TheRPGSite

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 (http://www.fudgerpg.com/). 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).

Once gain I recommend Fate 2nd Ed. All the streamlined utility of aspects w/o the "fate point economy" or other storygames detritus added on. It's done as a simple framework that can be added to any system (fudge was just the free default used as an example).

I don't like FATE for a number of reasons:

1. The lightness of the core mechanic is in stark contrast to the crunchiness of the toolkit aspects and Stunts. It is hard to find players who like its aspects, making it difficult to get the group onto the same page.

2. I find the narrative mechanics intrusive in play. They are ever present in every action. I like narrative focus but I like it to get out of the way when I am being in-character.

3. The Fate point economy and dice system forces the game constantly towards mediocrity. It promotes boring game play. This sounds like it relates to the OPs issue.

Quote from: Skywalker;694783I don't like FATE for a number of reasons:

1. The lightness of the core mechanic is in stark contrast to the crunchiness of the toolkit aspects and Stunts. It is hard to find players who like its aspects, making it difficult to get the group onto the same page.

2. I find the narrative mechanics intrusive in play. They are ever present in every action. I like narrative focus but I like it to get out of the way when I am being in-character.

3. The Fate point economy and dice system forces the game constantly towards mediocrity. It promotes boring game play. This sounds like it relates to the OPs issue.

I very much agree with point two. The system really doesn't allow me to get going. We RPd, but every so often it would stop, someone would chime in and pay a Fate Point because "that is what their character would do" and a bonus or change to the scene ensues...  meh. I couldn't explore the character and get him to engage with the game world because their were too many cooks tweaking the recipe.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694796I very much agree with point two. The system really doesn't allow me to get going. We RPd, but every so often it would stop, someone would chime in and pay a Fate Point because "that is what their character would do" and a bonus or change to the scene ensues...  meh. I couldn't explore the character and get him to engage with the game world because their were too many cooks tweaking the recipe.

I personally prefer something more cyclical, with period in character and others out of character. At the end of each Session/Act/whatever, the players set some clear narrative signposts for their PCs and then this is left untouched during the next session. Rinse and repeat.

This allows for the OOC to feed into the IC more effectively without overbearing it. Tenra Bansho Zero is probably the best example of that sort of narrative approach. FATE too often requires everyone to wear both hats at the same time.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694796I very much agree with point two. The system really doesn't allow me to get going. We RPd, but every so often it would stop, someone would chime in and pay a Fate Point because "that is what their character would do" and a bonus or change to the scene ensues...  meh. I couldn't explore the character and get him to engage with the game world because their were too many cooks tweaking the recipe.

Mechanically what were they spending the Fate Point on? An invoke for effect? I've played lots of Fate, but not Diaspora.

Spirit of the Century (which I believe is similar to Diaspora in this regard) has the Declaration, which can do this. But, it shouldn't have resulted in ping ponging the scene like that. Here's what the SotC book says: "Usually these things can't be used to drastically change the plot or win a scene...Your GM has veto power over this use, but it has one little dirty secret. If you use it to do something to make the game cooler for everyone, the GM will usually grant far more leeway than she will for something boring or, worse, selfish (Page 13)."

Quote from: TristramEvans;694600Once gain I recommend Fate 2nd Ed. All the streamlined utility of aspects w/o the "fate point economy" or other storygames detritus added on.

Ok, what exactly is the difference between FATE 2 and the later versions?
(How many later variants are there, anyway?)

I had a look at FATE years ago, mainly because I thought it might be easier to digest than straight Fudge. I found the treatment of Aspects and Fate points not appealing.

At the most basic level, Aspects (if memory serves) are a formalization of such sundry notes one might make as that a character is a Knight of the Bungie, in fine amor with Queen Nell, suffering crotch rot from a dalliance with Baron Flamm's daughter, and so on.

Problems arise, I think, from making of the like an abstract resource management sub-game as opposed to letting them arise and pass away naturally in play.

Fate points present a similar problem, compounded by their relation to Aspects, and brought to the pitch of "narrativist" muddling with invocation to declare a fact about the world.

Quote from: Eisenmann;694111I must be playing a different FATE. Where is all this narrative stuff?

A compel is a decision to set aside the dice and focus on the dictates of drama instead. When a character is compelled by an aspect, he gains a fate point.

The incentives are for a story teller, not for someone acting from the character's perspective.

Spending Fate points is also very often not at all something a character does in its frame of reference.

I tried to work up a "storytelling" game along RPG lines way back in the 1980s, when I was not aware of any examples. In all the years since, the same problems I ran into have kept rearing their heads in one published offering after another. Different decade, same story!

Quote from: Phillip;694856A compel is a decision to set aside the dice and focus on the dictates of drama instead. When a character is compelled by an aspect, he gains a fate point.

The incentives are for a story teller, not for someone acting from the character's perspective.

Spending Fate points is also very often not at all something a character does in its frame of reference.

Yeah, the kind of things that I saw home brewed into Mentzer D&D back in Jr. High.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Firstly 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.

The solution is rather simple. Make all rolls two to three steps harder.

Quote from: 1of3;694866The solution is rather simple. Make all rolls two to three steps harder.

Yeah, some people play Fate without any teeth. That doesn't mean the game doesn't have any teeth.

Quote from: Phillip;694856The incentives are for a story teller, not for someone acting from the character's perspective.

Spending Fate points is also very often not at all something a character does in its frame of reference.

Quote from: Eisenmann;694865Yeah, the kind of things that I saw home brewed into Mentzer D&D back in Jr. High.

Which makes them in-character how?  Oh you were doing a non-sequitur thing, nevermind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;694941Which makes them in-character how?  Oh you were doing a non-sequitur thing, nevermind.

No, dude. I just said that I saw that kind of thing hacked into old style D&D. It was clear to us that the game was to challenge both the player and the in-game player character. Today, the retro-gaming scene talks about challenging the player with puzzles. I guess that's ZOMG! Pulls me out of the immersion!

Oh, boy. Now I'm fretting that this post isn't up to your standards.

(I wandered round the site last night and the original post of this thread is probably on the wrong forum. If that is the case, can someone with a finger on a button move it to 'other' games? Seems appropriate.)

Okay. Example of play. Character is getting assaulted by other player for whatever reason. Contested roll. Seems legit. Both players roll "good" (or whatever the applicable adjective is!) Now because one player REALLY wants to win he pays a Fate Point to reroll, and on that reroll spends another point to bump the result via an applicable Aspect. He is successful and play continues (insert comment about social contracts in play here).

All seems a bit railroady to me. The narrative was not thrust forward in a meaningful way it was just a method employed to strong-arm a positive result in the short-term. In fact it served not real purpose as later, the winning character undid his action through other means resulting in unnecessary point spending, dice rolling and PvP around the table. Bizarre.

In fact, play is hilariously short-sighted: party find a ship with distress beacon. Break in, hold character on board hostage, then chill out a bit after assaulting said character. Suddenly, external threat appears.  Party split across two ships and deal with external threat. Can anyone see a wonderful retaliatory hostage situation evolving? I can.

Still seems like more of a critique of the players than the game. The GM, and the group as a whole, are supposed to determine if and how an aspect applies to a given situation. But, yes if you want to improve your roll an invoke gives you a +2 or a reroll. So, if your a Badass Warrior, you'll be pretty good in a fight, provided you have FP you're willing to spend. of course, if your oponent is a Dirty Fighter, hes going to be tricky to take down. Not sure how that is railroady. Seems like the opposite if railroady to me.

