Okay, so I figured I've seen some people mention Fate, and I've got a pretty good idea of the system, so I'll answer questions people have.
Just to be clear, my background is playing D&D and other games (GURPS, Vampire, a little Shadowrun, bunch of other stuff) since around '81? '82? Can't remember exactly. When I first heard about Fate, I had a lot of misconceptions about it, mostly around "the players always win, you just roll to see how awesome you are" and "where's the challenge?" and stuff like that. I've gotten through that curve, and am happy to talk to others about what the game is really like, especially if you think things like I've just described.
I'm not proposing Fate as the be-all, end-all of gaming. If D&D is a sports car, then Fate is a truck. Trucks do different things than sports cars. You might never need or want a truck. Even if you do, it's not a 'replacement' for a sports car, and you'll use the sports car and the truck for different things.
The games I've spent the most on in the last bit are:
AD&D (1st ed)
GURPS 4e
Fate
I don't want the prior two to become Fate, and I don't want Fate to become the first two. Again, sport cars and trucks. So don't take anything I say here as an attempt to convert people away from those "old-fashioned" games - I *like* them, and prefer to play them in a truly old-school way. If I could find what I call a "paleo" campaign, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.
Anyway, I'll start with some basics.
Q: Is Fate a story game?
A: Sort of. It's not something like My Life With Master, or Fiasco, or Primetime Adventures. It's far closer to a traditional game than that. The main area where it differs from traditional games is that it attempts to model how things work in "fiction", including story structure to an extent. But it does so primarily using more traditional mechanics - skills, stunts (which are like feats/advantages). There's a few things that don't really map well to more "traditional" structures, though.
Q: Is Fate one of those "roll to see how awesome you are" games?
A: Hell, no. One of the hardest things for new-to-Fate players is getting used to the idea that failure is pretty normal in Fate. In fact, if there's no chance of failure, you normally don't roll. The game drives pretty hard to every roll having a reasonable chance of failure.
Q: Is Fate a game where you're on some linear railroad path?
A: Gods, no. That's considered pretty crappy gaming in Fate circles. You're supposed to let players tackle the situation how they want, and let them deal with the consequences of what they do.
Q: So the GM just has to do what the players want?
A: Uh, no. The players, in general, will decide how they respond to a situation, but it's the GM's job to make that difficult and throw up obstacles. If the players try something that just doesn't make sense in the world, the GM is perfectly free to say "that doesn't make sense".
Q: So, what is Fate good at, then?
A: Games that center around a set of characters, and the challenges they face. Yeah, that sounds like "an RPG", but Fate shines when the characters *are* the center of the story. A good example would be a TV show. Your main characters are protagonists. The show is *about* them, but that doesn't have to mean that they always win or that bad things never happen to them. And if there were different characters, it'd be a show/plot in many ways.
Q: You said Fate isn't good at everything. I don't think you believe that. What *wouldn't* you use it for, smartass?
A: Well, "paleo" campaigns where each player has a number of characters, and the world really doesn't care about them aren't well done with Fate. Most games where the point of the game is to overcome a set challenge, and figuring that out is the point - most old-school D&D modules fit in this category. A game where exercising a heavy tactical combat system is the point - I wouldn't run X-COM: The RPG using Fate. And any game with a linear plot/story/path isn't a good match for Fate, as the game gives players too many ways to derail things. And lastly, any game where you want the game to mostly be around "system mastery" and figuring out the ins and outs of the mechanical game systems isn't a match for Fate at all.
Q: Can characters die?
A: Absolutely. It's not super-common, but the players don't have to "agree" to it, either. Characters have the option of "conceding" out of fights, but that carries its own set of penalties. But if a character doesn't concede, it's absolutely possible for them to die. Additionally, fights have a high likelihood of marking the character with a "consequence" which can last anywhere from just a "scene" to being a permanent change to the character. So even if you win a fight, or lose without dying, it's unlikely that you'll get away with no harm. In some ways, it can be more harsh than D&D or many other games where most fights will just end up with easily-cured hit point damage. Consequences have minimum amounts of time that they'll impact you, and there's no real way around that.
Don't worry Rob, Fate is, according to the party line, an RPG, so it goes into the other forums.
But I see you're picking up quick.
Quote from: Rincewind1;680497Don't worry Rob, Fate is, according to the party line, an RPG, so it goes into the other forums.
But I see you're picking up quick.
I can actually understand a lot of it, coming from the background I came from. Most of the Q/A stuff I've put up there are based on opinions I've held at one point.
What I've found most interesting in having read both FATE Core and FAE is that the players do have input on the type of game and some game details to play, but that it's pretty explicit in the book that the GM is given leeway to come up with all the details. Yes, the encouragement in the game is for the players to look awesome, but you do that by spending those FATE tokens (bennies, whatever). But you accumulate them by playing to your flaws.
In some respects FATE is closer to Savage Worlds than the traditional d20 and old school games I've played.
No questions yet.
I just got the free version online recently, and I've been reading through when time allows. Overall I have to say the system seems interesting. I would qualify myself as more of an old school gamer.
When I do come up with some questions I'll post.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;680523What I've found most interesting in having read both FATE Core and FAE is that the players do have input on the type of game and some game details to play, but that it's pretty explicit in the book that the GM is given leeway to come up with all the details.
Yeah, it looks something like this in practice:
GM: "Let's have a game about FBI agents investigating weird shit!"
Players: "Awesome!"... they make the cast of Fringe
GM: Takes the characters and adds all of the other elements of Fringe.
So it's definitely encouraged that players have input into the setting, but the GM responsibility is still there pretty strongly. And it could have gone differently, too. If the players had come up with characters more like Mulder/Scully, then the game could have easily gone more X-Files than Fringe.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;680523Yes, the encouragement in the game is for the players to look awesome, but you do that by spending those FATE tokens (bennies, whatever). But you accumulate them by playing to your flaws.
