Is there some advantage or sense to having explicit rules that codify the way players can creatively come up with things that give them advantages, tactically or otherwise. But without having an extensive metagame that could threaten to overshadow the actual roleplaying.

Let's see.

Some players just want the system to provide a combat engine and feel comfortable to simply negotiate the rest with the GM and the group.

Some players want the system to reflect the character's ordinary skills as well. This is because they would rather have a clear idea of what their character's specifc abilites can bring to the game without having to establish this by negotiation with the GM and the group each time.

Some players want the system to reflect the more instrinsic qualities of the character like their motiviations, moral qualities and background. This is because they would rather have a clear idea of what their character's "aspects" can bring to the game without having to establish this by negotiation with the GM and the group each time.

The point about Aspects is that they are dramatic and not naturalistic. Rather than trying to acurately, mathematically model a human being, Aspects are designed to work simulate the way fictional characters work. To take a rather loaded example, Batman does not succeed because he is super athletic and has tons of gadgets. He succeeds because of his obsessive determination. That is what allows him to punch way above his weight and that is what meta-game resources allow you to do.

There is nothing new about this, oldies like Star Wars D6 and Marvel Super Heroes had this kind of meta-game mechanics, though FATE Aspects allow you to tailor these resources so they are more specific to your character so they are not just a resource to spend but are descriptive of who your character is. Bear in mind that FATE dispenses with the old fixed Attributes (the old Strength, Dexterity, etc) so the Aspects serve to capture that element too.

Does this overshadow roleplaying? I don't see that. If anything Aspects hep you to play your character true to the character concept removing that disconnect between what you think your character is and what actually happens in play.

Is open to abuse? Sure, but that could be said of all manner of other systems. Your game is only ever going to be as good as it's players regardless.

There is no one way of roleplaying. I know it's obvious, but it is stil worth saying. Some people simply don't like meta-game mechanics and never will.  It doesn't make them better or worse roleplayers, it's just a matter of taste.

I think there's a difference between Fate point type things such as you refer to and what I'm getting at with Aspects. The former have been with rpg's for many years now and work, generally fairly well, for reasons you mention. In Buffy for example they balance the Slayer with the rest of the White Hats.

What I'm trying to get at, and struggling with (which is partly why I post), is the notion of what are now commonly known as Aspects (Thanks to the ubiquity of Fate I guess). By that I mean elements that can be created or utilised primarily to change the environment or the conflict (ie the characters) through hitherto unforeseen and unknown elements and knwoeldges. For instance, spending a point to decide the Villain is 'vain' and thus use that against him. Or to try and manipulate the environment so that the fight against the Great Big Dragon is made easier (perhaps the grate he's standing on is loose). This seems to me what Aspects are about - as opposed to some fortune point system that simply gets you a reroll or some extra dice when things go strange.

I think it still related.

Strictly speaking someone like Spiderman could never beat someone like the Hulk, but of course stuff like that happens all the time in the comics. This is usually due to one-off flukes or environmental circumstances, for instance Spiderman tricks the Hulk into crashing into the truck full of liquid nitrogen.

If you are using something like Karma in MSH there are two ways you could do this. In one instance the Spiderman player spends tons of Karma to defeat the Hulk in a straight up fight. In the other instance the Spiderman player also spends a ton of Karma to defeat the Hulk, but he explains the Karma by introducing truck filled with liquid nitrogen.

Mechanically the two approaches have the same effect, but the later allows the player to express more precisely their own character's style and methods – in my book that counts as good roleplaying.

Of course there are other ways of doing it. You can have the player just use Karma mechanically and leave it to the GM to explain the results. In more tactical sort of game, the GM would include the truck filled with liquid nitrogen in the scenes initial description and leave it to the players to pick up on the clue or not. It's all good.

Note however that the player introducing the truck filled liquid nitrogen for dramatic purposes should not then expect the quantify the additional damage due to liquid nitrogen for simulation purposes should not be allowed; that is effectively double counting and mixing metaphors.

