In the past few years, there has been a proliferation of "freeform" or "rules-light" roleplaying games such as FUDGE, The Window, and (arguably) White Wolfs World of Darkness games. One thing many of these games and the players who play them seem to share is the idea that freeform games are the next step in the evolution of RPGs. Games like Dungeons and Dragons, Earthdawn, and GURPS, which have rules that cover a large variety of situations in which characters may find themselves, are disparaged as being cumbersome and inimical to creativity. In this article, I want to examine some of the ideas presented in these "third generation" RPGs and offer my views in response.

First, let us note the rules-light idea that telling a good story is the primary purpose of role-playing. "A good story is the central goal" is one of the three precepts of The Window (see The Window, p. 9, a link is listed below).

One objection raised by many freeform games and gamers is that rules get in the way of story and creativity. "Rules are a necessary evil in roleplaying," states The Window (The Window, p. 7). Thus in many of these games, character attributes are described with adjectives rather than numbers and the rules are left intentionally sparse so that the focus of the game is on the flow of the story. Adherents to freeform games complain that more traditional games focus too much on combat and equipment and lack too much in the way of artistic depth, mood, and characterization. Game balance should be a function of proper characterization instead of being reigned by rigid rule-sets. These players object to mathematical computations and simple arithmetic as being cumbersome and distracting.

As a corollary, dice and dice rolling are also considered distasteful. Freeform players say things like "roleplaying is about story and character and not about dice and [expletive removed] waving" (The Window, p. 3), and "only through destroying my dice can I discover the greater power of my spirit" (RPGevolution, vol. 1, issue 1, p. 40).

All these things are fine. Roleplaying this style of game could and would be enjoyable. What I object to is the superior, elitist manner in which freeform gamers present their style of play. Rules-light games are touted as more mature, more advanced, and more highly evolved than other forms of roleplaying. If a player does not play freeform games, then he is not a real roleplayer. "Freeform is a natural part of my evolution" (RPGevolution, vol. 1, issue 1, p.40). Nonsense. What you prefer is your opinion, and no one should be ridiculed for having a differing view. One might be able to call freeform games "the next step in the evolution of gaming", if freeforms were better in every way than more traditional RPGs. The rest of this article will illuminate some of the tradeoffs between rules-light systems and more well-defined games.

First, let us look at the central purpose of roleplaying games. The central goal of any form of entertainment should be for the participants to have fun. When story becomes more important to the GM than the fun of the players, then something has gone seriously wrong with the game! That having been said, we must also recognize that a good story is often one of the best means to having fun; but if your group happens to prefer simple hack-and-slash to intricate story lines, then entertain them with plenty of combat.

Many of the objections debated by freeform players boil down to gripes about the tastes of GMs and players. Just because D&D has an equipment list does not mean that the whole game revolves around what items the characters own. The tendency of players to define their characters by the gear they carry is just that: a tendency of the players. Omitting an equipment list for a game setting will not alter the players predilection to focus on possessions. Likewise, abstract combat rules will not remove the desire of some players to have a combat-oriented game. To insinuate that players who prefer such things are immature is the equivalent of saying "Pepsi-drinkers lack common sense".

Munchkins are munchkins. Freeform players seem to think that complicated game rules make abusive players, but I do not agree. A munchkin playing a freeform RPG is going to be even more abusive of the rules than he might be in a more rigid game because the rules are so vague. Rules that balance characters are important for keeping abusive players in check, and they can save an inexperienced or easy-going DMs game from being overrun by +9 ogre-slaying knives and dual-weapon wielding elven fighter/mages. As the game master, one often strives for realism to provide "suspension of disbelief"; unfortunately, many players labor under no such convictions. Game balance rules exist because of munchkins, not the other way around.

One of the major fundamental problems with every rules-light system I have ever seen is the inherent "graininess" of the system. Reliance on ranked adjectives to describe the skill-level of a character (or how strong he is, how smart, etc.) is by necessity very discrete and closed. With adjectives, a game may have maybe 5-10 ranks of competency, and there can only be a few adjectives. (For example: Great is better than Good, which is better than Average, which in turn is better than Bad. There are no ranks higher than Excellent. Also, Bob the Great Swordsman always has the same skill level as every other Great Swordsman. He cannot be slightly better than his rival Phil, who is also a Great Swordsman. He might become an Excellent Swordsman, but that would be much better than Great, not slightly better.) Using numbers to describe a characters abilities allows for a finer gradation of skill levels without becoming cumbersome. This ability progression can also become open-ended, placing no upper limit on how good a character can become, given enough time and resources. (Contrasting with the above example, Bob could be a +9 Swordsman, which is slightly better than Phils +8 skill. If Bob lived 500 years (did I mention Bob was an elf?) he might be able to acquire enough experience to become a +20 Swordsman, or +30, or +100.) Not every setting will work well with this kind of open-ended progression, but many heroic and super-heroic genres can benefit from it. How would you like to define and rank 20, 30, or 100 adjectives to describe skills with this kind of resolution in a freeform?

I get the idea that freeform gamers are predominately right-brained individuals who flunked out of math in high school. Fine. But we all must realize that some gamers thrive on mathematics in real life and have no problem with computations and formulae as part of the gaming experience. Do not assume that either preference is somehow superior.

Scaling also becomes a problem for freeform systems. How does one compare elephants with humans? Do elephants always have Excellent strength, or do elephants have their own scale for strength, meaning that an individual elephant can be Weak compared to the elephant standard? In the case of the last option, how does the elephant scale match up to the human scale? I have yet to see a rules-light, adjective-based system that can answer these kind of questions without becoming more cumbersome or less realistic than a numerical system.

Grainy, closed systems, including most freeform games, often have problems with one of the original concepts of RPGs: character advancement. If there are only a few ranks attainable, there are only a few, potentially unattractive choices available to deal with experience: 1) Start player characters at below average ability, allowing room for advancement. 2) Start players out at average or above average ability, but make further advancement very difficult and expensive. 3) Ignore advancement altogether. Imaginations Toybox seems to prefer the latter 2 options:

"Characters shouldnt be viewed as pages of numbers, and the goal shouldnt be to get bigger numbers and more powers. Most serial charactersthose in a series of films, or on a TV series, in novel series, or in comic booksdont gain new powers and abilities from one story to the next." (Imaginations Toybox, p. 5)

This quote brings up another point. Roleplaying may be an art form, and although similar, it is certainly not the same thing as film, literature, or even storytelling. Why should roleplaying be forced to emulate any of these forms? Roleplaying has its own infinite realm of possibilities. If you want to play a part and exclude as much randomness as possible, join a community theater. Give me a fistful of dice! If you want interesting dialogue, dramatic descriptions, and exciting conclusions, read a book. Give me a little confusion, slightly flat characterization, and free will over the fate of my character!

In conclusion, I say we should keep the best of both types of system and avoid preaching one opinion over another. Roleplaying should be about fun. Roleplaying is what you, the player, make of it. Let us take the good stories and character-centered focus of freeform systems and merge them with the heroic flavor and structure of more traditional systems. The result will be better than either extreme.

Net-Bibliography
I picked my quotes from games and magazines that are freely available online.

The Window (Scott Lininger)
www.mimgames.com/window

Imaginations Toolbox (Berin Kinsman)
www.unclebear.com

RPGevolution (quotes taken from the Dice Club article by Jared Sorenson)
rpgevolution.com