TheRPGSite

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! :D

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 :D

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!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371836What 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.

Why on earth would anyone do this? Its like how roleplaying is supposed to work, absolutely backward. Its like Bizarro Roleplaying.

You look/ask to see if there's anything on the bridge that might be useful, and THEN you use a fate point to give it an aspect, or something like that. You figure out in the course of the game and THEN you use your fate point to take advantage of his vanity, along with a description of exactly how you plan to go about doing that.  You don't just use a fucking abstract mechanic to change the motherfucking universe at your whim. That way lies lots of things, including probably madness, but certainly not an actual Roleplaying Game.

RPGPundit

So, in a bar room brawl in an action movie style setting (ie feng shui), there are no baseball bats that could conceivably be found by a pc after he gets thrown over the bar (for instance) unless the GM explicitly says there are. If the players suggest there might be, or even ask if there is one he can grab, then there can't be because that would mean altering the universe.

Maybe if they'd asked for a magic cyborg dragon, perhaps.

I happened across this gem in the SotC SRD this morning:

QuoteUsually, the player's expectations are more minor, and usually come in the form of "Is there a ladder here?" The answer to a question like that depends on your response. If you feel the answer is "yes", or even "no, but there should have been, why didn't I think of that?" then say yes. If you feel the answer is "no, but while that's not very likely, it's not unreasonable" then the answer to give is "I don't know, is there?" while looking meaningfully at the player's fate points. It is only if you feel that the request is entirely out of line that your answer should be "No ."

By this guideline, the dragon standing on the grate is probably unreasonable and shouldn't be allowed. But if you discovered that the villain has a "vanity" aspect, then it's not unreasonable for their to be numerous mirrors around his house.

I think that, ultimately, it's a matter of play-style. If you want to use your own wits to solve problems, then you want the "reality" of the adventure to be fixed, so you can find a solution from the materials at hand. If you want your character to do cool things, then you want some flexibility from the environment so you can make up things (like a baseball bat behind the bar) that you can exploit to do cool stuff.

One isn't better than the other. They're just different. But if you're designing a game, you should probably have a clear idea of which play-style is appropriate for your game.

Is this all a shorthand to save GM's the embarassment and awkwardness of not describing everything within the environment, no matter how inoccuous.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371991So, in a bar room brawl in an action movie style setting (ie feng shui), there are no baseball bats that could conceivably be found by a pc after he gets thrown over the bar (for instance) unless the GM explicitly says there are. If the players suggest there might be, or even ask if there is one he can grab, then there can't be because that would mean altering the universe.

Maybe if they'd asked for a magic cyborg dragon, perhaps.

WTF, GW? Are you one of those guys who only allows what is explicitly granted? The RAW to the max? In most games, if I were GM, the player would say "Is there a baseball bat behind this bar?" and I would say "Yes" if I had expressly put one there or thought it was too likely to be worth rolling for, "No" if I expressly did not want to allow one, and "I don't know - what's likely? Roll X and there is one."

This is *exactly* cognate to the point phil.gs makes from the SoTC SRD below. "Yes" and "No" are exactly the same, and "Maybe" differs only in being Random vs. Resource allocation. Same thing functionally.

-clash

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371871Fair 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.

Pundit's given good advice here, although even so, if you were playing a game with a good GM and you wanted a more "in-character" thought process, then the GM should simply give you a bonus for coming up with a good plan based on the environment, without your having to spend a "point". As long as you still have to roll dice for success, the task resolution roll is going to tell you whether that environmental element is really significant enough to affect the outcome.

In Mythic RPG/Mythic GM emulator, any time the GM doesn't feel certain about some element of the situation, s/he can roll on a probability chart to see if it's one way or the other. The contributing factors are (a) a guesstimate of the likelihood in plain English terms, and (b) a "situation status" gauge that can go up or down depending on how the scenario's developing and how exactly you want to use the gauge. (In other words the base game says the gauge goes one way whenever the situation becomes more out of control, and the other when it's more under control, but there are options to change how it works.)

On top of that, Mythic lets players spend points to modify a roll.