Not only playing to your flaws, but actively getting harmed by them. Part of the Compel "template" is "and this goes wrong when...". So if nothing goes wrong, it's not a Compel, and you don't get the Fate point. So sad.
But you kind of touch on something interesting there. In Fate, characters can (within reason) succeed at just about anything. But they can't succeed at *everything*. A good Fate GM forces those decisions, and forces players to make those tradeoffs. That idea of "how badly do you want this?" is pretty core to the game. I've described combat as a combination of playing chicken and a bidding war, and I've heard it said that rolls in Fate don't really determine success or failure, but rather set the cost of success/failure. I think those are accurate.
And of course, none of that matters if you don't put out more things for players to succeed/fail at than they can "buy" their way into success over. More than most other games, if your players aren't failing frequently in Fate, you're really not doing the game justice. Think Harry Dresden: Does awesome things? Check. Gets his ass handed to him on a regular basis? Check.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;680523In some respects FATE is closer to Savage Worlds than the traditional d20 and old school games I've played.
Yeah, I can kinda see that, though I'd still use Savage Worlds for different things than Fate. Though I said X-COM = GURPS above, Savage Worlds would also be a contender just for speed of play. I see SW and GURPS as being more in the same family than Fate - Fate has a *relationship* to those games, definitely, but it's more of the weird distant cousin.
Quote from: robiswrong;680541Yeah, it looks something like this in practice:
GM: "Let's have a game about FBI agents investigating weird shit!"
Players: "Awesome!"... they make the cast of Fringe
GM: Takes the characters and adds all of the other elements of Fringe.
So it's definitely encouraged that players have input into the setting, but the GM responsibility is still there pretty strongly. And it could have gone differently, too. If the players had come up with characters more like Mulder/Scully, then the game could have easily gone more X-Files than Fringe.
Not only playing to your flaws, but actively getting harmed by them. Part of the Compel "template" is "and this goes wrong when...". So if nothing goes wrong, it's not a Compel, and you don't get the Fate point. So sad.
But you kind of touch on something interesting there. In Fate, characters can (within reason) succeed at just about anything. But they can't succeed at *everything*. A good Fate GM forces those decisions, and forces players to make those tradeoffs. That idea of "how badly do you want this?" is pretty core to the game. I've described combat as a combination of playing chicken and a bidding war, and I've heard it said that rolls in Fate don't really determine success or failure, but rather set the cost of success/failure. I think those are accurate.
And of course, none of that matters if you don't put out more things for players to succeed/fail at than they can "buy" their way into success over. More than most other games, if your players aren't failing frequently in Fate, you're really not doing the game justice. Think Harry Dresden: Does awesome things? Check. Gets his ass handed to him on a regular basis? Check.
Well, you're also a slave to the dice, no matter what happens, and that random element can still give you a bad day, just like how you trip over the same sidewalk that you've run across for years and break an arm. FATE hasn't removed the random element, and I don't think it should.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;680563Well, you're also a slave to the dice, no matter what happens, and that random element can still give you a bad day, just like how you trip over the same sidewalk that you've run across for years and break an arm. FATE hasn't removed the random element, and I don't think it should.
Absolutely. And that's what I meant by the dice "setting the cost of success". *If* you've got appropriate aspects, you can still buy your way into a success, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.
A string of bad dice rolls can really mess up your day, of course.
When I talk about it being more about what price you're willing to pay, I mean that not in contrast to "what the dice say" so much as in contrast to "my ability to manipulate the mechanics of the game".
I've had a long fascination for FATE/Savage Worlds/FUDGE (and I'm an old-school gamer) - never played any of them. They're like a family of RPG systems that never seemed to make it to my table for some reason.
I picked up FATE Core (and Savage Worlds Explorer ed.) as a jump-on point to see if they'll fly with my group (a bunch of old bastards). So we'll see. Glad you started this thread - I'll post questions if I have any as I go. I'm still in the poring-over-process...
Thus far - it looks pretty interesting.
Quote from: tenbones;683555I've had a long fascination for FATE/Savage Worlds/FUDGE (and I'm an old-school gamer) - never played any of them. They're like a family of RPG systems that never seemed to make it to my table for some reason.
I picked up FATE Core (and Savage Worlds Explorer ed.) as a jump-on point to see if they'll fly with my group (a bunch of old bastards). So we'll see. Glad you started this thread - I'll post questions if I have any as I go. I'm still in the poring-over-process...
Thus far - it looks pretty interesting.
Awesome. I'd consider SW to be closer to a traditional game than Fate, really - there's more of an emphasis on tactical combat, positioning, etc. I really think of SW as "GURPS-Lite", myself.
I wrote a bunch of stuff on G+ about my coming to understand Fate from a mostly traditional game perspective - if you hit up the Fate Core community and search for "Thought of the Day" there's a bunch of stuff there that may be of value.
I had some exposure to Fate and liked parts of it and other parts hit me upside the head like a brick. I think I could embrace it if I removed some of the parts I don't see a need for.
I like the customized skills quite a lot as a tool to fit the system to a specific setting.
So, a question: Do you use Fate RAW? or do you have any house rules?
On tactical gameplay in FATE:
Say you're running a modern SF (special forces) game and the players themselves understand even the basics of shoot, move, communicate, fire and maneuver, working corners, the perils of flagging, assault through, far ambush, and so on, you'll have one heck of a game that ticks all of the tactical boxes.
Sprinkle in a few tac-stunts, take some weapon and gear aspects into consideration and you're ready to rock 'n roll.
Is it a perfectly straight forward approach to "traditional" tactical gameplay? Nope. But it works really well without requiring a specific type of scaffolding.
Quote from: Bill;683613I had some exposure to Fate and liked parts of it and other parts hit me upside the head like a brick. I think I could embrace it if I removed some of the parts I don't see a need for.
My recommendation (having gone through the same thing) is to try and work your head around the parts that hit you upside the head like a brick. It's not the things Fate does like other games that make it interesting to me, so much as the things that it does *differently*. There's a consistent internal logic to it, but it's not always the same logic that has traditionally driven game design.