Quote from: Noclue;694967Still seems like more of a critique of the players than the game. The GM, and the group as a whole, are supposed to determine if and how an aspect applies to a given situation. But, yes if you want to improve your roll an invoke gives you a +2 or a reroll. So, if your a Badass Warrior, you'll be pretty good in a fight, provided you have FP you're willing to spend. of course, if your oponent is a Dirty Fighter, hes going to be tricky to take down. Not sure how that is railroady. Seems like the opposite if railroady to me.

I can see that. I used the term loosely to mean "pushing a particular agenda or result by any means necessary."

As the thread has evolved it is certainly a play issue rather than a system issue (analysis has been appreciated).

Quote from: Phillip;694855I had a look at FATE years ago, mainly because I thought it might be easier to digest than straight Fudge. I found the treatment of Aspects and Fate points not appealing.

At the most basic level, Aspects (if memory serves) are a formalization of such sundry notes one might make as that a character is a Knight of the Bungie, in fine amor with Queen Nell, suffering crotch rot from a dalliance with Baron Flamm's daughter, and so on.

Problems arise, I think, from making of the like an abstract resource management sub-game as opposed to letting them arise and pass away naturally in play.

Fate points present a similar problem, compounded by their relation to Aspects, and brought to the pitch of "narrativist" muddling with invocation to declare a fact about the world.

If you can spend a Fate Point to ignore your crotch rot, it isn't really crotch rot.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;694989If you can spend a Fate Point to ignore your crotch rot, it isn't really crotch rot.

In FATE, you are more likely to spend a Fate Point to get your crotch rot to give a +2 to combat.

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.

Finally, someone is talking about this.  Thank you.  I had a feeling this goes on just by reading the die mechanic.

Quote from: estar;694117Well if you don't like Fate there is always Fudge.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;695015Finally, someone is talking about this.  Thank you.  I had a feeling this goes on just by reading the die mechanic.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

More on this from you I think!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;695015Finally, someone is talking about this.  Thank you.  I had a feeling this goes on just by reading the die mechanic.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

I think this comes down to how situations are framed and GM enforcement of game pacing.

My experience with a group, I'm guesstimating that 30% of the rolls are simply the roll + skill.  Around 50% get one or two aspects pulled in, from the sheet or the environment. The rest are stunts and doing session or arc wrap up actions - big boss fight or defusing a bomb, etc.

BTW, If ithe crotch rot is something somewhat serious then it's a consequence.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694962Now because one player REALLY wants to win he pays a Fate Point to reroll, and on that reroll spends another point to bump the result via an applicable Aspect.

So if two players really got honked off at one another, they could keep escalating to and fro with fate points until the one with the fewest points loses, or is it a one off?

Quote from: The Traveller;695049So if two players really got honked off at one another, they could keep escalating to and fro with fate points until the one with the fewest points loses, or is it a one off?

Each would have to have a lot of applicable aspects on their sheet to have game play go down that way. And if the characters look like that on paper then something is wrong.

Let's assume that the PCs can do that, things change once someone takes a consequence - a penalty to rolls.

Edit:

The latest Fate SRD:
http://fate-srd.com

Quote from: Phillip;694856A compel is a decision to set aside the dice and focus on the dictates of drama instead. When a character is compelled by an aspect, he gains a fate point.

While that one way to look at it. The other way is the GURPS point of view. You get rewarded for roleplaying your disadvantages. Rather in Fate you get rewarded for roleplaying a character with self-imposed disadvantage. Self-imposed in that you choose the aspect at character creation.

I just ran a Fate one-off. I used an adventure created for the Majestic Wilderlands and the character were created with a quasi medieval fantasy world in mind.

QuoteRufus
--------------------------
Aspect
High Concept: Bounty Hunter
Failed Merchant left debt
Ladies Man
Big Spender
Bruiser

Skills
+4 Fight
+4 Fight
+3 Athletics~ Physique
+2 Contacts ~ Investigate~ Notice
+1 Empathy  ~ Rapport    ~ Stealth~ Will

Stunts
Because I'm tough as nails I get a +2 advantage when fighting with my sword

Because I have a Magic ring goblins tend to trust me.

QuoteRaymond
--------------------------
Aspects
Wizard College Dropout
I can do that if I wanted to I just don't Care
I think I can figure this out.
Never without a Map
This is just like that game I played when I was young

Skills
Will +4
Lore +3 Fight +3
Stealth +2 Athletics +2 Deceive +2
Contacts Empathy Notice Provoke +1

Stunts
Because I have an elven cloak, I get a +2 when I gain an advantage by hiding
when I'm in a natural environment

Because I accidentally summoned something, once per game I can teleport to a place of the creatures choosing.

My impression is that for a one off adventure Fate is mediocre. Those who have read my Scourge of Demon Wolf know that while I have opportunities for combat and treasure the adventure itself revolves round roleplaying with NPCs and this was no exception.

It involved the rescue of a kidnapped Baron's daughter by a coven of warlocks. Involves the party entering the warlocks three level cliff side dwelling. Inside there are slaves, visiting orc chieftain, a pair of summoned captive demons, a talking dragon skull, the warlocks, and a bunch of captured children.

The magic system was basically using the Lore skills to perform one of the four basic Fate actions with the condition that anything beyond a single target or a single area would be very difficult to accomplish. Other than the I encouraged the mage character to make up his spells.

Combat was relatively quick one of the faster method of resolving combat I have used. The make up your own spells didn't get out of hand. The use of aspects and stunts was constrained by the pool of fate points. For this game the characters had 3 fate points.

Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of opportunities to earn fate points. In the post game discussion it was agree that we could have tried but it would been forced and probably some thing that was silly and very improbable.

We all felt that Fate was better suited for a regular campaign than a one off adventure. That if we to use Fate 'as is' we would flesh out a lot of things especially the magic system. As it was it felt like to much like metagaming. We plan to look at Legend of Angleterre and see how that holds up.

We all liked the use of Fudge Dice and how it added on top of a skill. How opposed rolls were handled. I mention that I am in the midst of making a rule system using Fudge as the foundation.  We also talked about the Fate jargon that littered the rule book.

Clearly, how the Fate point economy performs will depend on how the GM sets up situations.

There may be an inherent contradiction -- not necessarily insurmountable, but a thorny problem -- in trying to design a drama-centric rules set while retaining the traditional RPG player-character identification.

In an RPG, one tends naturally to deploy powerful resources (such as are Fate points) to the end of creating outcomes regarded as desirable from the character's POV. Those are not necessarily the most dramatically interesting ones.

The trick of giving players incentives to go against that interest is by its nature more of a challenge than if the players' objectives are explicitly tied to the goals of drama without a conflicting interest in the goals of a given figure.

Quote from: estar;695059While that one way to look at it. The other way is the GURPS point of view. You get rewarded for roleplaying your disadvantages. Rather in Fate you get rewarded for roleplaying a character with self-imposed disadvantage. Self-imposed in that you choose the aspect at character creation.

Except compels aren't a disadvantage taking effect. They are the aspect being given front and center focus in a not-necessarily-good fashion. There's a huge difference. Plus in Fate Core, in particular, compels aren't the subject of die rolls or modifiers - they just happen.

An example is a character that has the aspect Knight of the Round Table. That's not a self-imposed disadvantage - but it's very easily compelled.

Compel: "Because you are a Knight of the Round Table, it makes sense that you can't remain anonymous in the tavern and someone recognizes you. Damn your luck."

Compel: "Because you are a Knight of the Round Table, it makes sense that you would stop to stop some brigands from robbing that noblewoman and be late for your audience with the king. Damn your luck."

