Quote from: Ladybird;809289Well, sure, that's something that would make logical sense... as long as it was a fact beforehand that the bandits had an ogre.

If you just pull it out of thin air, it doesn't make any sense.

(Of course, unless you do something stupid like tell the players it was an arsepull, they may never know. Again, no different to any other RPG.)

No, that's the whole point of Dungeon World. You make up the next development on the fly, and then from that point on it becomes true. The dice decide which direction it goes.

Unless by "out of thin air" you mean I didn't try to justify it. I'd try to link it to things after I introduced it, but it doesn't have to be there beforehand.

Also if things are leading in that direction, you can sow the seeds for it and then produce the ogre, ie,. foreshadowing. But it doesn't have to be that way every time.

For instance, one time in a game of Dungeon World, the PCs had been captured and thrown in jail. The Barbarian started bending the bars to escape, and once out, she snuck over to the sleeping guard to try to sneak his keys without waking him.

She botched her roll. So now I could have just done something like, "Oops, you woke up the guard," but it seems hard to be that clumsy when someone's asleep and the key is right there.

So instead I had the guard's boss burst into the room at that exact moment, throwing open the door and yelling "I KNEW you'd be asleep!" Then he did a double take when he saw the Barbarian out on the loose and everybody started to scramble.

I suppose in a way this isn't truly random since a guard in a castle is already assumed to have superiors. But you get the idea. "Something bad happens" doesn't have to be a straightforward task simulation.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809300For instance, one time in a game of Dungeon World, the PCs had been captured and thrown in jail. The Barbarian started bending the bars to escape, and once out, she snuck over to the sleeping guard to try to sneak his keys without waking him.

She botched her roll. So now I could have just done something like, "Oops, you woke up the guard," but it seems hard to be that clumsy when someone's asleep and the key is right there.

So instead I had the guard's boss burst into the room at that exact moment, throwing open the door and yelling "I KNEW you'd be asleep!" Then he did a double take when he saw the Barbarian out on the loose and everybody started to scramble.

I suppose in a way this isn't truly random since a guard in a castle is already assumed to have superiors. But you get the idea. "Something bad happens" doesn't have to be a straightforward task simulation.

I don't think that makes any sense, though.

The two events - the boss bursting in, and the barbarian failing to sneak across the room - aren't related to each other; they don't follow on... whereas the guard waking up and shouting, does. The character has done something noisy (Bending the bars), and they're now getting close and physical to the sleeping guard (Very easy to wake someone up if they're clumsy - like, the key is a little more securely fastened to the guard than you thought, and you wind up tugging at them).

I have a sneaking suspicion that we're coming at the game from different angles. Which is okay! I'd probably still have had fun at your table, and not thought about it this hard during a game.

As per the other thread discussing Fate, Declarations are more constrained than you seem to think / have been lead to believe. They can only be used in the context of an aspect* and since you as the GM can veto player aspects you can head them off at the very beginning or at least know they might turn up and so think a little about how to handle them in your noodling time between games. And you can veto any declaration you feel would detract from the game rather than add to it.

I hypothesise that the reason people like games which share authorship in some way is three fold:

• First it takes some of the creative burden off the GM, making the game a little easier for them to run
• Second, the GM doesn't have a monopoly on good or creative ideas so the game explicitly recognises the creative abilities of the group as a resource for making the game cooler
• Finally, many people like a bit of authorial fun but don't want to go the full stretch of running their own game. Fate gives them an outlet for this.

On the flip side, running games likes this to their best advantage requires players to be more creative (in a narrative sense) and generally pulling in the same direction. If your group doesn't have these qualities then games like Fate will suck for you. If you don't value the benefits Fate might bring, again, no point in picking that system. It would seem that a significant number of people do like Fate-style games, however, and are quite vocal in their support; as it is very flexible it gets suggested a lot in threads. A new hotness will appear eventually to displace it.

Personally it's my favourite game system but the rest of my group would rather play DnD sowhatyagonnado?

* You can sometimes use skills to make declarations of a kind with the 'create advantage' mechanism. Player - "From my knowledge of tribal anthropology I recognise their clan values the traits of a warrior spirit so I approach them bravely and forthright" GM - "Awesome, you have a temporary aspect of 'respected warrior' and a free invocation.