Soylant has it I think--aspects are a way to add a method to the madness of "why" you get a bonus, and not just spend points and get it. It's a more codified system which can be good or bad.

I can see people using it in character. "I pick up the manhole cover and use it as a shield!" (tag aspect: "Shield" of the manhole cover.)

I can see people using it OOC too, but that's not necessarily any worse than any other "I spend points for X" method of play.

Quote from: Soylent Green;371839I think it still related.

Strictly speaking someone like Spiderman could never beat someone like the Hulk, but of course stuff like that happens all the time in the comics. This is usually due to one-off flukes or environmental circumstances, for instance Spiderman tricks the Hulk into crashing into the truck full of liquid nitrogen.

If you are using something like Karma in MSH there are two ways you could do this. In one instance the Spiderman player spends tons of Karma to defeat the Hulk in a straight up fight. In the other instance the Spiderman player also spends a ton of Karma to defeat the Hulk, but he explains the Karma by introducing truck filled with liquid nitrogen. So the ante just gets upped all the time. The scene gets gradually cluttered.

besdies once an aspect is added; it's there. You can't undo the appearance or revelation of a truck full of explosive chemicals once the player has purchased it.

Mechanically the two approaches have the same effect, but the later allows the player to express more precisely their own character’s style and methods – in my book that counts as good roleplaying.

Of course there are other ways of doing it. You can have the player just use Karma mechanically and leave it to the GM to explain the results. In more tactical sort of game, the GM would include the truck filled with liquid nitrogen in the scenes initial description and leave it to the players to pick up on the clue or not. It’s all good.

Note however that the player introducing the truck filled liquid nitrogen for dramatic purposes should not then expect the quantify the additional damage due to liquid nitrogen for simulation purposes should not be allowed; that is effectively double counting and mixing metaphors.

But if the GM doesn't include a truck filled with nitrogen in the scene (and not out of forgetfulness) - and it's plausible to be ther - then is a system that lets players spend points or whatever to introduce the previously unseen truck a good idea? Feng Shui was the first game to do this by saying, for example, that it was reasonable for players to happen across props that could plausibly be there, such as a baseball bat tucked behind the bar that no one knew about before.

If a system of points is the fuel for this, then how do people stop players from munckining said system. What's to stop them hoarding points to blitz bad guys in a way that spoils the atmosphere by unloading a bazillion aspects on them. If the player has the points then why shouldn't he?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371846But if the GM doesn't include a truck filled with nitrogen in the scene (and not out of forgetfulness) - and it's plausible to be ther - then is a system that lets players spend points or whatever to introduce the previously unseen truck a good idea? Feng Shui was the first game to do this by saying, for example, that it was reasonable for players to happen across props that could plausibly be there, such as a baseball bat tucked behind the bar that no one knew about before.

If a system of points is the fuel for this, then how do people stop players from munckining said system. What's to stop them hoarding points to blitz bad guys in a way that spoils the atmosphere by unloading a bazillion aspects on them. If the player has the points then why shouldn't he?

Two different issues one of game balance and one more general about atmosphere and immersion.

In game balance terms, if you have a set of players that are determined to extract the maximum tactical advantage from the system you are better off with a much more formal and rigid system like D20 or GURPS.  That is a perfectly legit way of playing. Even so most games I've seen that give players meta game resources said resources are carefully costed and/or have to be earned. So in the end of the players decide to hoard their resources for the final boss, well that's their choice.  They paid for this priviledge by sucking earlier in the adventure. And in any event it's if that is how they want to  play their characters that how they want to play their characters.

The more interesting question is what does spending a point to find a baseball bat behind the bar do to the atmosphere of the game. I think that will vary between group and group.

There are groups in which there really is ever the one guy who GMs and who tends to be well prepared (or at least gives that impression) and players who don't have much if any GMing experience themselves. In those instance it can pay off to to keep the illusion fo the game as seemless as possible and try to keep the strins hidden away.

On the other hand there are groups in which the GMvaries, the current GM is given to winging it and the players (who are equally experienced GMs in their own right) know it. It those instances there is little point being coy about what happens behind the GM screen. In those instances it can pay to have a system that allows everyone's creativity to be fully harnessed.