Quote from: estar;695068Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of opportunities to earn fate points. In the post game discussion it was agree that we could have tried but it would been forced and probably some thing that was silly and very improbable.

To be fair, that's really the GM's job. Players can definitely propose self compels, but if they didn't have any opportunity to earn FP that's all on the GM.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Firstly 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.

Fate Core may offer a key to part of your problem. Aspects are always true. That means that aspects, beyond die rolls and bonuses, act as permission or justification (or lack thereof) for things to happen. A character who is Hog-Tied can't run away. No invocation is necessary for this. Now, if you want to put additional focus on the character being hog-tied, you can certainly compel the aspect to prevent them from doing something. In that case, the character gets a Fate Point - because you have just limited their ability to act and they are agreeing it makes things better/more exciting/etc.

QuoteThe 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.

If the players are avoiding failure at all costs, I'd say there is a disconnect about what they should be aiming for. Characters in Fate fail all the time. If you look at fiction, those characters fail all the time too. The idea of aspects isn't to stack up bonuses to not fail, it's to make sure that the players are putting the focus on the elements they think are important.

And part of this is that the entire group has to be in agreement about what aspects mean, which ones can be invoked, and how they can be used. At the very least, the player and the GM need to be in agreement. Someone who is able to apply any aspect they have to any situation they get in either has some very poorly defined aspects or the GM is being exceptionally lenient. Again, the goal isn't to try to shoehorn as many aspects as possible into a roll.

QuoteNow, 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?

I'd say the latter, because it sounds like the group is trying to play Fate more like D&D - and it's not D&D. Fate, for better or worse, IME does not work well with highly competitive players who try to "play for keeps". It works for groups that are interested in crafting interesting stories featuring their characters. Not "always winning" stories or "how my character is totally awesome" stories. Interesting stories, with successes and failures. But it's not something that people necessarily grok on to immediately, and it's not a system that works for everybody.

QuoteOr 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.

I've never seen any Fate game that is predicated on nobody failing or every character being special. Most of them are built around the idea that the characters are doing interesting things and are competent.

You may want to take a look at Fate Core, because it has a lot of clarifications and some minor tweaks that address a lot of this. From Success at a Cost to the four basic actions and four outcomes, plus a ton of advice on aspects and group dynamics, it might help make it click if Fate is something you can work with or not.

Quote from: The Traveller;695049So if two players really got honked off at one another, they could keep escalating to and fro with fate points until the one with the fewest points loses, or is it a one off?

In Fate Core, I could just concede, decide how I'm taken out, rack up a bunch of Fate Points for the Concession and hoard them for our next encounter.

FWIW, I have seen Fate played without any sense of jeopardy or risk of failure. It makes for a boring Fate game. Don't play that way.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695194Except compels aren't a disadvantage taking effect. They are the aspect being given front and center focus in a not-necessarily-good fashion. There's a huge difference. Plus in Fate Core, in particular, compels aren't the subject of die rolls or modifiers - they just happen.

It is a distinction without significance. Nor do the majority of GURPS disadvantages involve  die rolls or modifiers. The point of a compel and a GURPS disadvantage that it represent a limitation on the character that comes out in the roleplaying. For example an aspect of 'Honest to a Fault' very similar to the GURPS Honesty disad. Except the expectation in Fate that 'Honest to a fault' would be an advantage in certain situation.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695194An example is a character that has the aspect Knight of the Round Table. That's not a self-imposed disadvantage - but it's very easily compelled.

You haven't played much GURPS then. A Knight of the Round Table would be represented Duty (disad), Vow (Disad), Reputation (advan), Social Status (advan), and possibly Rank (advan)

My impression and experience with Aspects is that they play out as a package of GURPS disadvantages and advantages.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695194Compel: "Because you are a Knight of the Round Table, it makes sense that you can't remain anonymous in the tavern and someone recognizes you. Damn your luck."

GURPS Reputation advantage that Knight of the Round table PC would be required to take. On thing that Fate Aspect handles better than GURPS disads or advantage/ Fudges Gifts and Flaws, is ambiguous nature of the background elements of a character.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695194Compel: "Because you are a Knight of the Round Table, it makes sense that you would stop to stop some brigands from robbing that noblewoman and be late for your audience with the king. Damn your luck."

Which would be covered in the Vow disadvantage of a Knight of the Round Table.

Quote from: Noclue;695203To be fair, that's really the GM's job. Players can definitely propose self compels, but if they didn't have any opportunity to earn FP that's all on the GM.

Yes but you miss the point of what I was saying. That Fate Aspect work best over the course of a campaign.

For a one shot it doesn't work as well unless

1) Craft the characters to the scenario. In essence create pre-gens.
2) Twist things artificially into a improbable circumstance to allow a aspect to play.

This in contrast to classic D&D where just about anything can be rolled is usable with a given scenario.

Quote from: estar;695216Yes but you miss the point of what I was saying. That Fate Aspect work best over the course of a campaign.

If I may restate:

A FATE character has a bundle of Aspects, but the likelihood is that only one or two will apply to the circumstances in any given session.

Hence, if you're playing a 1-shot, half the Aspects will be irrelevant.

The best use of Aspects is in a continuing campaign, because then there are far more opportunities for Aspects to be applicable.

Ah, yes, if you're creating a one shot, it's definitely best to create characters with aspects that are likely to be relevant. In the case of your game, allowing Rufus to have Ladies Man if you knew the players were going to be spending 90% of their time in the wilderness or in a dungeon might have been problematic. Of course, changing your adventure so the coven of warlocks were led by a sorceress, might have fixed that particular problem. The point being, the more you tie character aspects to the "adventure" and vice versa the better,

Some grist for the mill...

The first time I ran Spirit of the Century it was a one shot set in Middle Earth. Here's the thread where I talk about it, specifically some of the things that I was working still to get a handle on.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?316159-SotC-Ran-Middle-Earth-today


Here's the resulting actual play:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?316355-SotC-Middle-Earth-A-Search-for-Hope

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Diaspora '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.

You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you would have just played Traveller instead.

Quote from: Noclue;695265Of course, changing your adventure so the coven of warlocks were led by a sorceress, might have fixed that particular problem. The point being, the more you tie character aspects to the "adventure" and vice versa the better,

As it so happened the coven was lead by a sorceress. But that doesn't change the issues Fate is weak if you allow players to make characters for a one-shot adventure.

Quote from: Noclue;695265Ah, yes, if you're creating a one shot, it's definitely best to create characters with aspects that are likely to be relevant.

Then you take on the issues with pre-gen characters.

For one-shot adventures you have the choice of pre-gen or created characters. Both approaches have advantages, both have disadvantages. In my opinion Fate is weak for running one-shot adventure with created characters. It not a flaw in the game. There are a bunch of RPG systems that are similarly not suited.

Quote from: estar;695296.
For one-shot adventures you have the choice of pre-gen or created characters. Both approaches have advantages, both have disadvantages. In my opinion Fate is weak for running one-shot adventure with created characters. It not a flaw in the game. There are a bunch of RPG systems that are similarly not suited.

I agree. If you're going to prepare a one shot without player input, you'd best also prepare the characters so that they mesh well with it. You can leave some openings for customization, but everyone I know who one-shots Fate at conventions comes with characters.

Quote from: estar;695212It is a distinction without significance. Nor do the majority of GURPS disadvantages involve  die rolls or modifiers. The point of a compel and a GURPS disadvantage that it represent a limitation on the character that comes out in the roleplaying. For example an aspect of 'Honest to a Fault' very similar to the GURPS Honesty disad. Except the expectation in Fate that 'Honest to a fault' would be an advantage in certain situation.