Believe me, I totally get the "huh, how does *this* make sense?" bit. But really, Fate Core is pretty damn stripped down to the essentials of what makes Fate "Fate". Apart from the extras chapter in Core, I don't think there's a whole ton that I'd recommend getting rid of before you get a good feel for how the system works as-is.
If you have specific questions about some of those "hit like a brick" bits, I'd be happy to try and explain the logic of how they work.
Quote from: Bill;683613I like the customized skills quite a lot as a tool to fit the system to a specific setting.
Yeah, that's a fantastic bit of the system, especially with the way that it forces you to say not only what's available in the game world, but what's actually *important* to the game. It's a great way to communicate expectations and genre.
Quote from: Bill;683613So, a question: Do you use Fate RAW? or do you have any house rules?
Mostly RAW. There are certain parts of Core that are *intended* to be tweaked on a per-game/setting basis, though, and so I'll tweak those happily. Things like default refresh/stunt counts, the skills available, and the like. They're generally called "dials".
Changing the character creation stuff is something I'll do on occasion, but usually only by *adding* to it, not getting rid of the Phase Trio (which is what I see a lot of people default to doing).
Of course, if something's needed in the game (like magic), I'll add it.
My overall philosophy (not just with Fate) is not to tweak for the sake of tweaking. I'll figure out how I'd do something in the game as-is, see if I think it will work, and then think about tweaking it, and what the minimal tweak required would be. In most cases with Fate, I've found that no tweaking or minimal tweaking is required.
Quote from: Eisenmann;683616Is it a perfectly straight forward approach to "traditional" tactical gameplay? Nope. But it works really well without requiring a specific type of scaffolding.
Absolutely - but it approaches tactical gameplay in a very different way than most games do, and probably isn't what most RPG players mean when they say "tactical". You can get relatively close with a detailed enough zone map, and sufficient general tactics knowledge, absolutely.
I only don't push that explanation more because I'd rather be honest about the system's strengths and weaknesses than try to even *imply* that it does things that it doesn't. And tactical grid (or miniature, in SW's case) combat isn't something that Fate does super-well.
Quote from: robiswrong;683692Absolutely - but it approaches tactical gameplay in a very different way than most games do, and probably isn't what most RPG players mean when they say "tactical". You can get relatively close with a detailed enough zone map, and sufficient general tactics knowledge, absolutely.
I only don't push that explanation more because I'd rather be honest about the system's strengths and weaknesses than try to even *imply* that it does things that it doesn't. And tactical grid (or miniature, in SW's case) combat isn't something that Fate does super-well.
As noted. But if we flip things over to a more traditional tactical game approach, we can scale out to one heck of a wargame. The key is to really be comfortable with zones.
Edit:
Throwing out a few extra cents to kinda talk about how flexible the game is.
Quote from: robiswrong;683692My recommendation (having gone through the same thing) is to try and work your head around the parts that hit you upside the head like a brick. It's not the things Fate does like other games that make it interesting to me, so much as the things that it does *differently*. There's a consistent internal logic to it, but it's not always the same logic that has traditionally driven game design.
Believe me, I totally get the "huh, how does *this* make sense?" bit. But really, Fate Core is pretty damn stripped down to the essentials of what makes Fate "Fate". Apart from the extras chapter in Core, I don't think there's a whole ton that I'd recommend getting rid of before you get a good feel for how the system works as-is.
If you have specific questions about some of those "hit like a brick" bits, I'd be happy to try and explain the logic of how they work.
Yeah, that's a fantastic bit of the system, especially with the way that it forces you to say not only what's available in the game world, but what's actually *important* to the game. It's a great way to communicate expectations and genre.
Mostly RAW. There are certain parts of Core that are *intended* to be tweaked on a per-game/setting basis, though, and so I'll tweak those happily. Things like default refresh/stunt counts, the skills available, and the like. They're generally called "dials".
Changing the character creation stuff is something I'll do on occasion, but usually only by *adding* to it, not getting rid of the Phase Trio (which is what I see a lot of people default to doing).
Of course, if something's needed in the game (like magic), I'll add it.
My overall philosophy (not just with Fate) is not to tweak for the sake of tweaking. I'll figure out how I'd do something in the game as-is, see if I think it will work, and then think about tweaking it, and what the minimal tweak required would be. In most cases with Fate, I've found that no tweaking or minimal tweaking is required.
Absolutely - but it approaches tactical gameplay in a very different way than most games do, and probably isn't what most RPG players mean when they say "tactical". You can get relatively close with a detailed enough zone map, and sufficient general tactics knowledge, absolutely.
I only don't push that explanation more because I'd rather be honest about the system's strengths and weaknesses than try to even *imply* that it does things that it doesn't. And tactical grid (or miniature, in SW's case) combat isn't something that Fate does super-well.
Well thing that I have trouble with is a character removing himself from the scenario; forget what it is called.
I think I understand the logic of Fate; its a very logical system.
It's possible I am just reacting to it being different in a few ways from all the other games I have played.
I don't get why this is in Other Games---Fate is no more a storygame than Savage Worlds is imo? :confused:
That said this is a great thread, very informative. Will be following.
Fate does seem to be a truck but a streamlined, efficient, fairly cool truck.
Quote from: Eisenmann;683616Say you're running a modern SF (special forces) game and the players themselves understand even the basics of shoot, move, communicate, fire and maneuver, working corners, the perils of flagging, assault through, far ambush, and so on, you'll have one heck of a game that ticks all of the tactical boxes.
Sprinkle in a few tac-stunts, take some weapon and gear aspects into consideration and you're ready to rock 'n roll.
Do you know of good introductory material to these concepts? Do you have more detailed explanations how you implemented them with FATE?
Quote from: boulet;684058Do you know of good introductory material to these concepts? Do you have more detailed explanations how you implemented them with FATE?