The point of this example, though, is that Mythic's approach is that you only roll dice if the GM is truly unsure of whether something is there or how something will turn out. The players can (and in some ways of using the game, are encouraged to) make suggestions, but the GM isn't forced to accept them if they aren't plausible. The points given to players then let them affect the likelihood of these plausible-but-uncertain events.

So the points aren't meaningless unless the GM chooses to decide everything based on preconceived notions or deterministic spot judgments from personal vision. If on the other hand the GM is willing to accept that there are elements of the situation that he didn't plan, but which could be there, then the players' use of points is quite meaningful.

In other games, you might give players more narrative control but the points spent would be limited in two ways: first, of course, they need to be used for something plausible, and second, their impact would depend on the points spent. E.g. if I spend a point to say that there's a chandelier hanging over the bad guy's head, then the effect on the overall scene is going to be roughly the same as spending a point to say that the local gendarmerie intervenes. That is, if 1 point = a minor distraction then the bad guy will jump out of the way of the chandelier but you'll be able to escape, OR the police sirens will distract or scare the bad guy with similar consequences. Whereas 10 points would knock out or trap the bad guy with the chandelier, or result in the gendarmes bursting into the room.

Personally I'm not too crazy about this latter approach unless it's accompanied by a degree of chance, such that the points spent are combined with a die roll to determine the final level of effect. And even then, it's more of a story-like stance relative to the situation than an in-character approach.

Quote from: flyingmice;371998This is *exactly* cognate to the point phil.gs makes from the SoTC SRD below. "Yes" and "No" are exactly the same, and "Maybe" differs only in being Random vs. Resource allocation. Same thing functionally.

Indeed, except it's not the same thing cognitively. This is why I'd personally favor something where spending points only makes the possible more probable. You can get this either by saying that certain die rolls are always a failure (and using exploding dice if you want to make this chance extremely small), or, instead of using simple additive points, have a system where spending points grants rerolls...or additional dice in certain dice pool systems.

Quote from: flyingmice;371998WTF, GW? Are you one of those guys who only allows what is explicitly granted? The RAW to the max? In most games, if I were GM, the player would say "Is there a baseball bat behind this bar?" and I would say "Yes" if I had expressly put one there or thought it was too likely to be worth rolling for, "No" if I expressly did not want to allow one, and "I don't know - what's likely? Roll X and there is one."

This is *exactly* cognate to the point phil.gs makes from the SoTC SRD below. "Yes" and "No" are exactly the same, and "Maybe" differs only in being Random vs. Resource allocation. Same thing functionally.

-clash

That quote was supposed to be a question in response to Daniel Day Lewis's post above.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;372000Indeed, except it's not the same thing cognitively. This is why I'd personally favor something where spending points only makes the possible more probable. You can get this either by saying that certain die rolls are always a failure (and using exploding dice if you want to make this chance extremely small), or, instead of using simple additive points, have a system where spending points grants rerolls...or additional dice in certain dice pool systems.

I'm not going to argue this point. Fate is not my favorite system, and I would do it differently. OTOH, this is not an alien thing. It's a matter of how you picture it.

-clash

Someone may have already suggested this, but I suppose the way you could do it would be for the GM to first take the suggestion and think "Yes", "No", or "Maybe".

If it's "Maybe" then the player would be free to spend a point and change it into "Yes" or "No", without a doubt.

But if it's "Maybe" and the player doesn't spend a point, that's where I begin to have a problem, because it's implied from this discussion that the GM can, should, and will tell the player "It can be true, but only if you spend a point."

As in GoOrange's example, then the player can feel extorted. "You mean there's no f***ing crowbar in a warehouse full of crates?" GM: "There is, if you spend a point. Otherwise, no." Player: "No way, as GM you should be doing your job of providing a verisimilitudinous world, not a paper doll world where I have to pay for each accessory."

So IMO if the player doesn't spend a point, but the GM has already admitted that the thing is a possibility, then it should still be a possibility.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;372020As in GoOrange's example, then the player can feel extorted. "You mean there's no f***ing crowbar in a warehouse full of crates?" GM: "There is, if you spend a point. Otherwise, no." Player: "No way, as GM you should be doing your job of providing a verisimilitudinous world, not a paper doll world where I have to pay for each accessory."

