Remind me how the guy pulled a flamethrower out of nowhere again? What was his justification?

Off-loading some of the world creation is pretty typical. During a campaign I played in, one of the players would make up all sorts of crap when talking to NPCs, and the DM incorporated it into the world. Collaborating with the DM just happens naturally when you have good players. A game system that forces collaboration just seems annoying to run.

Quote from: Vargold;809580Remind me how the guy pulled a flamethrower out of nowhere again? What was his justification?

Erm... Aspects?

Quote from: 3rik;809598Erm... Aspects?

Right, but what Aspect, and what was the rationale?

Something like "The Right Tool for the Job" doesn't seem to me to permit pulling flame throwers and bazookas out of one's trench coat.

I suspect that the real disconnect in the OP's game may have happened in character creation--the players and the GM having radically disparate ideas about what the Aspects permitted.

Flamethrower is of course silly, but I think there's a degree for negotiations left - rather than a flamethrower, why not a can of deodorant and a zippo lighter?

Quote from: Rincewind1;809607Flamethrower is of course silly, but I think there's a degree for negotiations left - rather than a flamethrower, why not a can of deodorant and a zippo lighter?

Yes, that would be fine. It's also not game-breaking.

The original flamethrower reference was "they pull a flamethrower out of a trash can magically because of an ambiguously worded power". That doesn't sound offhand like just a normal Aspect, but I don't know for sure. Also, does "magically" mean actual hocus-pocus magic?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809568BTW, I don't mind players all starting out as effective. I just don't want one player being absurdly more powerful than everyone else. No, I don't mind them being 10th level characters. They can be whatever they want. I just don't (1) want them to have magic solutions that bypass everything I can think of (e.g., the Flamethrower was the targets specific bane so it would one-shot a big conflict we had built up to) and (2) don't want one character to be absurdly more powerful than other people.

I'm not sure of the specifics here, so I don't know what I think of the particular conflicts here. In general:

1) I mind if something is illogical or genuinely hard to fit. I don't mind, though, if the PCs one-shot a big conflict. If they have a good plan and/or get lucky, sometimes the main villain will go down in one shot.

2) For me as GM, I don't inherently mind if there is a big power difference among PCs - like having Pippin and Gandalf in the same party. If the power difference is causing resentment or other problems among the players, then I'd work to address it - but that depends on the players and what their issues are.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345Whenever I bring up problems with Fate style games, the response seems to be that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever.

And I haven't been clear enough, sorry. My player's are totally fine with this. As soon as I went to games that were less ambiguous, and gave out the occasional no for the above situations, everything has been awesome. It's just that when I bring up that when I've tried Fate-type games with my groups it's been a train wreck, I get the above criticisms from at least one poster.

Stop playing Fate-style games, then.

It's as simple as that.

I wonder why you have kept playing them for this long?
You thought there were better advice, perhaps.
The "better advice" in this case is: ignore the criticisms you have referred to, as they are wrong.

This all started because we LOVED Dresden Files. It had all of the awesome stuff we like about fate (cool ways to use aspects, etc), but everyone's powers were fairly clear, it was assumed that declarations were mostly smaller, more limited facts, etc.

So when Fate Core came out I bought everything assuming it would just be Generic Dresden Files (like Strands of Fate with way less aspects and powers).

I've run Fate Core/Accelerated several times, and not once did I really notice a "group consensus required" part of the rules. I ran it mostly like I would most other games, except with compels and other aspect point use.

As the GM I said whether things were reasonable or not. Nothing stops you from doing that. I don't remember anything in the rules that did, and even if there was, fuck that, do what is best for your game. If you get tired of it and don't want to run it because you aren't having fun, then whats the point of playing at all.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809483In the case of "fail forward," since we can have "trouble" on a failure, that means that if there's nothing interesting going on by simply failing the task, I can just give them what they were going for and complicate the situation some other way.

Once again: That's not what "fail forward" means.

QuoteIt says a 6- is trouble, not a straightforward failure.

On a 6- result you're supposed to make a move. This is spelled out on pages 165-166. This is not a huge difference from what you're saying, but it's a significant one.

I will say that one of the problems I have with Dungeon World is that they took the strong, clear presentation of Apocalypse World and turned it into milquetoast. So I can see how DW-only players can overlook the specific structure of how a *World game is designed to be played. But the rules are still there.

Well, yes. But most of your generalized trouble can fit the GM moves. For instance, "reveal an unwelcome truth" would be "oh hey the bandits have an Ogre in tow."

Just curious, why did the elements that make Fate easily workable for more traditional elements get removed between Dresden Files and Fate Core?

Clearly (relatively) defined powers: Exists in DFRPG, Dropped in Fate Core

Traditional GM Role (at least insofar as it exists in a game with Declarations): Exists in DFRPG, dropped in favor of "consensus" in Fate Core.

I bought all the Fate Core books assuming I would be getting a Generic Dresden Files game (my fault). Instead, I got a game that was much more collaborative story focused, and those elements were either ADDED or GIVEN MORE PROMINENCE in Fate Core.

I'm only talking about preferences here, not whether more story focused, consensus games are better or worse.

It's like going from a sports car to a car frame and a pile of parts.

Fate Core doesn't actually change anything, it's just that it does a much worse job explaining things in the interest of being more broadly inclusive.
(Some editions of Fate Core are really opaque; Fate 2 looks interesting, but I don't know how much better it is yet)


You can play Fate Core _exactly_ like Dresden. It's the same game. Dresden just has a lot of preset bits and coded power widgets right there, while with Core you will have to invent or handwave any needed bits.
(Or use the Tools and whatever supplement, which apparently has a lot of advice on how to design more coded bits)

I hear what you're saying Will, but I'm pretty sure Table Consensus is a HUGE part of Fate Core, since it gets brought up whenever i post for help about it (e.g., I'm having trouble with X). I never had any of these issues when we used Dresden Files.