IMO, most small unit books are pretty dense without accompanying field time. The one book that I think that could be handy is:
https://www.thelightningpress.com/smartbooks/the-small-unit-tactics-smartbook/
Something like the movie, Act of Valor is easily more accessible with enough conceptual oomph to drive a game. There are a lot of small details there that you just don't see in a lot of other movies. For example, how many times elsewhere have you seen someone hit the bolt catch after a mag change? Comparing and contrasting the operators of that movie versus pretty much any other sheds a lot of light on the subject.
As far as hooking these things up to FATE goes, allow the players to roll assessments ahead of time when preparing for a mission. Have 'em keep their Fate Points handy to do declarations on the fly and to tag existing scene aspects; things that contribute to concealment and cover or maybe even 'Guard watching TV.' If things are going swell do a compel. Hey, that barred steel door wasn't accounted for in planning.
The last step is to select or create stunts to accentuate individual team member roles. If a character is a squad gunner, he gets a stunt to pin the enemy to enhance his team's ability to maneuver. Beyond pinning the bad guys, any spin gets applied to his team's maneuvering.
I've got more written up but, my notes are currently in storage.
Beyond all of the sexy mil bits, FATE makes for one heck of a teamwork oriented game.
Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
You're not running games on hangout by any chance ? :)
Quote from: boulet;684113Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
You're not running games on hangout by any chance ? :)
You're welcome and no problem.
I'm not but, once things settle down here on my end, I might. It'd be fun.
Quote from: Bill;684020Well thing that I have trouble with is a character removing himself from the scenario; forget what it is called.
Dissociated mechanics? Breaking immersion? I've heard it called lots of things.
But yes, it happens in Fate. And the reasons that it happens are pretty key to how Fate works and what it does - it'd be pretty hard to get rid of that without really changing the system.
Quote from: Bill;684020I think I understand the logic of Fate; its a very logical system.
Except for the parts that aren't immediately obvious :) Like why using a situation aspect requires either a Create Advantage roll or spending a Fate Point. Some of the subtleties of the Stress/Consequence system, etc.
Quote from: Bill;684020It's possible I am just reacting to it being different in a few ways from all the other games I have played.
That's common, and what I'm happy to help with, having gone through the same thing.
Quote from: The Ent;684026I don't get why this is in Other Games---Fate is no more a storygame than Savage Worlds is imo? :confused:
I consider it to be more on the "narrative" side than Savage Worlds (I generally reserve "storygame" for things like Primetime Adventures, Fiasco, or the like). I consider it an RPG, but one centered around "the physics of fiction", if you will.
And there are definitely some mechanics that require author stance.
Given the general dislike of anything even remotely story-gamey, I felt it was safer to stick this here. I don't want to be one of those posters with an agenda that comes into RPGPundit's living room and shits on the living room floor. If a mod feels like it should be moved, they can move it - I won't be offended. But I may make examples of why mechanics using work by talking about things like camera motions and the like - be warned ;)
Quote from: robiswrong;684144But I may make examples of why mechanics using work by talking about things like camera motions and the like - be warned ;)
I wonder what's the equivalent of shaky cam in FATE.
Quote from: Bill;683613So, a question: Do you use Fate RAW? or do you have any house rules?
You pretty much
have to have house rules to run Fate. There isn't even any kind of implied setting, and the Stunts rules are just guidelines for making your own Stunts. There's no default magic system. There are no hard rules for non-human races.
Right now, I'm running two different versions of Fate. I'm running my
Wandering Stars game, a kind of dieselpulp fantasy space western which has hard-coded "alien" races, classes (via "Skill Modes"), and a sphere-based magic system. The other is
Shroompunk, a kind of
wuxia urban fantasy conspiracy thriller, which replaces the combat system entirely with something based on
Street Fighter RPG; I have no idea how exactly I'm going to handle non-human PCs in that.
Quote from: boulet;684215I wonder what's the equivalent of shaky cam in FATE.
Me violently shaking any player that even suggests such a thing???
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;684243You pretty much have to have house rules to run Fate. There isn't even any kind of implied setting, and the Stunts rules are just guidelines for making your own Stunts. There's no default magic system. There are no hard rules for non-human races.
But those things generally fall within the established mechanics of stunts, skills, and aspects. I don't consider that so much "houseruling" as using the tools the game gives you.
I mean, defining the skill list for your game is a presumed part of game prep.
If by "houseruling" you mean adding things that aren't prepackaged elements on a list, I'd agree that you have to do that, but I don't really consider it "houseruling" within the context of Fate (though it would be within the context of GURPS).
To me, houseruling in Fate would mean things like changing how Fate Points or aspects work, or the stress/consequence model, etc.
I have little experience with FATE but what I did have I liked very well. My D&D group took a break from the play test and ran a one off steam punk game. It went well enough that I am going to continue it.
So in Fate, if a character is a samarai surrounded by 100 ninjas, and they stab him 900 times, who gets to decide if he is dead, the player or the gm?
As far as I am aware, Fate goes in the main forum. So moving this there.
I like Fate in the way it puts the character (as in his personality and motivations) at the heart of things. A characters Aspects are important, his equipment not so much.
I also like the way Fate encourages and even rewards characters playing up their flaws and deliberately making poor decisions. Fate isn't the only game with rules for disadvantages and character flaws, but it champions this more than most and clearly spells out the screwing up is okay, as long as it's in-character. This is in stark contrast to the gaming ethos where stupid gets you killed.
I'm not to keen on Fate when the Fate point economy becomes the be and end all. For me focusing too much on often Aspects get invoked or compelled and trying to use the economy as the main pace setting mechanism seems to miss out that each game session has a dynamic of its own. Also, is an Aspect are used to frequently and casually they lose their dramatic power and just become another utility mechanic. The latter may be the intended effect, but it's not the way I enjoy it.
Quote from: Bill;687245So in Fate, if a character is a samarai surrounded by 100 ninjas, and they stab him 900 times, who gets to decide if he is dead, the player or the gm?
