriented toward dungeon hack (walking around through labyrinthine and frequently ecologically dysfunctional dungeons so you can kill bad guys and take their loot) when experience is mainly awarded for killing things or getting loot. Other systems may award experience for "in-class" actions, like picking locks for a thief or singing songs for a minstrel. When you accumulate enough of these points, you advance in level. Many systems, not just class-based, award points for good roleplaying (your minstrel won't abandon her beloved lute even when faced by lots of bad guys) or doing the GM favors (character portraits, journal entries, short stories set in the campaign, etc.).
Another type of system is the skill-based system. Examples include GURPS and 7th Sea. Here, you take abilities individually instead of getting a less flexible package deal (so to speak). Many skill-based systems are also point-based. This means that you start with a number of points (up to the GM) and use these to purchase skills. In some systems you can also purchase "advantages" (inborn traits, rather than things you learn) and take "disadvantages" to get more points (usually there's a limit on this).
This is less convenient for the newbie player unless the system comes with a variety of pregenerated characters or archetypes. Its other drawback is that some players are tempted by munchkinism (playing powerful characters for the sake of power, not for the sake of roleplaying interesting characters in interesting situations) or min-maxing (figuring out what skills/advantages are most useful, figuring out which disadvantages are least disabling for their point value, and coming up with a powerful character based on this knowledge). These are not altogether bad impulses--you don't want your character to be utterly helpless--but they can be taken to extremes. Much of this can be ameliorated by thoughtful GMing, especially if the GM is good at playing on a character's non-fatal weaknesses to create interesting scenarios.
On the positive side, players have more flexibility, and you see a less arbitrary division of people's professions/abilities. Once again, house rules may appear because the GM revises point costs to what she feels is reasonable, or adds (or deletes) skills and dis/advantages.
Point-based systems vary in the skills and dis/advantages offered. They also vary in how certain disadvantages can be "bought off" (obviated), if at all, or added (usually through roleplaying, which means no points for them); how new advantages can be bought, if at all; and in how new skills can be learned or old skills improved. Generally "training" or "practice" plus some number of "experience points" are required.
We can also discuss dice-based systems (almost everything) vs. diceless systems (e.g. Amber Diceless, Enemy Gods). To decide whether or not a character succeeds, most systems use dice and their own mechanics (e.g. to-hit rolls in d20, making raises in Legend of the Five Rings). Most mechanics have to be learned on a case by case basis, although the general principle is that the better yo uare at something, the higher probability you ahve of rolling a number that says you succeed. Diceless systems are rarer and usually rely on some other means, whether it be Tarot cards or relative rankings.
Dice-based systems require that someone in your roleplaying group (the GM at minimum!) know how the mechanics work. (Newbies can get away with having other people tell them how many dice of what type to roll. I've done this myself.) They may be prone, at worst, to rules-lawyering or arguments over how exactly you should roll to find out if Tharg the Brute can use his master's cloak to hangglide over a fire. Dice can give ridiculous results if the GM follows them strictly; this is one reason for GMs to hide their rolls behind a "GM screen" (which may be as simple as an upright folder). However, they also relieve the burden of decision from the GM and make players feel that the results are more fair. Diceless systems require more work on the GM's part, as well as player flexibility. "I roll to attack" just doesn't cut it in a diceless system.
Note: Some people classify live-action roleplaying (LARPs) as another level of RPG. I've never personally LARPed, so I won't attempt to cover it here.
Freeform Roleplaying
At last we can define freeform: it's a style of roleplaying that's in some ways closer to the original "make-believe." There is no system other than common sense and the imagination of both players and GM--if there even is a GM. Especially in PBEM (play-by-email) or MUD (multi-user dungeon) campaigns, there may be no GM per se, just a few people to make sure people get along and don't violate the world's basic premises.
Wait a second, you may say. How's that possible.
Simple. Have you ever read an sf/f (science fiction, fantasy, or science fantasy) novel? One that isn't a media or RPG tie-in?
Writers make up worlds and moderate the "rules of the game" without dice or artificial mechanics all the time. In the writer's case, the constraints aren't whether you can roll 110 on percentile dice (I'm kidding!), but whether the actions make sense, advance the story, and keep the reader's interest.
Running or playing in a freeform campaign isn't exactly parallel to the writer's situation. The writer is one person controlling everything in the world. In your typical campaign, you'll at least have individual players who control themselves and maybe some other minor characters; and possibly a GM (or several) controlling everything else and mediating between the players if necessary. Campaigns aren't played for "publication"; they're played so everyone has fun. (Ideally. If you're not having fun, join another campaign.)
Disadvantages of freeform: It requires mature players and (GMs), in the sense of people able to handle creative freedom without going out of control. Some players will run rampant and try ot overwhelm everyone else with their characters' godliness. That isn't to imply that all mature players enjoy freeform. Some people are simply not happy with the lack of structure. That's fine, too. I happen to enjoy freeform because I was a writer before I was a roleplayer. I also suspect that the unstructured nature of freeform is better suited for more socially-oriented campaigns than combat-oriented ones, although I'd love to hear of examples either way.
Advantages of freeform: Freedom! If the players (and GMs) can handle it, you can get away with things that RPG systems don't allow or make difficult (although a good metasystem like HERO can come close). IT's also closer to "storytelling" as the writer conceives it, only more people are involved, allowing for cross-fertilization of ideas and actions. If you're playing for realism or plausibility, it can prevent crass stupidity due to rules.
Not convinced? If you're interested in a less extreme version, try Over the Edge, which is a dice- and skill-based system with a freeform flavor. (The setting notes are detailed, but the system itself is independent of the setting.) For examples of PBEMs, you may want to look at my old campaign The Black Wall, which had a 2nd ed. AD&D base but was run freeform; or a joint PBEM formerly run by Alioqui and myself, Shazrad: City of Veils, which was "pure" freeform. If you look around, you can find other examples. I just happen to be familiar with those two.
* * *