Quote from: TonyLBFate's a damn fine system.

Acutally, I belive that Fate and especially Involuntary Aspect Invocation is problematic to say the least. Let's look at it the way I have to say, I have witnessed more than once.

You have some characteristics of you character (aspects), that describe your behavior, demeanour, habits or whatever. That's what you are.

Now than... there is a situation, where you are tempted to behave as your characteristics says you would behave right. Even if it is dangerous or such. So you either

a) behave as you have defined you character to do so... (and you face negative consequences) and nothing really good goes for you.

or

b) you do exactly the opposite that your character definition says. And that gives you GM great and generous option to actually bribe you with negative aspect invocation and fate points.

So you are a coward. Your friends are attacked. And you flee... later you are no longer friends. Wow, great story.

Or. You are a coward. Your friends are attacked. And you are going to help them! Oh. Wait. GM - you are coward remember. Here, take a FP and flee. (scene of bribery). So you flee. And you have your FPs. Great. Now, you can say... My GM make me do it, right?

Fate IMO is actually supporting anti-roleplaying, or conditioned roleplaying, based on the flow of FP. Sorry to say that. I also thought it is a great game at first. But learned the truth the hard way...

Quote from: Kyle AaronHow does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Man, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about any more.

Are you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

If that's not it ... I mean ... dude, explain.  Give a fictional example or something.  Let's ground this in specifics.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHow does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Because some players think some decisions should be up to the GM? Because as a player I want to feel a sense of verisimilitude in the game, that my character lives in a real world which kicks back at him, and part of that means that his opponents can turn up unexpectedly and surprise me and my character? Because in some games the players can make choices about some things, and the GM can make decisions about some things, and that's all cool? Because having a Hated Enemy turn up under GM fiat in no way undermines a PCs' control of his character?

(Also, I think you are playing up the choice element of FATE too much. It would be a genuine choice if nixing the GM's invocation of your Aspects were free, but it isn't: if you run out of Fate points you can't do it, and if you're worried about running out of Fate points you're less likely to do it. If you've got a carrot on one side and a stick on the other, the choice element is undermined.)

Quote from: TonyLBMan, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about any more.

Are you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

If that's not it ... I mean ... dude, explain.  Give a fictional example or something.  Let's ground this in specifics.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, lots of games have lists of disadvantages that look like this:

DISADVANTAGES
Being Followed
Blackmailed
Code of Honour
Hated Enemy
Obsessive Behaviour
Painfully Honest
Sadistic
Secret Master
Thick As a Brick
Visions
...

And they all work near-identically game mechanically: whether they are GM or PC-initiated is irrelevant. (In the case of the sort of reward system I was talking about in the OP, you get XP whenever the disadvantage causes your character problems.)

What I'm saying there'd be a lot of benefit in splitting the list as follows:

PLAYER-INVOKED DISADVANTAGES
Code of Honour
Obsessive Behaviour
Painfully Honest
Sadistic
Thick As a Brick

GM-INVOKED DISADVANTAGES
Being Followed
Blackmailed
Hated Enemy
Secret Master
Visions

and perhaps having them work differently on a mechanical level.

Quote from: WarthurI see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages:

Jesus, that's easy!  Player-activated "disadvantages" aren't real disadvantages at all; because the player decides when they affect him and when they don't.

This means the player will make use of these disadvantages whenever he can to get extra xp but only in situations where he doesn't believe it will really get in the way of his goals or fuck up his chances of succeeding at what he wants. On the other hand, when things are really serious, he'll NEVER activate the disadvantage, even if it would make total sense for it to happen, because the extra xp isn't worth failing for.

Any disadvantage the DM can't throw at you when he thinks it should happen isn't a disadvantage at all, its just another xp-generating tool for the player (unless of course its one of those "permanent" disadvantages that are always on).

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBAre you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

Here, let me clarify for you: Let's say in Pendragon you've got an Honesty of 14.. that's not a disadvantage at all, just a measure of one of your character's traits. 14 in the game isn't strong enough to force you to do anything, its up to you (the PC) when you choose to be honest or not. So you couldn't exactly call that a disadvantage, could you.

Now, if your Honest trait is 16 or higher, any time you try to lie, the GM can make you roll an Honesty check in order to even be able to lie. That's a real disadvantage, because you can't just use it when its convenient to you and then lie like a dog when its not.  You gain extra xp (glory) for it, but it can really screw you up sometimes when it would be more convenient for you to lie.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHere, let me clarify for you: Let's say in Pendragon ...

Pendragon's a hella cool game ... but it's not what Warthur is talking about here.  Pendragon being cool does not mean that this different concept must be uncool just because it isn't Pendragon.

Quote from: TonyLBPendragon's a hella cool game ... but it's not what Warthur is talking about here.  Pendragon being cool does not mean that this different concept must be uncool just because it isn't Pendragon.

Except that what he's describing is actually quite similar to the mechanics of such disadvantages in games like GURPS.

His comments are both quite on point, and I happen to kind of agree on the first one.

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept that what he's describing is actually quite similar to the mechanics of such disadvantages in games like GURPS.

Well ... GURPS is a cool game too ... but it's not one where players are rewarded for the act of bringing their disadvantages into play, right?