Technically I think it works like this, bear with me because I tend to get the different versions confused.
If the player is Taken Out (ie runs out of Stress) the GM gets to decide the player's fate. If however the player Concedes before he get's stabbed 900 times then the player get's to decide the terms on which he loses. He still loses the fight and whatever the the fight was about, he just has more control on how the way he loses.
I don't honestly know if technically the GM can state that a Taken Out character is irrevocably dead. But Fate places the responsibility on both player and GM to ensure that what happens the game fiction makes sense. You would expect in a grim samurai game given the situation you describe that the player would be the first to offer his death as part of his Concession, but perhaps stipulates that his character's body is sent back to his father for burial.
Fate is not the kind of game which assumes a responsible adult GM and unruly children as players. If you have players you can't trust, who try to win at all costs, exploit the rules and generally pay little attention to spirit of the game then you may not want to run Fate for them. I'm not I'd want to run anything at all with that kind of player, but Fate would make things worse.
Quote from: Soylent Green;687268Technically I think it works like this, bear with me because I tend to get the different versions confused.
If the player is Taken Out (ie runs out of Stress) the GM gets to decide the player's fate. If however the player Concedes before he get's stabbed 900 times then the player get's to decide the terms on which he loses. He still loses the fight and whatever the the fight was about, he just has more control on how the way he loses.
I don't honestly know if technically the GM can state that a Taken Out character is irrevocably dead. But Fate places the responsibility on both player and GM to ensure that what happens the game fiction makes sense. You would expect in a grim samurai game given the situation you describe that the player would be the first to offer his death as part of his Concession, but perhaps stipulates that his character's body is sent back to his father for burial.
Fate is not the kind of game which assumes a responsible adult GM and unruly children as players. If you have players you can't trust, who try to win at all costs, exploit the rules and generally pay little attention to spirit of the game then you may not want to run Fate for them. I'm not I'd want to run anything at all with that kind of player, but Fate would make things worse.
I don't see it as an issue of adult gm child like children.
I see it as an issue of adult opinionated people not agreeing (Congress?)
Do you want a stalemate or a game that proceddes because it is clear who is in charge?
You can always have a vote of no confidence or an impeachment of a gm :)
Quote from: Soylent Green;687265I'm not to keen on Fate when the Fate point economy becomes the be and end all. For me focusing too much on often Aspects get invoked or compelled and trying to use the economy as the main pace setting mechanism seems to miss out that each game session has a dynamic of its own. Also, is an Aspect are used to frequently and casually they lose their dramatic power and just become another utility mechanic. The latter may be the intended effect, but it's not the way I enjoy it.
This has been a problem with "narrative" mechanics since the debut of Whimsy Cards in the mid 90s. While there are groups that make it work, I found it is just another mechanic in the hands of the average gamer.
Since is a metagame mechanic (i.e. something that the player does not the character) I feel it takes away from the heart of what make a RPG an RPG. That it a game about players acting as their characters.
The reward for roleplaying is not something tangible you can hand out in points. It rather the satisfaction of experiencing the action as if you were really there. I am currently playing a character with a Intelligence of 8 and a Charisma of 8 and roleplay the character just like that, basically a stupid asshole. What interesting is seeing consequences of roleplaying this way and the challenge of find a path to success despite the character's limitations.
Finally there are players who don't like to adopt a different personae. Don't like playing a different personality. Whimsy Cards, Aspects, etc puts them at a mechanical disadvantage.
Quote from: Bill;687742Do you want a stalemate or a game that proceddes because it is clear who is in charge?
Way I've always played it is that the GM is still
always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.
I find this to be superior to both the rules lawyer player and the viking hat GM. It's using the rules to accomplish what more mature GMs have realized for a long time-- that player buy-in and investment creates more fun than a rigid authoritarian approach, regardless of whether that authority is a rulebook or a ruling.
Quote from: Bill;687742I don't see it as an issue of adult gm child like children.
I see it as an issue of adult opinionated people not agreeing (Congress?)
Do you want a stalemate or a game that proceddes because it is clear who is in charge?
You can always have a vote of no confidence or an impeachment of a gm :)
I find it interesting that they likened the GM's role to that of a Chairman, because in my experience, Chairmen of the Board of big companies tend to act more like kings than anything else. Sure, it's not
supposed to be that way, but it devolves into that when the Chair stocks the board with "yes men".
You have to have a mature group that can not only handle bad things happening to your character but will volunteer it for a game like FATE to work. If only one person refuses to consider that their character might bite it during an encounter, then the entire basis that FATE is based upon crumbles.
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687861Way I've always played it is that the GM is still always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.
I find this to be superior to both the rules lawyer player and the viking hat GM. It's using the rules to accomplish what more mature GMs have realized for a long time-- that player buy-in and investment creates more fun than a rigid authoritarian approach, regardless of whether that authority is a rulebook or a ruling.
Change 'bargain' to 'suggestion' and I am happy :)
Quote from: Bill;687245So in Fate, if a character is a samarai surrounded by 100 ninjas, and they stab him 900 times, who gets to decide if he is dead, the player or the gm?
Presuming that he didn't concede before the actual attack took place, the GM makes the determination.
If you are Taken Out, the attacker gets to decide what that means - the 'constraints' on that are basically 'the Taken Out character isn't part of the conflict any more, and it must fit what's going on in the game'. That could mean anything from them fleeing to chunky salsa.
Quote from: Soylent Green;687265I'm not to keen on Fate when the Fate point economy becomes the be and end all.
In a lot of ways, Fate is about what you're willing to sacrifice to get your way - whether that's Fate points or Consequences, it's the GM's job to set a price, and your job to decide if you're willing to pay it or not. If the GM is doing their job, you won't have enough resources to 'buy' everything.
That's also kind of why I put this in story games, actually. The "Big Question" of Fate is often "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?" as opposed to the more usual "is your build good enough?" "are you clever enough?" or "are you good enough at the tactical combat system?" or even "does luck favor you?" questions that are more common in "traditional" games.