Here's how I would handle this with fate points in my games. The player wants to use a crowbar in the warehouse but doesn't have one. He asks if he sees one. I roll and he doesn't notice one handy. The player decides finding a crowbar right now is important. He asks "If I spend a fate point, can I stumble on one right now?" As stumbling on a crowbar in a warehouse full of crates is fairly likely, I would say "sure." The player spends the fate point and picks up the crowbar his eyes passed right over the first time he looked.

That works, too, it's a matter how much of a "gambling" aspect you want to incorporate in Fate points. Some games even have different ways of using them depending on whether you want to spend them before or after rolling dice. (E.g., Burning Wheel, although it never gives you a 100% chance of success IIRC.)

The main point, though, is that if something might reasonably be there (or something might reasonably happen) then it shouldn't require a Fate point else it doesn't happen. As in both our proposed approaches, if something might reasonably be there, then there ought to be a chance it will be there without the player paying for it.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371871But 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.

Why not allow players to share points, spend points on behalf of each other, or reward each other?

That doesn't really solve anything.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;372171That doesn't really solve anything.

Why don't you think so?

I think it does help solve the problem. If the problem is that players who run out of the resource required to add input into the setting get ignored, then allowing players to share that resource or reward each other with it will help solve the problem--as long as the player in need can come up with ideas that the other players like. In my experience this works out well. If players are rewarded for being entertaining and collaborative, then they often make a greater effort to be so.

Of course this means that the players who only makes self-serving contributions may get left out in the cold. It may also create other problems, but no solution is perfect. Any given solution is gonna prioritize some preferences at the expense of others.

You're not paying attention to the concerns of the original poster; you're really just looking for attention yourself.

All you've done is move things from player-vs.-GM to group-of-players-vs.-GM. And on top of that you've created a dynamic where the GM isn't just extorting points from the player, but turning the player into a beggar vis à vis the rest of the group.

At this point I'm inclined to think the whole idea of using points for this sort of thing is, well, pointless. If the player has points then he gets what he wants and the points become irrelevant (and i am more thanw illing to bet in any fate style game points are not hard to come by). If he doesn't then we go back to the player havign few options and being disappointed and not being able to do what he wants. Well that serves no purpose. So make the GM just have the last word, the way Feng Shui does. If it's reasonable, thematically appriopriate for the baseball bat to be there - if it makes the moment more enjoyable - then points are irrelevant; we know what the decision should be.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;371991So, in a bar room brawl in an action movie style setting (ie feng shui), there are no baseball bats that could conceivably be found by a pc after he gets thrown over the bar (for instance) unless the GM explicitly says there are. If the players suggest there might be, or even ask if there is one he can grab, then there can't be because that would mean altering the universe.

Maybe if they'd asked for a magic cyborg dragon, perhaps.

The player can always ask about clarification about what he sees, assuming the GM isn't going to describe absolutely everything in the room from the beginning.

RPGPundit

I think FATE points are a good mechanic to encourage player creativity, if used properly. Are they essential? No.

RPGPundit

Pundit, I think the issue is whether the GM has already thought of absolutely everything in the room from the beginning. And if not, how they determine on the fly whether something is in the room.

For me I'm willing to accept that a player may have a point when they say "There could conceivably be a baseball bat behind the bar." My fault, I didn't think of that beforehand, it doesn't mean there isn't one.

So now I can either decide, or I can put it to some kind of rule or mechanic.

Personally there are some things I dislike deciding on the fly, so I'd rather roll dice. Maybe I enjoy being surprised, or I find decisions fatiguing, or I think I might inadvertently railroad the players with biased decision-making.

Conversely I don't believe things should always go the players' way just because they thought something could happen. Like, "The bar owner's a WWII vet, it's a rough neighborhood, maybe he has a live grenade behind the counter." Yeah, that's possible in a gonzo setting. Doesn't mean it's true every time someone thinks of it.

Still, given I'm willing to roll dice for it, the idea is conceivable, it's not emulation-shattering.

So if the game has some kind of fate point mechanic, I'd be okay with letting players spend them to affect the dice roll. I don't think I'd let them call the results, though.

I would generally prefer as GM to just make the call myself, in order not to ruin the sense of immersion.

RPGPundit