It doesn't require a table consensus, it requires a GM decision.

All this "I don't like confrontation" stuff is just... how did you ever adjudicate anything in any game if you couldn't just say "no, that doesn't work"?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810122He said he will make a new version.

Did he? Do you remember where you saw him say that? I'm curious.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;810128It doesn't require a table consensus, it requires a GM decision.

All this "I don't like confrontation" stuff is just... how did you ever adjudicate anything in any game if you couldn't just say "no, that doesn't work"?

He has said elsewhere that it was by pointing to rules in the book.

But with Fate Core all the book says is talk it out. Some people don't feel comfortable with that because it means that they, not the impartial rules, are saying no.

EDIT: But if you are the kind of person that feels uncomfortable talking things out and then making and standing by a decision as being your own, then Fate won't ever work for you because it kind of requires it.

Quote from: Enlightened;810129Did he? Do you remember where you saw him say that? I'm curious.

Mechalus did talk in vague terms about a new version of Strands once Core came out, but it was never a strong statement and I doubt it will happen, personally.

Strands works fine if you want a crunchy implementation of Fate.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809239I've run into this buzz saw on Fate groups as I struggled with the Declaration maneuver. I say "I'd like to have some kind of special written rule that lets me be able to say 'no' or 'yes, but' without having to have an unpleasant conflict with the players because I'm more responsible than everyone else for making a decent, challenging game session" and their response is, essentially, that I'm being a jerk and it's a non-issue (they're nicer about it).

There cannot be such a rule, if you look at it from a Storygaming perspective. You can so No, of course. But if you do, you stop playing. "You" in this case, is anyone at the table.

Because according to Storygamers gaming works like this: There is a group of people who decide that they will play a game. They then decide upon the rules. The rules might have specifications for something called "GMing" and require one the players to be the "GM" who then does the "GMing".

So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true. If it were something official, you might call it legal fiction. But these fictions do inform how people will talk about gaming and how authors will write texts about gaming.

So why can't the GM say no, according to Storygamers? - Because the GM is a rule.

That doesn't mean that the persons who happens to do the "GMing" cannot say no. But that person cannot say no because of being the GM. That is very important because to that legal fiction, every one at the table has consented to play by the rules. If anything happens that requires someone to say know, apparently something has gone wrong when the rules were being negotiated.

So when someone at the table feels required to say NO!, you should stop playing and reevaluate what you are actually playing.

That's also why Storygames are usually short. Everyone is expected to know all of the rules.

Of course, according to Storygamers it's not your fault, when the session sucks. It just didn't work out between you.

http://thedongion.blogspot.com/2015/01/indie-game-genius-wraps-head-around.html

Quote from: 1of3;810185So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true.

:rolleyes: Try looking out the window of your ivory tower. If I invite someone to my house to game, that isn't a fiction. The invitation is an actual social interaction that happens in the real world between real people.

All super interesting comments.

I'll be straight out honest that I'm upset with Fate Core. I wanted it to be something it's not. DFRPG was played by everyone I know like a traditional game. The super "everything is consensus and the GM is just another person has been super emphasized" in Fate Core, and by its supporters.

Fate people respond that every game has conflict issues and Fate is better because it "brings these to the forefront." I'd argue that other traditional games allow people with very different personalities and play agendas to enjoy a role-playing game cooperatively.

Some traditional games provide more support for people that don't enjoy interpersonal conflict in their hobbies. If you're playing D&D, and the rules say you can cast a fireball and that makes you awesome, you can do that. You don't need everyone at the table's permission that your "bad ass wizard" aspect allows you to do that in this scene.

It's not true that the only vailid view of an RPG game is a table consensus. Another analogy is a host at the dinner party. He/she is not responsible for all of the conversation, but it's his/her job to make sure that this is a great dinner party. He can even expend extra effort to gently reign in overly aggressive conversationalists and encourage shy people. It's not true that the only alternative to table consensus is a dictatorial monomaniac.

If I was a game designer I'd make my own version of Fate that was more like a generic version of Dresden with a lot of the fun improvements they added for maneuvers and such in Fate core. However, I'm not a game designer.

Quote from: 1of3;810185There cannot be such a rule, if you look at it from a Storygaming perspective. You can so No, of course. But if you do, you stop playing. "You" in this case, is anyone at the table.