The point was that "advantages" and "disadvantages" in the context of, say, GURPS (which I've played quite a bit of, thankyouverymuch) are not exactly what aspects represent in Fate - or, at least, aspects encompass some of the same things, but step outside of those boundaries quite a bit.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695306The point was that "advantages" and "disadvantages" in the context of, say, GURPS (which I've played quite a bit of, thankyouverymuch) are not exactly what aspects represent in Fate - or, at least, aspects encompass some of the same things, but step outside of those boundaries quite a bit.

I once had a discussion comparing GURPS disads and Fate aspects on reddit. Things broke down when she asked about Disney's Aladdin and I did a quick Fate-ization of it to point out how Aspects are different from GURPS ads and disads:

QuoteHigh Concept: Clever little street rat. Trouble: Smitten with the Princess. Other Aspects: "Diamond in the Rough" "Stop that, Abu!" "An honorable thief"

So, Aladdin's in the marketplace after meeting Jasmine and the GM compels his Honorable Thief aspect, which gets him captured by Jafar. Later, while he's going after the lamp, a compel on "Stop that, Abu!" causes all sorts of mayhem from Abu's trying to steal from the cave. Then the GM compels Aladdin's Smitten With the Princess aspect informing him that Jafar has a fiendish plot to gain her hand in marriage unless Aladdin does something. Being a Clever little Street Rat, Aladdin dresses up like Prince Ali, but the GM compels his Diamond in the Rough and Jasmin, not recognizing the pompous Ali as her roguish love, spurns him.

Quote from: jeff37923;695284You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you would have just played Traveller instead.

I tried that. Spirit of the Far Future (Diaspora) saved the game.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695306The point was that "advantages" and "disadvantages" in the context of, say, GURPS (which I've played quite a bit of, thankyouverymuch) are not exactly what aspects represent in Fate - or, at least, aspects encompass some of the same things, but step outside of those boundaries quite a bit.

Individually yes, but Advantage and Disadvantage in GURPS  can and do come as a consistent package to represent something in-game. Like the Knight of the Round Table template in GURPS Camelot.

While Fate Aspects could represent a individual GURPS Advantage or Disadvantage say Honesty. Most times they are more of a package deal. Some part of a Aspect is an Advantage and some are Disadvantages.

Quote from: Noclue;695313I once had a discussion comparing GURPS disads and Fate aspects on reddit. Things broke down when she asked about Disney's Aladdin and I did a quick Fate-ization of it to point out how Aspects are different from GURPS ads and disads:

QuoteHigh Concept: Clever little street rat.

This would be a template and come with a list of skill option, advantages and disadvantages.

QuoteTrouble: Smitten with the Princess.

This would be a disadvantage probably taken as one of the optional disads that template leave room for. If it was from a Arabian Nights supplement probably it would be a explicit option as it is a common trope of the genre.

Quote"Diamond in the Rough"
"Stop that, Abu!"
"An honorable thief"

All these can be handled by either quirks or a combination of advantages and disadvantages.

QuoteSo, Aladdin's in the marketplace after meeting Jasmine and the GM compels his Honorable Thief aspect, which gets him captured by Jafar.

In GURPS this would result from the player roleplaying his Code of Honor.

QuoteLater, while he's going after the lamp, a compel on "Stop that, Abu!" causes all sorts of mayhem from Abu's trying to steal from the cave.

Abu would be a Ally of Aladdin but Allies are built like character and would have their own disadvantages. Abu probably has an Odious Personal Habit of Always getting into things he shouldn't."

QuoteThen the GM compels Aladdin's Smitten With the Princess aspect informing him that Jafar has a fiendish plot to gain her hand in marriage unless Aladdin does something.

Again because the player roleplaying of his infatuation with the Princess would cause his character to take up the challenge of defeating Jafar's plot.

QuoteBeing a Clever little Street Rat, Aladdin dresses up like Prince Ali,

The Street Rat package obviously comes with a disguise ability and the fact that the player considers his character a Diamond in the Rough probably meant that he some type of savior faire that not normal to one of his social status.

Quotebut the GM compels his Diamond in the Rough and Jasmin, not recognizing the pompous Ali as her roguish love, spurns him.

In GURPS this is a result of Jasime's disadvantage not of Aladdins. Which would be consistent because, if I remember how the movie went, she was spurning all the princely suitors her father was presenting to her.

The strength of Fate in this regard would be the fact that unlike GURPS the player just needs to write down five sentences. While in GURPS it requires coming with the details of the five character concepts.

The only wonky thing about the Fate example is that the characters Diamond in the Rough is compelled to make Jasmine spurn him. Jasmine spurning Aladdin as Ali is a function of her own Aspects and the unknowing result of the player deciding to disguise himself as Prince Ali.

In fact the referee would come off as a bit of a dick to the player. The player comes up with a supposedly good plan and the referee whips up on the spot something that thwarts the it. The player would rightfully react negatively to the arbitrary decision of the referee.

On the other hand if the referee did define Jasmine this way before the game, then this could be looked on as the player getting a reward anyway despite the in-game failure of his plan. To me this would be in the spirit of Fate as you are supposed to get Fate points for when your Aspects turn out to be disadvantages.

Quote from: Eisenmann;695331I tried that. Spirit of the Far Future (Diaspora) saved the game.

Which version of Traveller did you use and how did it fail?

Quote from: jeff37923;695345Which version of Traveller did you use and how did it fail?

As mentioned upstream, we tried Mongoose Traveller. As GM, I really liked it. But I had a heck of a time getting the players to engage. I had already run a bunch of different games for the group; Silcore, Castles & Crusades, Savage Worlds, and Agon, amongst others. And those went pretty danged well. But I just couldn't get them to engage MGT.

It was no problem getting started with Traveller. The SRD helped a lot there. But, once things started moving forward, the game started going nowhere fast. Made the switch to what would become Disapora and the game just took off.

The PCs were ported over to Fate as accurately as possible. It was the same plot framework with stats being the only conversion. I didn't see any of this coming at all since there was some player overlap with a successful LBB reprint game that I ran earlier. To this day, some of those players still talk about that one.

Sounds like Mongoose Traveller just wasn't the right game for your Players. I'm curious why they just weren't able to engage with those rules. It happens with games all the time, some rules just don't fit some groups.

Quote from: jeff37923;695357Sounds like Mongoose Traveller just wasn't the right game for your Players. I'm curious why they just weren't able to engage with those rules. It happens with games all the time, some rules just don't fit some groups.

That's so very true.

Some of us had moved to the fringe of the old stomping grounds so we decided to meet up at a cafe which was pretty much at the center of things. We met for a session to do character generation which went really well. The resulting PCs were excellent. The first session went great. The group was buzzing about the possibilities but, at the table, there was little to no teamwork, players weren't paying much attention to what was going on, etc. It was like every gear in the transmission was unsynchronized. I had to stop everything in order to change gears.

I pretty much said, "Hey, guys. I've been looking at Spirit of the Far Future which runs on the system used in Spirit of the Century. Let's give that a try and see how it goes."

Right off the bat, teamwork was up front and center. Everyone was leaning in to see the map with zones that I sketched up on the fly. Players were asking questions about the environment in terms of aspects, and so on. Afterward, right at the table, players were converting D6s to Fudge dice with Sharpies.

Someday, I'm going to try running MGT with them again just to see.

