Please excuse my rant/vent/frustration. As with any system I expect that what happens at the table is mainly to do with the people sat there. But sometimes what you are doing doesn't help....

We played Diaspora last night. A session that has finally turned me off the Fate system. Why? Well, it is partly the system and partly the group. I will elaborate. The game has been running for a month, I joined for the first time last night.

Diaspora 'seems' to be a Fate-based attempt at Traveller. It is difficult to produce a space-based game without standing in the long shadow cast by the Traveller system. But the notion that player agency and co-authorship of the narrative provide a compelling roleplay experience has again failed.

Firstly Aspects. This is the second time we have used a Fate derived system and the second time that Aspects are used simply as a way of tacking bonuses onto dice rolls, or justifying players re-rolling within the 'Fate Point Economy'. There is scant evidence to show that the Aspects system supports any Roleplaying as I wish to engage with it, and a wealth of evidence to show that Aspects and Fate Points are a mask drawn over "Special Snowflake" decisions that cannot be seen to ever fail.

The Fate Point Economy fails without incredibly tight management. The idea (drawn out from my reading of the Dresden Files system books) that players are compelled to take negative consequences to an action and earn Fate Points for later use in the game (thus allowing them to 'pull through against all odds') fails to address the large amount of points (and therefore the large amount of re-rolls and narrative 'ret-conning') floating round the table. The upshot of this is virtually all player rolls are bumped, re-rolled or adjusted to avoid failure at all costs. This leads to a not too surprising result. The games played so far have lacked any sense of danger or consequence.

There is never a sense of loss, urgency, danger or threat. Aspects can be pulled out for each roll 'at-will' giving the players a constant edge over anything that is thrown at them. An analogy might be "A group of 1st level D&D characters set loose with a Bag-of-Holding packed full of Relics and Artifacts". This leaves me feeling that the games I have played thus far using a Fate-system to power them hark back to D&D gaming I did when I was 13. The style of game that naive 'wet behind the ears' newbs might engage with that has every character maxed out on amazing, game and world breaking magical items laying waste to anything in their path.

A minor point, but the use of skills in the system runs counter to the open and free character development offered by Aspects as I first imagined. In my mind Aspects represent who the character is, encapsulated in a range of key phrases that have been drawn from a back story. This openness is hobbled by the short range of skills on offer, leaving characters with 'interesting back stories' but cookie cutter engagement with the game world. The Diaspora skill system was incredibly limited when it came to creating characters that people could use outside of a spaceship crew from Star Trek/Firefly/Other generic in-space thing. You float around and need a Microgravity skill. You have a piloting skill. You have a navigation skill, a medical skill, an intimidate skill, and so on.

Now, perhaps I do not have my finger on the pulse of contemporary gaming and this is an emergent play style that has become encoded in hobby products over the last  decade or so? Or perhaps there is value in the Fate system and my experiences so far have been coloured in a negative fashion, due to the lack of GM authority over player decisions and player use of Aspects, Fate Points and other 'boons' available whilst sat at the gaming table?

Or perhaps the Fate systems play into this idea that no one must ever fail, everyone is special and that we must all get a medal and a hug at the end of a gaming session? It's not for me, and because of my experiences I can see how others are quite critical of the system.

This is why I prefer Savage Worlds to Fate. I can create a world and its mechanics conceits in the same amount of time. Hindrances and Edges feel more like actual game mechanics and Aspects and Stunts. The "Fate Point Economy" becomes "Fate Point Attrition" here; you don't get them back through any codified method. I'd definitely use it under the same circumstances I'd run Fate (protagonist-centered cinematic romps).

No sense of danger? Someone does was doing it wrong.

There's no way I'd touch a system as narrative as FATE with a 10' pole, but I heard practically the same criticism from someone who played Spirit of the Century at a Con.

I must be playing a different FATE. Where is all this narrative stuff?