Quote from: estar;687843This has been a problem with "narrative" mechanics since the debut of Whimsy Cards in the mid 90s. While there are groups that make it work, I found it is just another mechanic in the hands of the average gamer.
Fate is absolutely *not* a game that works if you approach it 'mechanics-first'. It's not a game that works for every scenario, or even necessarily every group. (Of course, I think that's basically true of *all* games...)
If you approach it from "hey, what's actually happening", I find that, in practice, the integration of the aspects into the game ends up being pretty transparent.
Quote from: estar;687843Since is a metagame mechanic (i.e. something that the player does not the character) I feel it takes away from the heart of what make a RPG an RPG. That it a game about players acting as their characters.
*shrug* It's not a problem I've really encountered. I know some people that feel very strongly that way, though. I personally find that, in many cases, being reminded of who my character is on a regular basis helps me get in his head better, but YMMV.
Quote from: estar;687843The reward for roleplaying is not something tangible you can hand out in points. It rather the satisfaction of experiencing the action as if you were really there. I am currently playing a character with a Intelligence of 8 and a Charisma of 8 and roleplay the character just like that, basically a stupid asshole. What interesting is seeing consequences of roleplaying this way and the challenge of find a path to success despite the character's limitations.
Yeah, and that's a very old-school-D&D approach, and one I certainly don't have an issue with. Old-school D&D is a different (but great) experience. When I want the old-school D&D experience, I'll play D&D. I don't mean this as a dismissal in any way, btw. I'm acknowledging the strengths of D&D, and I *personally* play D&D when that's what I want, rather than trying to turn Fate (or any other game, for that matter) into D&D.
Quote from: estar;687843Finally there are players who don't like to adopt a different personae. Don't like playing a different personality. Whimsy Cards, Aspects, etc puts them at a mechanical disadvantage.
I don't see why that would be - just make your Aspects in line with what you want your character to be. That can be anywhere from internal personality bits to important bits of gear to relationships. There's nothing saying how far those aspects must be from 'your' personality.
I have no experience with Whimsy Cards, so I can't really say anything about them.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;688077You have to have a mature group that can not only handle bad things happening to your character but will volunteer it for a game like FATE to work. If only one person refuses to consider that their character might bite it during an encounter, then the entire basis that FATE is based upon crumbles.
I think this is a bit extreme, but it's more-or-less true. One of the things I do with new Fate players is introduce them to failure *early* - preferably in the first session. I tell them in advance that Fate is a game where you don't always win. In conflicts, I make sure they get introduced to the concession mechanics early.
Setting expectations like this, and then showing them "hey, failure happens, and it means you're getting deeper in shit, but it's not the end of the world" seems to go a long way towards resolving this issue.
But your character biting it is somewhat infrequent in Fate, TBH. Bad things happening and your character getting deeper and deeper in trouble is pretty much the status quo.
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687861Way I've always played it is that the GM is still always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.
That's a good description. It also requires that players are open to failure, and won't try to use that bargaining as the primary means of success, by arguing down every passive difficulty, etc. As long as the whole group isn't like that (and if they are, Fate is a bad game for that group), they can often act as a good balance to the player, and it can often come off better than the "Viking Hat GM" just saying "it shall be so!"
Even then, I still find myself needing to say "nah, it's
" on occasion. But rarely, and usually because of a player that.... is problematic on occasion.
Quote from: Bill;688130Change 'bargain' to 'suggestion' and I am happy :)
I think suggestion is more accurate. Though in some circumstances (Concessions) it absolutely *is* a bargain, and deliberately so.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215I have no experience with Whimsy Cards, so I can't really say anything about them.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html
Think of them as aspects that other players activate and play on you. And the rules also encourages you play them on yourself, which is the part that is most like Fate Aspects.
My group and I used them heavily for a better part of a year in the mid 90s and learned the upsides and downsides of narrative mechanics.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215In a lot of ways, Fate is about what you're willing to sacrifice to get your way - whether that's Fate points or Consequences, it's the GM's job to set a price, and your job to decide if you're willing to pay it or not. If the GM is doing their job, you won't have enough resources to 'buy' everything.
While it may come with a price/consequence the mechanic still amounts to waving a magic wand and something happens. It not quite as bad as going
Quote"Hey I need a +3 magic sword to take out the mecha-goblin, Oh look there is a +3 magic sword that happen to be lying in a forgotten colander. I pick it up and swing it!"
But that exactly what the heart of the mechanic is.
Don't get me wrong the whole "Whismy Card" approach can be fun and produce some interesting experiences. But after a while it ceases to be challenging and interest flags as a result.
It because of two things, the ability to nearly always have what needed to handle the challenge of the moment, and continually having to step out of character to think about the action.
And I stress there is no black and white here. Just a spectrum of mechanics between two opposites. Fate, in my opinion, just happens goes a step too far. But only a step.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215That's also kind of why I put this in story games, actually. The "Big Question" of Fate is often "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?" as opposed to the more usual "is your build good enough?" "are you clever enough?" or "are you good enough at the tactical combat system?" or even "does luck favor you?" questions that are more common in "traditional" games.
See right there you are casting the problem in terms of mechanics or player skill. Good enough build, smart gameplayer, rules mastery, lucky dice rolls.
The alternative is to hell with the narrative and to hell with the rules. Play as if you are really there as the character. The referee will translate your actions into the mechanics if needed. The referee will present the world and entities that surrounds the character at that moment. You can do with a made up personality or character that is merely a reflection of yourself.
In short roleplay.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215*shrug* It's not a problem I've really encountered. I know some people that feel very strongly that way, though. I personally find that, in many cases, being reminded of who my character is on a regular basis helps me get in his head better, but YMMV.