Quote from: estar;695340

Yes, they play differently. She had a problem with how the Fate GM and player were using compels in my example to drive the game in different directions, and how something like Smitten with The Princess could be invoked for a bonus when relevant to Aladdin's actions.

Quote from: Noclue;695384Yes, they play differently. She had a problem with how the Fate GM and player were using compels in my example to drive the game in different directions, and how something like Smitten with The Princess could be invoked for a bonus when relevant to Aladdin's actions.

The main problem with the freeform nature of Aspects and Compels that it takes discipline by the players and the referee or the game devolves into silly territory. Not so much Toon silly but silly in that the game becomes a series of highly improbable events stacked on top of each other as players and possibly the referee seek to one up each other.

In the 90s where were a bunch of freeform narrative mechanics you could layer on top of an existing RPGs, like Whimsy Cards, and basically that was the one of more common results I saw and participated in.

Then finally there is the feeling that you are metagaming which was the main takeaway from the one off I ran. The problem of metagaming feel is it make game feel like it lacks challenge.

However while I am not keen on the Fate economy. I think using something like Aspects to define background and personality elements may be the way to go if you want to play something like GURPS but with lighter mechanics.

Quote from: estar;695408Not so much Toon silly but silly in that the game becomes a series of highly improbable events stacked on top of each other as players and possibly the referee seek to one up each other.

No amount of mechanics can prevent lasersharking.  I've seen it happen in every RPG I've ever played.

QuoteI think using something like Aspects to define background and personality elements may be the way to go if you want to play something like GURPS but with lighter mechanics.

Sort of like Fudge, then, but with Aspects?  Oh, wait.

Quote from: estar;695408The main problem with the freeform nature of Aspects and Compels that it takes discipline by the players and the referee or the game devolves into silly territory. Not so much Toon silly but silly in that the game becomes a series of highly improbable events stacked on top of each other as players and possibly the referee seek to one up each other.

In the 90s where were a bunch of freeform narrative mechanics you could layer on top of an existing RPGs, like Whimsy Cards, and basically that was the one of more common results I saw and participated in.

Then finally there is the feeling that you are metagaming which was the main takeaway from the one off I ran. The problem of metagaming feel is it make game feel like it lacks challenge.

However while I am not keen on the Fate economy. I think using something like Aspects to define background and personality elements may be the way to go if you want to play something like GURPS but with lighter mechanics.

I can see listing backgrounds and aspects to give one a feel for the character or npc.

But I just don't see the need for compels, Invoking, whatever as mechanics.
It feels so metagamey to me.

When I played in a Fate (Core? Fate II?) campaign recently I essentially ignored the Compel, Complications, whatever stuff as best I could and the base die roll mechanics were fine.

I just don't get what all that extra stuff is good for.

Quote from: Eisenmann;695359That's so very true.

Some of us had moved to the fringe of the old stomping grounds so we decided to meet up at a cafe which was pretty much at the center of things. We met for a session to do character generation which went really well. The resulting PCs were excellent. The first session went great. The group was buzzing about the possibilities but, at the table, there was little to no teamwork, players weren't paying much attention to what was going on, etc. It was like every gear in the transmission was unsynchronized. I had to stop everything in order to change gears.

I pretty much said, "Hey, guys. I've been looking at Spirit of the Far Future which runs on the system used in Spirit of the Century. Let's give that a try and see how it goes."

Right off the bat, teamwork was up front and center. Everyone was leaning in to see the map with zones that I sketched up on the fly. Players were asking questions about the environment in terms of aspects, and so on. Afterward, right at the table, players were converting D6s to Fudge dice with Sharpies.

Someday, I'm going to try running MGT with them again just to see.

OK, what was it about the game system that engaged them? I'm curious and if it is something I can steal for my own games, I will.

Quote from: Bill;695436I can see listing backgrounds and aspects to give one a feel for the character or npc.

But I just don't see the need for compels, Invoking, whatever as mechanics.
It feels so metagamey to me.

I agree, but I think the "metagame" ought to be expected and desired to become prominent if one chooses to use such techniques. The main questions then are firstly whether the metagame is so balanced as to be a sufficiently interesting one to play, and secondly whether it furthers or interferes with other goals (such as creating a dramatic narrative, or an internally consistent one).

Quote from: Phillip;695452I agree, but I think the "metagame" ought to be expected and desired to become prominent if one chooses to use such techniques. The main questions then are firstly whether the metagame is so balanced as to be a sufficiently interesting one to play, and secondly whether it furthers or interferes with other goals (such as creating a dramatic narrative, or an internally consistent one).

I don't have a problem with other people playing a game any way that pleases them.

But I guess in my mind, an rpg is about the roleplay and immersion and if I want a metagame fix, I would play Star Fleet Battles or Magic.

Quote from: Bill;695458I don't have a problem with other people playing a game any way that pleases them.

But I guess in my mind, an rpg is about the roleplay and immersion and if I want a metagame fix, I would play Star Fleet Battles or Magic.

Same here, and other people with similar priorities might likewise be happier with tools designed to fit.

Quote from: jeff37923;695437OK, what was it about the game system that engaged them? I'm curious and if it is something I can steal for my own games, I will.

They really grabbed a hold of the notions of stunts and spin - things like using guns to explicitly pin the bad guys and spin to boost the enfilade assault on the bad guys' position. These kinds of things carried over to social and tech scenes as well, depending on the peak competencies of the primary acting PCs.

When the action cranked up, they liked the sketching of zones on the map. Zones are one of those things that I'm not exactly keen on but, they really worked for ad hoc map generation.

They also liked environmental aspects. I'd throw them down on the able on index cards and they'd riff off of them.

Quote from: Bill;695458I don't have a problem with other people playing a game any way that pleases them.

But I guess in my mind, an rpg is about the roleplay and immersion and if I want a metagame fix, I would play Star Fleet Battles or Magic.

My experience, once you get in the groove of using aspects and the like, they actually help fuel longer periods of immersion.  I've heard the most realistic modern tactical comms at the table playing Fate than any other game period.

Quote from: Eisenmann;695468They really grabbed a hold of the notions of stunts and spin - things like using guns to explicitly pin the bad guys and spin to boost the enfilade assault on the bad guys' position. These kinds of things carried over to social and tech scenes as well, depending on the peak competencies of the primary acting PCs.

When the action cranked up, they liked the sketching of zones on the map. Zones are one of those things that I'm not exactly keen on but, they really worked for ad hoc map generation.

They also liked environmental aspects. I'd throw them down on the able on index cards and they'd riff off of them.




My experience, once you get in the groove of using aspects and the like, they actually help fuel longer periods of immersion.  I've heard the most realistic modern tactical comms at the table playing Fate than any other game period.

I would have to play Fate a lot more then to give it a fair chance. I only played about six three hour sessions. I was most definately not in the groove.

Aspects were best when they were just 'Cliches' in Risus.

Quote from: Bill;695488I would have to play Fate a lot more then to give it a fair chance. I only played about six three hour sessions. I was most definately not in the groove.

If you're ever interested in playing online, I know a bunch of people that are pretty good at running it, that I could introduce you to.

I've found that it's a good idea for new players to play with people that are more experienced with the game at least a few times.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;694833Ok, what exactly is the difference between FATE 2 and the later versions?
(How many later variants are there, anyway?)

Fate 2 was a 20-30 odd page PDF that was designed as a modular toolkit that could be added to any system ( it used Fudge as one of the more successful free generic universal systems online in those days, but unlike most iterations of 3rd edition, Fate wasnt inextricably linked to Fudge).