And of course there is all sorts of combinations in the middle.

BTW, good conversation!

Thanks.

In Feng Shui, there is no point expenditure. There are no aspects or associated terminology. IIRC there is no fate point/luck point mechanism of any kind. The players are free to invent elements that didn't exist in previous descriptions so long as they are not destructive to the immersion (or the GM's sensibilities).

As long as these systems are fuelled by points or something similar they are always going to be open to 'tactical usage'. That would be the game part of the rpg equation!

For the system I am working on, the consideration of which led to this thread, I would like to have players enjoy that degree of reasonable narrative control. I think it's essential to the enjoymebnt of gaming. But how to do it? I know that if I tried to persuade players I have had experience of, they would get lost in the terminology (and perhaps the metagame) of tagging and aspects. Then you force that king of narrative creativity - the baseball bat previously hidden behind the bar that no one knew about - to be limited to the rules that control them.

Therefore you need some way to codify how this kind of creativity can work and also how players can be rewarded for it - which is part of the function of Fate points (iirc). Reward is important I think, it makes things fun. I have considered a 'Clue token' mechanic: players are pulp detective types (after a fashion) and so some degree of investigation and 'finding stuff out about the bad guys and their shceme' is intrinsic to my idea. Thus what they find out is abstracted and codified by Clues. These they can spend to gain narrative advantages (maybe the clue is a secret map of the villain's underground lair with a hidden entrance, or its a prison dossier on Dr Coldemort mentioning how he cannot refuse a game of chess). But I'm thinking not to gain bonus dice/modifiers (so knowledge of the secret entrance doesn't give +x to the character's 'sneak attack' action); the reason being that you get the 'tactical' advantage and, perhaps more importantly, the inexorable point creep where players end up with loads of points and become unstoppable which creates undue pressure on the story and the flow of encounters and events.

Here's how I see it - munchkins will always be with us. There is nothing you can do to curtail them that will not harm the play of non-munchkins. So your choice is to design for the munchkins, or design for the good players. My choice is always the latter.

-clash

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371846But if the GM doesn't include a truck filled with nitrogen in the scene (and not out of forgetfulness) - and it's plausible to be ther - then is a system that lets players spend points or whatever to introduce the previously unseen truck a good idea? Feng Shui was the first game to do this by saying, for example, that it was reasonable for players to happen across props that could plausibly be there, such as a baseball bat tucked behind the bar that no one knew about before.

If a system of points is the fuel for this, then how do people stop players from munckining said system. What's to stop them hoarding points to blitz bad guys in a way that spoils the atmosphere by unloading a bazillion aspects on them. If the player has the points then why shouldn't he?

Feng shui wasn't even close to doing this first James Bond OO7 was doing it in '83 with hero points
System worked very well and the Hero point pool (you gain a Hero Point each time you make a critical sucess) was used for both mod'ing die rolls and changing the environment by adding random props or making sure the guard walking round the corner was a 40" regular.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371846But if the GM doesn't include a truck filled with nitrogen in the scene (and not out of forgetfulness) - and it's plausible to be ther - then is a system that lets players spend points or whatever to introduce the previously unseen truck a good idea? Feng Shui was the first game to do this by saying, for example, that it was reasonable for players to happen across props that could plausibly be there, such as a baseball bat tucked behind the bar that no one knew about before.

If a system of points is the fuel for this, then how do people stop players from munckining said system. What's to stop them hoarding points to blitz bad guys in a way that spoils the atmosphere by unloading a bazillion aspects on them. If the player has the points then why shouldn't he?

The first time I encountered this was playing White Wolf's 'Adventure!' and it made my head explode (metaphorically).

I was a gunslinger type and we were in a large room in a mansion. I asked if the room had a chandelier (if it did, I would try a crazy trick shot stunt to get the drop on the bad guy). I was told "there is if you want to spend a point". I repeatedly asked the GM "Is there or is there not a chandelier in the room?" I then went through a laundry list of questions about what was and wasn't in the room to try and get an idea of what I could use to overcome the challenge present, using lateral thinking.