I mean ... if his whole point is that the word "disadvantage" isn't as good as (say) "restriction" or "trope" or some other thing ... okay.  Sure.  Granted.  But I hope that (by now) we're clear on what Warthur is talking about, right?  So what's the relevance of systems like Pendragon and GURPS, that are something else entirely?

Quote from: RPGPunditAny disadvantage the DM can't throw at you when he thinks it should happen isn't a disadvantage at all, its just another xp-generating tool for the player

:idunno:  Okay.  You don't like the term "disadvantage" ... it's just some negative aspect of your character that comes up frequently in play.  Call it what you want.  They're still a very useful tool for encouraging flawed characters in a way different from other disad systems.  Different, useful, cool.

Is there some disagreement on that?  It looks like maybe you think that these kind of player-invoked aspects are ... I dunno ... suspect or wrong-headed or something.  If so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning ... what's wrong with 'em?

Quote from: TonyLB:idunno:  Okay.  You don't like the term "disadvantage" ... it's just some negative aspect of your character that comes up frequently in play.  Call it what you want.  They're still a very useful tool for encouraging flawed characters in a way different from other disad systems.  Different, useful, cool.

Is there some disagreement on that?  It looks like maybe you think that these kind of player-invoked aspects are ... I dunno ... suspect or wrong-headed or something.  If so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning ... what's wrong with 'em?

What's wrong with them is that they're useless. Its giving people extra points for character building or extra xp when they annoyingly act out their disadvantages at their leisure, but in a way that doesn't end up impacting the game at all, because a player won't fuck up his chances of succeeding at anything ACTUALLY IMPORTANT.  So a character listed as "compulsively honest" but left the choice of when he does it will be brutally honest whenever it gets him extra XP with no real cost associated with it, but when it comes to lying to the evil overlord to save his ass or blow up the death star or whatever, he'll lie like a dog with no consequence. So its giving players free stuff open to abuse.

And of course, you might say that "well, some players will be responsible and will use their disadvantages in REALLY disadvantageous situations where it will matter".  That only makes things worse though, because it means certain players, the ones who are doing the right thing, will be punished for their willingness to do so, while others who are only abusing the mechanic will still conveniently ignore activating their disadvantage, creating a situation where the better gamers are being punished and the poorer players rewarded.
Likewise, a really good player who chooses a disadvantage and would be the kind of player to activate that disadvantage in a crucial moment really can't have any complaint about the GM having the power to activate it, could he? Not if he would activate it himself anyways.  
So the only ones out there who whine and protest the idea of the GM being able to force you to actually have to suffer from that disadvantage you've been abusingly gaining xp from are the craptastic players who want free xp and not having to work for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo a character listed as "compulsively honest" but left the choice of when he does it will be brutally honest whenever it gets him extra XP with no real cost associated with it, but when it comes to lying to the evil overlord to save his ass or blow up the death star or whatever, he'll lie like a dog with no consequence.

The simplest solution: the disadvantage is only worth anything whenever it puts the character at risk or otherwise seriously inconveniences him, since at other times it is no disadvantage at all. Telling the truth to the overlord when the consequences will be grievous? Now, that would earn the points. Telling all about your shopping preferences to a market researcher on the phone...? Nah.

Quote from: GrimGentThe simplest solution: the disadvantage is only worth anything whenever it puts the character at risk or otherwise seriously inconveniences him, since at other times it is no disadvantage at all.

I've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

In my experience, players absolutely relish the opportunity to tell the truth to the evil overlord, and get into a whole bunch of trouble.  The fact that they could make just as many XPs doing 5 little truths over two sessions doesn't mean squat.  The five-point payoff is the brass ring that's been hanging in front of them, and they grab for it without hesitation.

So for at least some players, these kinds of systems can lead to them making their disadvantages into huge, earth-shaking things.

And for those groups, the insight that some of these Keys are more heavily in the hands of the player and some of them are more heavily in the hands of the GM is worth investigating.

Quote from: TonyLBI've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

The Restrictions in Nobilis work in a similar fashion, although they yield miracle points rather than bonus XP. Suppose that your character "cannot cross running water". If he's out on a casual evening walk along a riverbank and would like to get to the other side, that's worth exactly nil points. If he's chasing someone who then escapes across the river, that's worth one point. And if he's been cornered by lethal enemies into a bend in the river, that's worth two points.

It's also worth noting that a player may ask the GM to bring one of his character's Restrictions into play so that he can regain MPs, by the way. Of course, if he happens to be in the middle of a desert and has no other disads except that he cannot cross running water, that's not going to help much. In fact, a villain who learns about this personal problem might even lure the PC to an endless desert precisely so that he wouldn't have trouble with it...

Quote from: RPGPunditThis means the player will make use of these disadvantages whenever he can to get extra xp but only in situations where he doesn't believe it will really get in the way of his goals or fuck up his chances of succeeding at what he wants. On the other hand, when things are really serious, he'll NEVER activate the disadvantage, even if it would make total sense for it to happen, because the extra xp isn't worth failing for.

This is true. In my experience while players in games with player-activated disadvantages (including me) will happily cause a lot of in-game trouble and strife in the name of their disadvantage, if it's going to threaten something that they actually OOC want for their character to achieve they're likely to pull their punches.

That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with personality traits - positive or negative - acting as "XP generators" (so long as you can only get XP from them a certain number of times per session). It's a nice, tangible thing to point at and say "I deserve XP, because I made the game more interesting with this trait".