It provided Aspects, a pyramid-based skill system, a loose Aspect-based combat system , and Fate points as subsystems you could use individually or add the whole mix to most RPG systems of the day ( this was the height of the attribute+skill vs difficulty era). Aspects were presented as an alternative to the merit/advantage/edge systems that the hobby had grown rather tired of by that point (I even recall an oWoD supplement where the author actually brought up that he HATED the Merit/Flaw system, and then begrudgingly offering a page of "new merits", because the PTB required it). There was no "Fate Point Economy" as it exists in 3rd edition. Fate Points weren't used to "activate aspects" but for rerolls and were given by the GM whenever a PC's aspect worked against them.

As for how many iterations, I honestly stopped pay close attention after around Dresden Files. There's been some streamlined setting-free versions recently, like Strands of Fate and Fate Core, and Icons was basically FASERIP + Fate (and honestly the only recent version of the system I liked, even of I still have criticisms of the game overall).

Quote from: Bill;695436I can see listing backgrounds and aspects to give one a feel for the character or npc.

But I just don't see the need for compels, Invoking, whatever as mechanics.
It feels so metagamey to me.

When I played in a Fate (Core? Fate II?) campaign recently I essentially ignored the Compel, Complications, whatever stuff as best I could and the base die roll mechanics were fine.

I just don't get what all that extra stuff is good for.

It's kind of like saying, "When I played in a D&D campaign recently I essentially ignored the THAC0, saving throws, whatever stuff as best I could and the base die roll mechanics were fine."

The intent of Fate's system is not the same as a "traditional" role playing game's. It's not trying to simulate physics or real life. In Fate Core, at least, compels are a means of driving the story forward and complicating the characters' lives. No, you don't need compels to do this - most GMs have been doing it for decades. It's just a somewhat more formalized way of doing it and ties into the Fate Point economy.

As for invokes...well that's kind of what the aspects are for. Now I know that someone is going to bring up that aspects are only good for getting a bonus or a reroll - which is absolutely true. All aspects are equal mechanically, but they aren't all equal narratively. Which is the point - just like compels, they exist to drive the story forward.

Now, someone can not like that the mechanics exist mostly to drive the story. You can call it a commie pig game or whatever. That's cool. But trying to shoehorn a system that is meant to run one way into a game that runs a different way, and then complaining about not getting it, is kind of pointless.

Quote from: Bill;695436I can see listing backgrounds and aspects to give one a feel for the character or npc.

But I just don't see the need for compels, Invoking, whatever as mechanics.
It feels so metagamey to me.

When I played in a Fate (Core? Fate II?) campaign recently I essentially ignored the Compel, Complications, whatever stuff as best I could and the base die roll mechanics were fine.

I just don't get what all that extra stuff is good for.

I just finished reading the fantasy adventure in Fate World Vol I. In it there are a lot of locations that have a hindrance or a danger. In Fates Jargon this is the area's aspect and referee uses a compel when he judges the players is effected by them.  If the player accepts the compel they get a fate point.

So after reading through this my impression is that what really happens is players are rewarded with fate point when they roleplay being effected negatively by well.. just about anything. Likewise if they come up with a interesting and plausible way to avoid it they can spend a fate point to make it happen.

I am kind of getting it now but damn I am thinking the Jargon is pretty unnecessary. It makes the game seem more artificial and metagamey than it has to be.

You have to keep in mind that the designers of Starblazer and Legends of Anglerre managed to make a pretty traditional RPG out of Fate.

Quote from: daniel_ream;695427Sort of like Fudge, then, but with Aspects?  Oh, wait.

Yes wait, Fate is not Fudge with Aspects. Fate piles a lot more on top.

What I am talking about is using Aspects themselves. No Fate points, no compels. Just a short hand way of describing an element of the character's background encompassing both Gifts and Flaws.  And perhaps as a prerequisite to a restricted set of skills and Gifts like Magic or Divine Power.

Quote from: estar;695612I just finished reading the fantasy adventure in Fate World Vol I. In it there are a lot of locations that have a hindrance or a danger. In Fates Jargon this is the area's aspect and referee uses a compel when he judges the players is effected by them.  If the player accepts the compel they get a fate point.

That's one way to handle them. The GM can also just make them a passive defense that needs to be overcome with an Overcome Obstacle roll. Lastly, if the GM wants to build up the area into a character with the ability to attack the characters and invoke its area aspects, they can do that as well.

QuoteSo after reading through this my impression is that what really happens is players are rewarded with fate point when they roleplay being effected negatively by well.. just about anything.

Almost. They don't get a Fate Point for roleplaying being negatively effected. They get a Fate Point for their character actually being negatively effected. Or, to say it more better, they get a Fate Point when a compel complicates their character's life in an interesting way, resulting in exciting and unexpected situations. So, to stick with scene aspects, a GM might compel Crawling with Guards, to have you captured and thrown into a dark cell somewhere under the castle (event compel). If you accept the Compel, then that happens. Sure, the GM can do other less dramatic things with compels, but then everyone should mock them. ;)

QuoteLikewise if they come up with a interesting and plausible way to avoid it they can spend a fate point to make it happen.

If it's a compel, they can always avoid it if they have a Fate Point to spend. Avoiding it must be plausible by definition. It doesn't really have to be interesting, although that's nice.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695606It's kind of like saying, "When I played in a D&D campaign recently I essentially ignored the THAC0, saving throws, whatever stuff as best I could and the base die roll mechanics were fine."

The intent of Fate's system is not the same as a "traditional" role playing game's. It's not trying to simulate physics or real life. In Fate Core, at least, compels are a means of driving the story forward and complicating the characters' lives. No, you don't need compels to do this - most GMs have been doing it for decades. It's just a somewhat more formalized way of doing it and ties into the Fate Point economy.

No, I would disagree. I think it’s more like playing Dungeons & Dragons without the dungeons; you might find that balance and pacing of the game changes without constant physical threats and restrictions of resting of a dungeon, but ultimately it’s still the same game and people play it that way all the time.

I like Fate. I’ve been running almost exclusively Fate or Fate-like games over the past few years. Some sessions have featured a lot of compels, some few or even none. In the end I don’t see any correlation between that and the success of the session. Compels are a situational rule to be used when its appropriate, nothing more.  

I think too much has been made of the doctrine of exceptionality of Fate and about how it’s really meant to be played by both supporters and detractors. Fate is a hybrid game with one foot in the traditional and in the other hippy camps, and has always been so. It’s a broad toolkit, with multiple variants and in constant state of change. A year ago you would have found fans of the game defending how Aspects worked and the clear intent of the designers (myself included). Now, suddenly, Aspects are always true. Oops. Likewise there is no reason to believe that Fate Core is the end of the journey or that the great truth was finally been revealed.

In the end there is only one right way to run Fate, and that is the right way for your group. Don’t let anyone tell you anything different.

Quote from: Bill;695436I can see listing backgrounds and aspects to give one a feel for the character or npc.

But I just don't see the need for compels, Invoking, whatever as mechanics.
It feels so metagamey to me.

I understand where you are coming from, I felt the same. Most of the groups I've played in have very much featured the sort of players who enjoy roleplaying their character's flaws simply for the joy of it, even if there is no reward for doing so.  If anything the lack of a Fate Point reward cheapens the experience.

However I think there is also another trend. Sometimes we hold back from roleplaying our character's flaws because we don't want to be "that guy". There is a strong drive in roleplaying games towards actually achieving goals, beating the scenario and an expectation of competent, effective teamwork.

Some players prefer the first style of play, other the latter, most are happy with both but they kind of have to know what kind of game to expect.