Quote from: Ladybird;809301I don't think that makes any sense, though.

The two events - the boss bursting in, and the barbarian failing to sneak across the room - aren't related to each other; they don't follow on... whereas the guard waking up and shouting, does. The character has done something noisy (Bending the bars), and they're now getting close and physical to the sleeping guard (Very easy to wake someone up if they're clumsy - like, the key is a little more securely fastened to the guard than you thought, and you wind up tugging at them).

I have a sneaking suspicion that we're coming at the game from different angles. Which is okay! I'd probably still have had fun at your table, and not thought about it this hard during a game.

Do you play Dungeon World? It seems like you're applying a D&D mentality to it, where the rolls are literally to adjucate whether a particular action was successful.

In Dungeon World, the rolls are made when a move is performed (often associated with an action) but it's not to determine the resolution of that action, strictly. The rolls are meant to direct the course of the plot. If you roll a success, it means something good happens. But it doesn't need to have any relation to your roll, nor does a failure.

If you fail an attack roll, the DM might still let you kill the Orc you were trying to skewer with your failure, and then spring some other nasty surprise instead. It just means, "buckle up because the action's going to go against you now," not "you failed this roll so you fail this task specifically." Or if you fail, it doesn't have to be simply because you were a klutz.

So in my example, she rolled to get the keys and failed. The result was the guard's boss burst in -- something bad happened, and she failed to get the keys. The key is that it is all designed to move the action forward and do away with those situations in D&D where you fail, nothing happens, and then you just keep trying without consequence. A good DM in D&D will already know to apply other circumstances to the result to make sure it can't be repeated endlessly, but in DW it's simply hard coded into the rules to make you push the game onward. "Fail forward," is another way of putting it.

I don't always do it that way; sometimes I do it the way you suggested, when that's the only thing I can think of. (For instance, I /could/ have had the rustling of the keys wake up the guard, but I wanted the Barbarian to feel more like the failure was because of bad luck rather than simple incompetence.) But the rolls are definitely not meant to be for task resolution, and meant to push the story forward with an escalated situation.

IME, story mechanics work best with proactive, creative players who are in great synch with the GM and each other.

If any of that isn't true, problems abound. (I had a creative, proactive player who would make up really fucking stupid shit that didn't fit the game at all, so I felt bad constantly telling her 'um, no...' Also, players who just stared at me blankly whenever I gave them an opening to embellish or take the game in a direction)

Declaration is great for giving mechanical 'heft' for experts and psychics/mediums that wasn't utterly passive.

Being able to inject 'the turning of fates brings kings to paupers and paupers to kings' is a fun way to feel like you are adding something to the game, whereas 'ok, GM, I make a Foresight roll. What do I get?' is ... dull.


But in most games, it's not EQUAL authoring, it's just... more.


Now there are certainly indie weird games with equal agency. But I think it's not 'this is the holy grail' so much as exploring untapped territory.

Quote from: Will;809307Now there are certainly indie weird games with equal agency. But I think it's not 'this is the holy grail' so much as exploring untapped territory.

I think that's just "Forge" games, from what I read from the threads I dug up recently.

It seems their focus is almost on everybody being the GM, and the rolls aren't to have the GM figure out if you succeeded but to outright see who gains control of the entire story for that situation.

Like we roll, you say, "If I win, the guard comes and helps out the beggar," and I say, "If I win, the beggar gets hit by a car."

Whenever I ask for Fate Core help (at least other places) the answers always end up feeling kind of insulting, amounting to "well, Fate requires a high-trust table and mature players, or you need a lot of rules, or something." I don't say the same thing about people who don't like the more structured games I prefer when people ask for help.

For ME at least, I don't like confrontation. It makes me upset, in general. And I do RPG's to relax. My players want to have their characters be as awesome and effective as possible, and that's their first concern. When I have rules that let me just say no or say no + severe consequence or don't even allow game-breaking declarations, everything is very smooth and people are nice to each other and I don't have upsetting conversations where I have to justify myself and then they challenge my justification and round and round.