But is that a result of the fact the everybody paying attention because a mechanic exists? To put it another way Would there be any difference if you played a GURPS character with the disadvantages and quirks listed on the sheet.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215Yeah, and that's a very old-school-D&D approach, and one I certainly don't have an issue with. Old-school D&D is a different (but great) experience. When I want the old-school D&D experience, I'll play D&D. I don't mean this as a dismissal in any way, btw. I'm acknowledging the strengths of D&D, and I *personally* play D&D when that's what I want, rather than trying to turn Fate (or any other game, for that matter) into D&D.
Interestingly enough my thoughts on this didn't develop because of D&D. I may be known as a old school D&D publisher but I play GURPS and have continually played it since 1987. And in GURPS advantages, disadvantages, and quirks play a central role in how a character is played. And not mechanic stuff like feats in D&D 3.X/4.X.
All the examples given for aspects in Fate have I seen in GURPS modeled at disads, advantages, and quirks. Note that I do own the fate rulebook and have read it.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215I don't see why that would be - just make your Aspects in line with what you want your character to be. That can be anywhere from internal personality bits to important bits of gear to relationships. There's nothing saying how far those aspects must be from 'your' personality.
Many gamers don't want to deal with it whether close to their personality or not. I find in GURPS they minimize the amount of mental disads on their character. SSome just won't take any disads and go with the lower number of starting points.
Quote from: robiswrong;688215I think this is a bit extreme, but it's more-or-less true. One of the things I do with new Fate players is introduce them to failure *early* - preferably in the first session. I tell them in advance that Fate is a game where you don't always win. In conflicts, I make sure they get introduced to the concession mechanics early.
Setting expectations like this, and then showing them "hey, failure happens, and it means you're getting deeper in shit, but it's not the end of the world" seems to go a long way towards resolving this issue.
But your character biting it is somewhat infrequent in Fate, TBH. Bad things happening and your character getting deeper and deeper in trouble is pretty much the status quo.
It's a bit of a problem in any RPG, but games that rely upon PCs getting deeper in shit on a regular basis to move things along will cause issues for some people. In a pulp Savage Worlds adventure I once ran (one of Triple Ace's Thrilling Tales of Adventure series), I had to explain to the players very early on that part of what makes this pulp game work was that the characters will find themselves in over their heads and will be forced to surrender.
Not every encounter is designed to be overcome. In the era of tweaking encounters so that things are perfectly balanced, that can seem counter intuitive, but it should be thrown out there.
Quote from: estar;688239My group and I used them heavily for a better part of a year in the mid 90s and learned the upsides and downsides of narrative mechanics.
Based on what I saw, they don't really look like they'd play out in the same way as I've seen aspects play out. But we're discussing my experience with Aspects and your experience with Whimsy Cards, so we're kind of at an impasse in terms of common ground for discussion.
Quote from: estar;688239While it may come with a price/consequence the mechanic still amounts to waving a magic wand and something happens. It not quite as bad as going But that exactly what the heart of the mechanic is.
Eh, not really in play. Usually Fate Point usage in play ends up being invoking aspects - which end up either being things that are already established, or part of your character anyway. So it's you using your fighting style as a bonus, or your opponent not seeing you because of the darkness, or whatever, or even just your dedication to what you're doing driving you harder (like moms lifting cars their kids are under).
And Consequences really just represent "how far are you willing to go in this before you give up?" They're very much in line with what your character does
The pulling things out of your ass stuff isn't really common. In most cases, it's kind of handled as a retcon, anyway, as Fate, as a game, doesn't really encourage you to micromanage every piece of gear you have on you. I think I've spent a FP to have some rope packed on me, which was something that would have, to a certain extent, made sense for me to have.
I'd certainly never allow the +3 sword to appear from midair.
Quote from: estar;688239It because of two things, the ability to nearly always have what needed to handle the challenge of the moment, and continually having to step out of character to think about the action.
*shrug*. You seem to be implying that a game is structured as a series of challenges to overcome. Fate's not a game that works well in that structure, I'll admit.
And the "nearly always" shouldn't be true, anyway. If you're running Fate 'right', players are having to make tough choices about what they will and will not spend their Fate Points on. Players should never have enough to do *all* the things they want.
Quote from: estar;688239See right there you are casting the problem in terms of mechanics or player skill. Good enough build, smart gameplayer, rules mastery, lucky dice rolls.
The alternative is to hell with the narrative and to hell with the rules. Play as if you are really there as the character. The referee will translate your actions into the mechanics if needed. The referee will present the world and entities that surrounds the character at that moment. You can do with a made up personality or character that is merely a reflection of yourself.
In short roleplay.
Not quite. And hell, you described 'the challenge of the moment' earlier, anyway.
What I'm saying is very simple. You have a character facing an orc, and they're going to fight. What determines which one wins? Blind luck? Character build? Skill/strategy used?
However you got there, if you assume that you're there, fighting the orc, something has to determine which one wins (and it's usually some combination of these factors). That's not assigning any kind of value judgement, or anything of the like. In GURPS, it's often a lot of character build, a bunch of strategy, and luck as a minor piece.
Again, that's not saying that anyone should or should not optimize their play towards winning, or that that's the point of the game. But *something* determines who wins between the two. The choices you made to get to that decision point are roleplaying.
Quote from: estar;688239But is that a result of the fact the everybody paying attention because a mechanic exists? To put it another way Would there be any difference if you played a GURPS character with the disadvantages and quirks listed on the sheet.
Yes, I think that aspects do differ from GURPS advantages/disadvantages. They're the clear analogy of Aspects in GURPS terms, and some Aspects may tie directly to GURPS advantages/disadvantages. But I don't see them as exactly the same by any means.
Quote from: estar;688239Interestingly enough my thoughts on this didn't develop because of D&D. I may be known as a old school D&D publisher but I play GURPS and have continually played it since 1987. And in GURPS advantages, disadvantages, and quirks play a central role in how a character is played. And not mechanic stuff like feats in D&D 3.X/4.X.
Fair enough. And I've come from a heavy GURPS background as well, so I can completely understand where you're coming from.