Having with the system a reward mechanism for rewarding players who let their character's flaws get in the way and create complication is powerful way of getting everyone on the same page and of saying "It's okay to be 'that guy', you don't have to hold back".

Quote from: TristramEvans;695491Aspects were best when they were just 'Cliches' in Risus.

This was precisely how I felt when I read Fate Accelerated.

It just read like a needlessly clunky replication of Risus without any of the fun.

Quote from: Soylent Green;695639No, I would disagree. I think it's more like playing Dungeons & Dragons without the dungeons; you might find that balance and pacing of the game changes without constant physical threats and restrictions of resting of a dungeon, but ultimately it's still the same game and people play it that way all the time.

I like Fate. I've been running almost exclusively Fate or Fate-like games over the past few years. Some sessions have featured a lot of compels, some few or even none. In the end I don't see any correlation between that and the success of the session. Compels are a situational rule to be used when its appropriate, nothing more.  

I think too much has been made of the doctrine of exceptionality of Fate and about how it's really meant to be played by both supporters and detractors. Fate is a hybrid game with one foot in the traditional and in the other hippy camps, and has always been so. It's a broad toolkit, with multiple variants and in constant state of change. A year ago you would have found fans of the game defending how Aspects worked and the clear intent of the designers (myself included). Now, suddenly, Aspects are always true. Oops. Likewise there is every reason to believe that Fate Core is the end of the journey or that the great truth was finally been revealed.

In the end there is only one right way to run Fate, and that is the right way for your group. Don't let anyone tell you anything different.

Agreed, but when discussing Fate and saying, "I don't see how we need compels and invokes and aspects and declarations and all of that other stuff - you can just roll dice" just kind of completely misses the mark. RAW in Fate Core includes compels, the same way that RAW in D&D includes saving throws.

Quote from: Soylent Green;695639Now, suddenly, Aspects are always true. Oops. Likewise there is no reason to believe that Fate Core is the end of the journey or that the great truth was finally been revealed.

It's obviously an evolving system, and I see Core as really being about Evil Hat figuring out what the game is 'really' about, and what it's evolving into, and focusing on that.

As far as aspects always being true, Fred Hicks has been quoted as being surprised that people weren't already playing that way.

Quote from: Rivetgeek;695808Agreed, but when discussing Fate and saying, "I don't see how we need compels and invokes and aspects and declarations and all of that other stuff - you can just roll dice" just kind of completely misses the mark. RAW in Fate Core includes compels, the same way that RAW in D&D includes saving throws.

There's a difference between including them, and saying that they should be the constant focus of every second of play.  I think a lot of people new to Fate assume that they should be constantly being thrown around, because they're the new shiny thing.  Much like people over-focus on Aspects because they're the new shiny thing, when Skills are just as important, and Stunts just behind those two (you could play without Stunts easily, but without Aspects or Skills, it really wouldn't be 'Fate').

Quote from: robiswrong;695884As far as aspects always being true, Fred Hicks has been quoted as being surprised that people weren't already playing that way.

It's an implicit assumption, although it may help if it's spelled out.

JG

Quote from: robiswrong;695884It's obviously an evolving system, and I see Core as really being about Evil Hat figuring out what the game is 'really' about, and what it's evolving into, and focusing on that.

As far as aspects always being true, Fred Hicks has been quoted as being surprised that people weren't already playing that way.

My comment was directed towards the more evangelical wing of Fate fandom and not necessarily towards posters on this thread, many of whom have been busy preaching the one true way of playing Fate at a time when, in your own words, Evil Hat itself was figuring out what the game as about. Does any one else see the irony?

Quote from: robiswrong;695884As far as aspects always being true, Fred Hicks has been quoted as being surprised that people weren't already playing that way.

Which is weird, though, right?  How could they not know?  Did they never read Fate threads on forums?

Seriously.  How could they not know?  And even Fred says, "They didn't get much press."  Why didn't they clarify it earlier?

In Fate 3, Aspects were not always true.  They just weren't.  That's not how the game was written.

Quote from: MeMy little pet theory about why the Beta document didn't draw more attention to the change to Always True Aspects (and their pretty major effect on gameplay) was maybe because the Evil Hat guys had probably been playing that way for years behind the scenes and had forgotten that the rest of the gaming community hadn't even heard of the concept of Always True Aspects until the kickstarter. To them, they were maybe so used to it by that time that it was just "same old same old, of course that's how Aspects work", so they forgot to really mention it.

Quote from: Fred HicksYup, always-true aspects have -- to my inner landscape -- existed from the beginning. They just didn't get much press. :)

From here:  https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13yt11gfunbjbeni22sgfko2pbdjzqwn04

Quote from: robiswrong;695884It's obviously an evolving system, and I see Core as really being about Evil Hat figuring out what the game is 'really' about, and what it's evolving into, and focusing on that.

As far as aspects always being true, Fred Hicks has been quoted as being surprised that people weren't already playing that way.

It's the only thing that logically works. A lot of people's contention of, "Why do I have to invoke Darkness to say that it's dark? Isn't it already dark?" holds up for armchair observers, but even as far back as Spirit of the Century became really obvious as being silly in actual play. But, one thing I have pointed out is that there is very little verbiage dedicated in Fate Core to the idea that aspects are always true so that part still gets overlooked by a lot of people. It's become kind of domain knowledge for people who keep up on Fate Core discussions/"theory"/etc. but not for those who don't. I can see how people wouldn't really be on board with the idea (and some hardcore Fate purists who believe that you should always have to invoke an aspect to get any kind of benefit).

QuoteThere's a difference between including them, and saying that they should be the constant focus of every second of play.  I think a lot of people new to Fate assume that they should be constantly being thrown around, because they're the new shiny thing.  Much like people over-focus on Aspects because they're the new shiny thing, when Skills are just as important, and Stunts just behind those two (you could play without Stunts easily, but without Aspects or Skills, it really wouldn't be 'Fate').

Again, agreed - but when people say that the system isn't challenging, to me at least the key to rectifying it is compels. Removing compels completely from the equation is just six of one and half dozen of the other in relation to compelling during every exchange.

Personally I wouldn't compel in the same volume that, say, other systems throw around modifiers - but a good compel is pretty much the way to throw some uncertainty or challenge, or at least tension, into the game.

Quote from: James Gillen;695915It's an implicit assumption, although it may help if it's spelled out.

JG

It isn't exactly. Here is the exact wordage from Fate Core:

QuoteThis may seem self-evident, but we figured we'd call it out anyway—the aspects on your character sheet are true of your character at all times, not just when they're invoked or compelled.

And then also:

QuoteSometimes situation aspects become obstacles that characters need to overcome. Other times they give you justification to provide active opposition against someone else's action.

This means that aspects can permit, or deny, actions. Which means someone who is Tied Up[/b] can be denied being able to juggle without a compel on the aspect. My exact thoughts on this were:

QuoteBut that's it. The implications, particularly for players coming from other Fate games, aren't immediately made clear. In Fate Core, a character who has the aspect Breathes Underwater can always breathe underwater, regardless of whether the aspect is invoked. A situation aspect of Pitch Black means that characters can't see where they're going or what they're doing - no invoke required. A character who is Handcuffed and Shackled doesn't need to have the aspect compelled to prevent the use of their hands or being able to run. I feel the concept needed more discussion in the rules to make it more clear to GMs how to apply it, especially for players of older Fate Core games or other rpgs in general.