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Or perhaps there is value in the Fate system and my experiences so far have been coloured in a negative fashion, due to the lack of GM authority over player decisions and player use of Aspects, Fate Points and other 'boons' available whilst sat at the gaming table?

When running FATE I veto stuff that just doesn't make sense. Though with my group, I don't have to do that very often. They're damned good gamers.

As far as the FATE Point economy goes, it's certainly a back and forth thing that fits my GM style. I'm the kind of GM who stands up and walks around with a handful of FPs and hands them out to drive things forward. I've never had anyone run out of points leaving them stranded during the arc of the session.


Edit:

Back when Diaspora was Spirit of the Far Future I switched my flailing Mongoose Traveller game to it. I loved MGT but I couldn't get my players to engage. After the switch, the game just took off. And it was brutal when lead started to fly. They were losing a PC a session there for a short while.

Well if you don't like Fate there is always Fudge.

I've only played Fate 4 or 5 times and even to me it sounds very much like a GM/playstyle issue.

Quote from: Bigbywolfe;694126I've only played Fate 4 or 5 times and even to me it sounds very much like a GM/playstyle issue.

Yes, this. I've run a bunch of Fate and the GM has to push hard on Aspects to create tension and dramatic choices. If the GM's not used to doing that, or if the compels aren't all that compelling, then it's going to be a drag. The new Fate Core rules also tighten up the Fate point economy, so that play begins with fewer Fate points out there, meaning that getting more requires getting characters into trouble. IIRC, characters start with 10 Fate points in Diaspora, just as in SOTC, and that's just too damn many.

Fudge/Fate is very simple to play. It is difficult for a GM to master though.

With a skills/combat resolution range of 8 (-4 to +4) You can go from very worst result possible (the world ends) to the very best result possible (you own the world) in six easy steps. Three characters spending 3 fate points or invoking three aspects for one situation can push that sliding scale halfway into their favor before they even roll the dice. Three characters spending three fate points and invoking 3 aspects/compels can push a disasterous dice roll into a splendid success in one quick Whoosh.

As a GM you have two solutions for this. You can work your tail off and burn GM fate points, and invoke the negative aspects/compels, in order to counter-balance the player decisions, ...or (What I do most of the time)... Expand the skills/resolution range to absorb, and lessen, the effect of each fate point or aspect invoked. In the first method, every time the players invoke an aspect, the GM gets more fate points for balancing. With the second method, the effects of each fate point holds less significance in play  (The players can, for example survive the onslaught of a deadly horde, but they probably won't triumph...)

It takes some practice as a GM to get comfortable using either/or, however success means the players get to help craft a most excellent story with lots of unexpected twists, forks, and turns, and help the GM create a unique game world.

I've run Fate for a couple of groups on several different occasions, and the game just doesn't work for us.  It seems to have a bunch of incentives built into it to get players to do things my players already do.  It's like giving people a fate point to eat a piece of pizza.  They already bring their weaknesses into play all the time - the PC that is afraid of undead?  The player *roleplays* him that way, because ... it's an RPG.  I think Fate is revolutionary if you've always come to RPGs in a WoW-like, CRPG fashion, and need an education on what roleplaying  is.  I can see it help in that way.  But for us, the stuff Fate tried to enforce was stuff we already do naturally.

Having said that, Consequences and Stress are one of my favorite damage systems of all time.  I love "Broken Scapula" rather than "lose 10 HPs".  One of my least favorite things about most RPGs is the over-abstraction of damage.  And how it is rare to come out of a fight with anything lasting having happened to your character.  WFRP was always fun for the criticals because of that

But Fate?  I just don't see the appeal and think it is one of the most over-rated games fawned over by forum goers.  But, I don't think it is badwrongfun, just not something I want.

Quote from: Obeeron;694144Having said that, Consequences and Stress are one of my favorite damage systems of all time.  I love "Broken Scapula" rather than "lose 10 HPs".  

You should look at Fudge then. You could also mix and match between the two.