Quote from: estar;688239All the examples given for aspects in Fate have I seen in GURPS modeled at disads, advantages, and quirks. Note that I do own the fate rulebook and have read it.
And that's how I viewed them when I first started playing Fate. It was only after deliberately 'emptying my cup' and stopping trying to map Fate concepts onto GURPS, and just kind of take them 'as is' that I understood the system better. Well, that and playing with some people that really understood the system.
Fate is a pretty shitty version of GURPS. It's a pretty good version of Fate. GURPS is a pretty good version of GURPS. I still like both systems.
Quote from: estar;688239Many gamers don't want to deal with it whether close to their personality or not. I find in GURPS they minimize the amount of mental disads on their character. SSome just won't take any disads and go with the lower number of starting points.
Then choose aspects that aren't mental in nature? And choose aspects that are mostly positive, though that will impact the Fate Points you can get.
But for players looking to insulate themselves from "bad things", Fate isn't a great choice. Which is fine.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;688245It's a bit of a problem in any RPG, but games that rely upon PCs getting deeper in shit on a regular basis to move things along will cause issues for some people.
Yup. I find the best thing is to just push them through the first failure or two, while constantly reminding them that it's okay and telling them the mechanics they have available to minimize things.
Once they've seen that 'failure' in Fate just increases the pile of shit they're in (hopefully in an entertaining way) rather than ending the game they seem to loosen up a bit.
But it's a real thing. I think the RPG hobby, as a whole, has just self-selected for people that never want to 'lose' over the years, outside of certain sub-niches that are perhaps over-represented here.
I have FATE CORE & FAE, I have tried to get both off the ground but none will fly as of yet, it seems my FUDGE system does a better job at getting off the ground than FATE so far. I have also found that using my HERO system tends to get more work outs than FATE as well, mainly because my players know it better and prefer it overall. I have also used M&M 2E and 3E for many different Genres as a generic system and it's always worked out nice as well, IDK but it seems like a good SUPER HEROES system can really do just about anything any so called universal or generic style role-play system says they can do (but most typically can't without major work), or they're limited in some way.
Awesome thread.
Mind if I bounce a scenario off of you to see if I'm getting it?
Let's say there's a modern day destined monster fighter. He's tracked down a few goblins. They're started out as Average nameless NPCs - aspects: scampering little buggars, sensitive to sunlight; skills: fight and athletics both at Average (+1); no stress boxes. The conflict happens in an abandoned warehouse - one zone, two aspects - cluttered crates and painted windows.
OK, our hero goes first. Let's say he wants to get some sunlight in the area - he dashes up some crates and smashes open one of the painted windows. That's going to be creating an advantage to create a situation aspect, right?
Let's say he's successful enough to get a boost like "sudden burst of sunlight" or situation aspect like "sunlit area." He could use the +2 to increase the difficulty of the next goblin action instead of improving his next action, right? If he was successful enough to create the new aspect and get some sunlight in the warehouse, I believe he would need to pay a fate point and use a create an advantage action to compel a goblin's "sensitive to sunlight" aspect or to invoke the new aspect as there is now sunlight in the room.
Now, a goblin tries to scamper away and hide - creating an advantage using the "cluttered crates," right? The GM could even spend one of his fate points to invoke the goblin's scampering aspect I'm thinking.
Let's say that hidden goblin then pushes some crates over on our hero - create an advantage to put a "trapped under boxes" boost or aspect on our hero to later overcome, right?
Thanks in advance for following along. I'm pretty excited to wrap my head around this.
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say there's a modern day destined monster fighter. He's tracked down a few goblins. They're started out as Average nameless NPCs - aspects: scampering little buggars, sensitive to sunlight; skills: fight and athletics both at Average (+1); no stress boxes. The conflict happens in an abandoned warehouse - one zone, two aspects - cluttered crates and painted windows.
The warehouse is dark, and that's relevant, so that probably should be an aspect as well - *Cloaked in Darkness* or the like.
Remember, the warehouse isn't dark because it has a Cloaked in Darkness aspect - it has a Cloaked in Darkness aspect *because* it's dark.
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942OK, our hero goes first. Let's say he wants to get some sunlight in the area - he dashes up some crates and smashes open one of the painted windows. That's going to be creating an advantage to create a situation aspect, right?
That's exactly how I'd handle it. You could argue that it's an Overcome on the darkness aspect as well, but I think Create Advantage works better. If enough light is let in by breaking the window, that would just get rid of the darkness aspect.
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say he's successful enough to get a boost like "sudden burst of sunlight" or situation aspect like "sunlit area." He could use the +2 to increase the difficulty of the next goblin action instead of improving his next action, right?
Correct. He gets an invoke on that aspect, which can be used at any point that the sunlight is relevant.
Also, aspects are true. So it's not just an aspect - there's sunlight coming in through the window. If that would prevent the goblins from doing something, they're prevented.
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942If he was successful enough to create the new aspect and get some sunlight in the warehouse, I believe he would need to pay a fate point and use a create an advantage action to compel a goblin's "sensitive to sunlight" aspect or to invoke the new aspect as there is now sunlight in the room.
He gets one invoke for free as part of creating the aspect in the first place. Plus, as mentioned above, anything that the sunlight would prevent the goblins from doing at all is just prevented. Plus the sunlight could provide a level of passive resistance to various actions (though normally that wouldn't stack with any kind of active resistance).
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Now, a goblin tries to scamper away and hide - creating an advantage using the "cluttered crates," right? The GM could even spend one of his fate points to invoke the goblin's scampering aspect I'm thinking.
That would make sense for them to do, yes.
Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say that hidden goblin then pushes some crates over on our hero - create an advantage to put a "trapped under boxes" boost or aspect on our hero to later overcome, right?
Yep. And again, the hero is now *trapped under boxes*. That means that anything that he couldn't do because he was trapped under boxes couldn't be done, plus they get an invocation of that for free. That probably wouldn't be a good boost, though, since it's not really temporary enough to qualify.