Aspects are just codification a of what's hoping on in the game. If you're hands are tied in the game, then you can't juggle AND the GM can highlight the fact that your hands are tied by pointing out the Aspect "Tied Hands." You have that aspect as long as your hands remain tied.

The assumption, which turned out not to be the case, was that people understood that the aspect was coming from the same place as the inability to use your hands, the description of what's happening in the game world (can we just call that the Fiction without everyone freaking? ). The aspect wasn't the cause, but an effect. Saying the aspect is always true us a bit of a redundancy. The aspect is present because of things that are true in the world.

I haven’t really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing “Breathes Underwater” as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like “Protector of the oceans” or “Fish-girl, mutant freak” (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my “internal landscape” Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it’s a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character’s passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

Which is also the reason why I tend to de-emphasise Scene Aspects when I run Fate. Every time a player tags a Scene Aspect like “Dark room” it’s a missed opportunity to invoke a more personal Aspect, something  that relates specifically to that character. There are/were rules for environmental effects in Fate, I used those in preference.  

Of course there are exceptions. The character’s ship in Bulldogs! should have Aspects, likewise the superhero HQ is ICONS because these locations are very much recurrent character’s in their own right.

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my "internal landscape" Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things.

That's how I see it too.

I bought Spirit of the Century a while ago, just to see what this FATE craze was about.
We tried a session and it just didn't click with me or my players, especially the aspects part of it. Invoking and compelling aspects just seemed to interfere with our feeling of immersion. We don't want to think about how one can use some kind of description to its best advantage in-game.
Let's just say it's not our cup of tea...

SG, I agree that scene aspects are often over used. GM's throwing out a ton of scene aspects for free invokes is one if the things that I often find annoying in Fate games. I do think that highlighting a few select pieces of the setting with scene aspects can be fun and has a place in the game.

Quote from: Noclue;696056Aspects are just codification a of what's hoping on in the game. If you're hands are tied in the game, then you can't juggle AND the GM can highlight the fact that your hands are tied by pointing out the Aspect "Tied Hands." You have that aspect as long as your hands remain tied.

The assumption, which turned out not to be the case, was that people understood that the aspect was coming from the same place as the inability to use your hands, the description of what's happening in the game world (can we just call that the Fiction without everyone freaking? ). The aspect wasn't the cause, but an effect. Saying the aspect is always true us a bit of a redundancy. The aspect is present because of things that are true in the world.

I just saw a great quote from Rob Donoghue regarding aspects always being true vs. paying a Fate Point:

"Not everything which is true matters.

You are not paying for truth, you are paying for significance."

Quote from: Vonn;696072I bought Spirit of the Century a while ago, just to see what this FATE craze was about.
We tried a session and it just didn't click with me or my players, especially the aspects part of it. Invoking and compelling aspects just seemed to interfere with our feeling of immersion. We don't want to think about how one can use some kind of description to its best advantage in-game.
Let's just say it's not our cup of tea...

It probably isn't, but one way to look at it isn't that you define aspects to be used to their best advantage in the game - the aspects come out of the descriptions that you are already using. So I don't say, "You are standing on the edge of a wood. It has the aspect of Haunted Old Forest.". I say, "You are standing at the edge of a Haunted Old Forest." Maybe it's a predefined scene advantage. Maybe one of the players wants to bring that aspect into the spotlight and takes an action to make it that way (via, depending on the flavor of Fate, declaration, or assessment, or create advantage).

Regardless, the way that the aspect is used is the same as any other game. Having the GM say, "This is a haunted old forest. Make a saving throw versus Fear to go inside" as opposed to the GM compelling the Haunted Old Forest aspect to make the PC too scared to go inside, is functionally the same thing.

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057I haven’t really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing “Breathes Underwater” as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like “Protector of the oceans” or “Fish-girl, mutant freak” (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my “internal landscape” Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it’s a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character’s passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

In Fate Core, you can do it either way. But one way to look at it is buying a stunt can be permanently paying a Fate Point to have an ability. Either way, whether it's a stunt or an aspect the character can always breathe underwater. But whichever it is is going to depend on the setting, the game and what the table agrees to. In something like Dishonored, I'd probably make it a stunt. In another game, it might be an aspect.

But the one thing that has come about from Fate Core is that aspects aren't just why characters do things. They can also serve as justification for being able to or not. One useful rubric that has been brought up is aspects allow, justify and deny. If having the aspect "Butterfly wings" justifies the character being able to fly - within the understanding that both player and GM have for what the aspect entails - then they can fly. No need for invokes or Fate Points. If the player wants a stunt that lets them cross two Zones for the price of one, they may need an aspect - such as Butterfly Wings - to justify having that stunt. Not having the aspect Trained Mage Of The First Tower might deny a character being able to cast a certain spell (or any magic at all). In that sense, the set of "why characters do things" are still covered by aspects, along with "can a characters do something."

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057I haven't really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing "Breathes Underwater" as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like "Protector of the oceans" or "Fish-girl, mutant freak" (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Well, I think that breathing underwater is implied as part of "Fish-girl, mutant freak".

Whether a stunt would be required for underwater breathing would, I think, be dependent on the game.  I could make arguments either way, depending on the game.

Quote from: apparition13;696053Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my "internal landscape" Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it's a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character's passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

I agree.  I might make a wizard like this:

Aspect:  Master of the Arcane
Skill:  Shoot +4
Stunt:  Massive fireball - Attack actions against all opponents in a zone divide their shifts as if there were one less opponent, minimum of one.

The aspect gives you permission to do magic.

The skill measures how well you do it - the fact that it's magic is mostly color.

The stunt says how it's special.

Sometimes gear *can* be an aspect, but usually I avoid that.  But something like the key in Grimm?  Yeah, that's probably an aspect.

Quote from: apparition13;696053Which is also the reason why I tend to de-emphasise Scene Aspects when I run Fate. Every time a player tags a Scene Aspect like "Dark room" it's a missed opportunity to invoke a more personal Aspect, something  that relates specifically to that character. There are/were rules for environmental effects in Fate, I used those in preference.  

Eh, I think focusing on the scene and focusing on the character are both good.  Ideally, you have a mixture of both - a bit of emphasis on scene aspects helps keep people 'in the scene', or so I've found.  But you're right, they can be overdone, absolutely.

An aspect is just really "something that's important", anyway.  If the light level in the scene isn't important, don't mention it or make it an aspect.

I haven't seen the environmental effect rules, but I typically prefer to avoid any kind of static bonuses.  That's just me.  I'd rather have players be active via Create Advantage, rather than looking around to see how many passive bonuses that they can stack - the active model to me has resulted in faster, more engaging play and less arguments.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Please 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.

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.

I've never played Diaspora but I have run lengthy campaigns of both Starblazer Adventures and ICONS;  in SA my players would be running out of Fate points all the time, in ICONS certain characters seem to run out of Determination (fate) points all the time.

So my conclusion is that the above is not really a problem of system but of how someone GMs it.  If you're handing out Fate points like candy, or letting players dictate the terms of when they get fate points, then sure, I could see this being a problem.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;696711I've never played Diaspora but I have run lengthy campaigns of both Starblazer Adventures and ICONS;  in SA my players would be running out of Fate points all the time, in ICONS certain characters seem to run out of Determination (fate) points all the time.

So my conclusion is that the above is not really a problem of system but of how someone GMs it.  If you're handing out Fate points like candy, or letting players dictate the terms of when they get fate points, then sure, I could see this being a problem.

RPGPundit

Nail on the head there. Good call.

Yeah, I think the key is to be generous with (moderately reasonable) invocation of Aspects, and to be stingy with Challenges.

RPGPundit