Good range of comments, especially the play-style ones.

It certainly muddles my brain when Aspects are sold as a two-way street, and the players all provide very one-dimensional "it helps me" phrases.

That would be familiarity with such a system and a desire to take it on the chin so to speak. It reeks of "best build" rather than characterisation to me (nothing wrong with that I suppose, if it floats your disc). I am left burnt out by it as it isn't my cup of playing pretend. Others get off on it and the GM facilitates it so there is fun. Thinking back, I was compelled twice in a 4 hour session. Maybe one or two others out of 8 (big group!!) Were also compelled.

A bit like never having to roll your Saves or do a Dex check I suppose.

I play it starting with 5 points each, and only self-compels. Works for me!

-clash

My group has been playing Fate core using the Airdhe setting from Troll Lords. We started off with C&C, then went to Mongoose Legend, now at Fate. Of them all, I prefer Legend. Something about Fate just does not click with me.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091The upshot of this is virtually all player rolls are bumped, re-rolled or adjusted to avoid failure at all costs. This leads to a not too surprising result. The games played so far have lacked any sense of danger or consequence.

One of the biggest problems with people new to running Fate is not jacking up the difficulties/tension enough.  A player can buy success at just about anything with enough FP - the trick is setting the 'cost' high enough, and making enough things that require them, that you can't succeed at *everything*.

Ironically, one of the things I usually warn new players to Fate (at least how I run it) is that they should *expect* to fail with more regularity than in most games.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091This openness is hobbled by the short range of skills on offer, leaving characters with 'interesting back stories' but cookie cutter engagement with the game world. The Diaspora skill system was incredibly limited when it came to creating characters that people could use outside of a spaceship crew from Star Trek/Firefly/Other generic in-space thing. You float around and need a Microgravity skill. You have a piloting skill. You have a navigation skill, a medical skill, an intimidate skill, and so on.

Usually differentiation is handled more with Stunts - but you're right, Fate doesn't go big into being an interesting system mechanically.  The interesting bits are supposed to be more about how you engage with what's happening in the game world, and the system tries mostly to get out of the way, and provide fodder for interesting ideas.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091due to the lack of GM authority over player decisions

I dunno, I run Fate pretty much as a mostly 'traditional' GM.  The GM still has final say.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091and player use of Aspects, Fate Points and other 'boons' available whilst sat at the gaming table?

Well aspects aren't free, they cost a Fate Point to invoke.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Or perhaps the Fate systems play into this idea that no one must ever fail, everyone is special and that we must all get a medal and a hug at the end of a gaming session?

That wouldn't be for me, either.  I can't stand the "everybody must always win!" mentality.  But that's now how I play Fate, and it's not how the authors seem to intend the system to be played, either.

Here's a big post I wrote about failing in Fate over on G+:

https://plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/CpvrfJUz8du

tl;dr version:  if every 'encounter' doesn't have a serious chance of failure associated with it, Fate's kind of a crappy game.  When every scene *does* have a serious chance of failure, it's pretty fun.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694149Good range of comments, especially the play-style ones.

It certainly muddles my brain when Aspects are sold as a two-way street, and the players all provide very one-dimensional "it helps me" phrases.

That would be familiarity with such a system and a desire to take it on the chin so to speak. It reeks of "best build" rather than characterisation to me (nothing wrong with that I suppose, if it floats your disc). I am left burnt out by it as it isn't my cup of playing pretend. Others get off on it and the GM facilitates it so there is fun. Thinking back, I was compelled twice in a 4 hour session. Maybe one or two others out of 8 (big group!!) Were also compelled.

Well, yeah.  The cost of not having some negative aspects is you don't get Fate Points for them.  And that's only an issue if the GM is making things hard enough that you *need* them.  It sounds like your GM wasn't, which makes for a crappy game, just like a D&D GM sending a handful of low-level guys against mid to high level characters, and just treating them as cannon fodder (no Tucker's Kobolds tactics).