Because according to Storygamers gaming works like this: There is a group of people who decide that they will play a game. They then decide upon the rules. The rules might have specifications for something called "GMing" and require one the players to be the "GM" who then does the "GMing".

So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true. If it were something official, you might call it legal fiction. But these fictions do inform how people will talk about gaming and how authors will write texts about gaming.

So why can't the GM say no, according to Storygamers? - Because the GM is a rule.

That doesn't mean that the persons who happens to do the "GMing" cannot say no. But that person cannot say no because of being the GM. That is very important because to that legal fiction, every one at the table has consented to play by the rules. If anything happens that requires someone to say know, apparently something has gone wrong when the rules were being negotiated.

So when someone at the table feels required to say NO!, you should stop playing and reevaluate what you are actually playing.

That's also why Storygames are usually short. Everyone is expected to know all of the rules.

Of course, according to Storygamers it's not your fault, when the session sucks. It just didn't work out between you.

...wow.  RPGs meet academobabble.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810254If I was a game designer I'd make my own version of Fate that was more like a generic version of Dresden with a lot of the fun improvements they added for maneuvers and such in Fate core. However, I'm not a game designer.

Being a gamer is about dicking around with games.

So dick around with Fate to turn it into something you like.

Make some changes and if they don't work make some other changes.

Make up some shit you think will be fun.
Play the game.
If not fun, throw it out and make up some different shit you think will be fun.
Repeat until fun.

Congratulations, you have just duplicated the process Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax used to create Dungeons & Dragons.

For fuck's sake. Run the game you want to run.

Every game requires making decisions not in the rules, if you literally cannot say no because you hate conflict and your players get mad you have two options:

1. Man the fuck up
2. Get players who aren't children.

I've played Fate Core quite a bit, and while it has its issues (I think that sometimes its just too much brain burn to keep all the fate point economy stuff going), the one you are having isn't a problem with the rules, its a problem with the way you are running it.

If you don't want to run it as a "group consensus" game, then DON'T. Take charge of your fucking game and change it into the game you want.

This is starting to just look like a post to whinge about gaming advice you don't like (a lot of the consensus type stuff, which surprise, I don't like much either, but I just don't USE it, because I am not beholden to a rulebook to have fun), rather than an actual attempt to fix any problem, because every post you make is ignoring advice and stating "I just hate that it requires this".

It doesn't, fucking, require it. You are just being a ninny about it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;810259For fuck's sake. Run the game you want to run.

Every game requires making decisions not in the rules, if you literally cannot say no because you hate conflict and your players get mad you have two options:

1. Man the fuck up
2. Get players who aren't children.

I've played Fate Core quite a bit, and while it has its issues (I think that sometimes its just too much brain burn to keep all the fate point economy stuff going), the one you are having isn't a problem with the rules, its a problem with the way you are running it.

If you don't want to run it as a "group consensus" game, then DON'T. Take charge of your fucking game and change it into the game you want.

This is starting to just look like a post to whinge about gaming advice you don't like (a lot of the consensus type stuff, which surprise, I don't like much either, but I just don't USE it, because I am not beholden to a rulebook to have fun), rather than an actual attempt to fix any problem, because every post you make is ignoring advice and stating "I just hate that it requires this".

It doesn't, fucking, require it. You are just being a ninny about it.

Good advice. Consider yours (and other advice taken). I will put away my Fate Core books for now.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810269Good advice. Consider yours (and other advice taken). I will put away my Fate Core books for now.

Err..I don't think that was the advice.

________________________


After reading all your comments on this in various threads here and on Google+, I am left thinking that this is a group dynamics issue.

You find that you don't feel comfortable telling your players no, and they use that fact to walk all over you. So without some authoritative third party (the rules) to stand between you and your players, you get used.

Your players are either not self aware enough to know that that is what they are doing to you or they just don't care. I wouldn't play with either kind of person.

It's clear Pencil just wants to bitch about how upset he is at Fate Core. Look at all his closed threads.

Grow up.

(And for the curious, this is the considerably cleaned up version of this post)

Quote from: Enlightened;810272Err..I don't think that was the advice.

Actually among other things not playing Fate was mentioned. All things considered it sounds like a reasonable solution.