This entire process ends up making me feel really bad (running these games and then asking for help).

Also, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809309Whenever I ask for Fate Core help (at least other places) the answers always end up feeling kind of insulting, amounting to "well, Fate requires a high-trust table and mature players, or you need a lot of rules, or something." I don't say the same thing about people who don't like the more structured games I prefer when people ask for help.

I don't think they mean to be insulting. What they mean by "more mature" is that these games have less rules to settle things between players. So there's nothing to reel everyone back except their own self restraint. If you have a lot of competitive players, doing that can be hard when you don't have a bunch of rules telling them they have to do it. Especially since such rules lite games tend to wither under the threat of minmaxing.

QuoteAlso, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

I think that's true, but that goes for most smaller properties when you have giant flagship brands like D&D for everyone to play. It doesn't mean they are bad.

Quote from: Will;809307IME, story mechanics work best with proactive, creative players who are in great synch with the GM and each other.

If any of that isn't true, problems abound.

That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).
In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

I DO have friends I would play that with... but getting them all together would be a small miracle.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809311I don't think they mean to be insulting. What they mean by "more mature" is that these games have less rules to settle things between players. So there's nothing to reel everyone back except their own self restraint. If you have a lot of competitive players, doing that can be hard when you don't have a bunch of rules telling them they have to do it. Especially since such rules lite games tend to wither under the threat of minmaxing.

Well, sure, people can be insulting assholes without meaning to be. I've certainly experienced it from some story game advocates (and conversely also from some traditional RPG advocates).

Story games can be good fun, but people in general can be assholes - especially when pontificating about their favorite game.

Quote from: 3rik;809263In my games players don't get to advocate for their characters, they get to immerse in their characters. I don't see Bruce Willis arguing with the director why the fuck the script won't allow him to find a sniper rifle in the nearest trash can, even though he has a Fate point.

This is why I don't like or play fate. Players WILL throw an fit if their idea gets shit on. Rather than democractise the play space, it just allows for bullies to bully.

Been there, put up with that, walked out.

Quote from: Simlasa;809314That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).

In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

In my experience, a lot of story games work pretty well with a broad range of players - though not with everyone. At least, I run such games at conventions all the time, and the results are generally pretty fun.

Most recently, I saw this over Christmas when running a mildly story-gamish game (Monster of the Week - based on Dungeon World and its ilk) for my son, nephews, and niece - compared to their previous play of D&D. There are some players who are relatively passive in traditional RPGs, who become much more active when they have a different way to contribute.

Quote from: Simlasa;809314That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).
In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

I DO have friends I would play that with... but getting them all together would be a small miracle.

Yeah. What I've found is a traditional game with a sprinkling of story teller mechanics to sand the edges and inspire works well, and you can nudge that as needed.

FATE is actually a rather traditional game at heart. It has skills that do the sorts of things skills usually do. Roll dice, add skill, beat target number.

The aspect/Fate point system adds to that, but FATE isn't a storyteller/player author dominated game in quite the same way as My Life with Master and others are.


As for 'fixing' things, I think there's no problem saying that Declarations are a negotiated element just like anything else is. Player wants something or suggests something, GM either goes with it or not.

If you are unsure of players, it may be worth simply talking it out. Say 'hey, this is the sort of thing I expect the GM to do/not do, that is the sort of thing I expect the players to do/not do. What do you guys think?'

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809310This entire process ends up making me feel really bad (running these games and then asking for help).

Also, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

If the process you are using ends up making you feel really bad, then stop using that process. If that means telling the gang, "Hey gang, I'm not enjoying running FATE so I've decided I'm not going to do that anymore. I can run [name system and setting you prefer] or one of you can be the GM for FATE. Which do you prefer?"

Obviously you are not the only one who doesn't enjoy FATE. Nothing about it appeals to me for instance. But I'm fortunate in that no one I game with is suggesting I run FATE.

Lastly, if you listen to internet discussions you will get a very skewed view of anything. Most people that play RPGs don't post online about RPGs. Those that do are self selected for a lot of things. Among of those selection criteria is wanting to push their opinions about games at other people. Best advice - ignore anything you don't find applicable and useful.