I derive the most fun from role-playing games by inventing clever solutions to the problems present, given the tools and situation I'm provided. Being able to dictate the environment or the tools at my disposal takes away most of the fun.

It's similar to encountering a puzzle room and allowing me to spend a fate/action point to declare "the answer to the puzzle is swordfish".

I guess it's just a matter of taste but I don't enjoy "story" games where the players get to narrate details of anything other than their own character.

You are absolutely right GoOrangge. The key thing to understnad is why you want your character to shoot down the chandelier.

If it is because that seems like the smartest or most fun way to beat the current challenge then being able to create the chandelier with a Fate point cheapens the whole experience.

If on the other hand it's because shooting the chandelier says something about your character (like a signature move or a reflection of his attitude) than the ability to be able to introduce the chandelier is very welcome and an aide to roleplaying.

Again in most most instances it probably something in between.

Quote from: jibbajibba;371855Feng shui wasn't even close to doing this first James Bond OO7 was doing it in '83 with hero points
System worked very well and the Hero point pool (you gain a Hero Point each time you make a critical sucess) was used for both mod'ing die rolls and changing the environment by adding random props or making sure the guard walking round the corner was a 40" regular.

Fair enough; it was the first game I played where such player narrative control was explicit. As people have said they have done it in all kinds of games since the year dot on their own.

But the problem that occurs to me with a point based 'buy narrative control' set up is that if you don't have points, your ideas get ignored since you can't institute them. Either that or the points then become meaningless.

Quote from: GoOrange;371856The first time I encountered this was playing White Wolf's 'Adventure!' and it made my head explode (metaphorically).

I was a gunslinger type and we were in a large room in a mansion. I asked if the room had a chandelier (if it did, I would try a crazy trick shot stunt to get the drop on the bad guy). I was told "there is if you want to spend a point". I repeatedly asked the GM "Is there or is there not a chandelier in the room?" I then went through a laundry list of questions about what was and wasn't in the room to try and get an idea of what I could use to overcome the challenge present, using lateral thinking.

I derive the most fun from role-playing games by inventing clever solutions to the problems present, given the tools and situation I'm provided. Being able to dictate the environment or the tools at my disposal takes away most of the fun.

It's similar to encountering a puzzle room and allowing me to spend a fate/action point to declare "the answer to the puzzle is swordfish".

I guess it's just a matter of taste but I don't enjoy "story" games where the players get to narrate details of anything other than their own character.

You make a good point. I don't like the way Adventure! handles this stuff anyway; it always felt contrived and the worst part of the game for me. I said this on the top 10 rpg's thread as well

It's a fair point and it does seem ridiculous to be told 'there's a chandolier' if you want to 'buy' one. Perhaps it was handled poorly. But it's almost as if this approach has bred a certain ethos in the minds of people (the people who overuse the word 'cinematic' as well): there's always a chandelier for instance. There's always an escape route, that is. So it can seem painful and contrived.

Perhaps in that situation the better result would have been for the GM just to say yes there is a chandelier and then let you spend your point (dramatic editing i think they called it) to give you a bonus to the move as it sounds like something appropriately in the mood and in character, rather than pull the players out of the sense of immersion and into a mutable world where reality isn't even consistent.

So, as I said, I'm devising a system along these lines where players can garner Clues to spend on gaining some form of narrative advantage. But I'm stuck with one part of this design methodology: if you reward players for doing 'well' and/or roleplaying well, are you not giving them double the benefit. After all if someone solves the puzzles, bests the ecounters and so forth, along the way, are they not already doing well, and so by giving them extra benefit, do the characters then become too powerful, and does that not make the whole thing redundant. I want an organic system that gives reward, but not in this kind of way, and also in keeping with the source material (the likes of The Spirit, the Shadow, Nevermen, etc).

It's a bit like Call of Duty Modern Warfare where, if you do well, you get rewarded with even more powerful ways to kill the other players which then maks you do even better. Overpowered!