Quote from: Soylent Green;687265I'm not to keen on Fate when the Fate point economy becomes the be and end all. For me focusing too much on often Aspects get invoked or compelled and trying to use the economy as the main pace setting mechanism seems to miss out that each game session has a dynamic of its own. Also, is an Aspect are used to frequently and casually they lose their dramatic power and just become another utility mechanic. The latter may be the intended effect, but it's not the way I enjoy it.

This has been a problem with "narrative" mechanics since the debut of Whimsy Cards in the mid 90s. While there are groups that make it work, I found it is just another mechanic in the hands of the average gamer.

Since is a metagame mechanic (i.e. something that the player does not the character) I feel it takes away from the heart of what make a RPG an RPG. That it a game about players acting as their characters.

The reward for roleplaying is not something tangible you can hand out in points. It rather the satisfaction of experiencing the action as if you were really there. I am currently playing a character with a Intelligence of 8 and a Charisma of 8 and roleplay the character just like that, basically a stupid asshole. What interesting is seeing consequences of roleplaying this way and the challenge of find a path to success despite the character's limitations.

Finally there are players who don't like to adopt a different personae. Don't like playing a different personality. Whimsy Cards, Aspects, etc puts them at a mechanical disadvantage.

Quote from: Bill;687742Do you want a stalemate or a game that proceddes because it is clear who is in charge?

Way I've always played it is that the GM is still always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.

I find this to be superior to both the rules lawyer player and the viking hat GM. It's using the rules to accomplish what more mature GMs have realized for a long time-- that player buy-in and investment creates more fun than a rigid authoritarian approach, regardless of whether that authority is a rulebook or a ruling.

Quote from: Bill;687742I don't see it as an issue of adult gm child like children.

I see it as an issue of adult opinionated people not agreeing (Congress?)

Do you want a stalemate or a game that proceddes because it is clear who is in charge?

You can always have a vote of no confidence or an impeachment of a gm

I find it interesting that they likened the GM's role to that of a Chairman, because in my experience, Chairmen of the Board of big companies tend to act more like kings than anything else.  Sure, it's not supposed to be that way, but it devolves into that when the Chair stocks the board with "yes men".

You have to have a mature group that can not only handle bad things happening to your character but will volunteer it for a game like FATE to work.  If only one person refuses to consider that their character might bite it during an encounter, then the entire basis that FATE is based upon crumbles.

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687861Way I've always played it is that the GM is still always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.

I find this to be superior to both the rules lawyer player and the viking hat GM. It's using the rules to accomplish what more mature GMs have realized for a long time-- that player buy-in and investment creates more fun than a rigid authoritarian approach, regardless of whether that authority is a rulebook or a ruling.

Change 'bargain' to 'suggestion' and I am happy

Quote from: Bill;687245So in Fate, if a character is a samarai surrounded by 100 ninjas, and they stab him 900 times, who gets to decide if he is dead, the player or the gm?

Presuming that he didn't concede before the actual attack took place, the GM makes the determination.

If you are Taken Out, the attacker gets to decide what that means - the 'constraints' on that are basically 'the Taken Out character isn't part of the conflict any more, and it must fit what's going on in the game'.  That could mean anything from them fleeing to chunky salsa.

Quote from: Soylent Green;687265I'm not to keen on Fate when the Fate point economy becomes the be and end all.

In a lot of ways, Fate is about what you're willing to sacrifice to get your way - whether that's Fate points or Consequences, it's the GM's job to set a price, and your job to decide if you're willing to pay it or not.  If the GM is doing their job, you won't have enough resources to 'buy' everything.

That's also kind of why I put this in story games, actually.  The "Big Question" of Fate is often "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?" as opposed to the more usual "is your build good enough?" "are you clever enough?" or "are you good enough at the tactical combat system?" or even "does luck favor you?" questions that are more common in "traditional" games.

Quote from: estar;687843This has been a problem with "narrative" mechanics since the debut of Whimsy Cards in the mid 90s. While there are groups that make it work, I found it is just another mechanic in the hands of the average gamer.

Fate is absolutely *not* a game that works if you approach it 'mechanics-first'.  It's not a game that works for every scenario, or even necessarily every group.  (Of course, I think that's basically true of *all* games...)

If you approach it from "hey, what's actually happening", I find that, in practice, the integration of the aspects into the game ends up being pretty transparent.

Quote from: estar;687843Since is a metagame mechanic (i.e. something that the player does not the character) I feel it takes away from the heart of what make a RPG an RPG. That it a game about players acting as their characters.

*shrug*  It's not a problem I've really encountered.  I know some people that feel very strongly that way, though.  I personally find that, in many cases, being reminded of who my character is on a regular basis helps me get in his head better, but YMMV.

Quote from: estar;687843The reward for roleplaying is not something tangible you can hand out in points. It rather the satisfaction of experiencing the action as if you were really there. I am currently playing a character with a Intelligence of 8 and a Charisma of 8 and roleplay the character just like that, basically a stupid asshole. What interesting is seeing consequences of roleplaying this way and the challenge of find a path to success despite the character's limitations.

Yeah, and that's a very old-school-D&D approach, and one I certainly don't have an issue with.  Old-school D&D is a different (but great) experience.  When I want the old-school D&D experience, I'll play D&D.  I don't mean this as a dismissal in any way, btw.  I'm acknowledging the strengths of D&D, and I *personally* play D&D when that's what I want, rather than trying to turn Fate (or any other game, for that matter) into D&D.

Quote from: estar;687843Finally there are players who don't like to adopt a different personae. Don't like playing a different personality. Whimsy Cards, Aspects, etc puts them at a mechanical disadvantage.

I don't see why that would be - just make your Aspects in line with what you want your character to be.  That can be anywhere from internal personality bits to important bits of gear to relationships.  There's nothing saying how far those aspects must be from 'your' personality.

I have no experience with Whimsy Cards, so I can't really say anything about them.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;688077You have to have a mature group that can not only handle bad things happening to your character but will volunteer it for a game like FATE to work.  If only one person refuses to consider that their character might bite it during an encounter, then the entire basis that FATE is based upon crumbles.

I think this is a bit extreme, but it's more-or-less true.  One of the things I do with new Fate players is introduce them to failure *early* - preferably in the first session.  I tell them in advance that Fate is a game where you don't always win.  In conflicts, I make sure they get introduced to the concession mechanics early.

Setting expectations like this, and then showing them "hey, failure happens, and it means you're getting deeper in shit, but it's not the end of the world" seems to go a long way towards resolving this issue.

But your character biting it is somewhat infrequent in Fate, TBH.  Bad things happening and your character getting deeper and deeper in trouble is pretty much the status quo.

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687861Way I've always played it is that the GM is still always the final authority on matters of the table-- but that the Fate rules encourage him to take a more negotiable, conciliatory stance on issues than more traditional RPGs. It's implicit in the rules that fiat decisions in Fate are going to involve a good deal of bargaining-- and that it is both desirable and beneficial to the game.

That's a good description.  It also requires that players are open to failure, and won't try to use that bargaining as the primary means of success, by arguing down every passive difficulty, etc.  As long as the whole group isn't like that (and if they are, Fate is a bad game for that group), they can often act as a good balance to the player, and it can often come off better than the "Viking Hat GM" just saying "it shall be so!"

Even then, I still find myself needing to say "nah, it's " on occasion.  But rarely, and usually because of a player that.... is problematic on occasion.

Quote from: Bill;688130Change 'bargain' to 'suggestion' and I am happy

I think suggestion is more accurate.  Though in some circumstances (Concessions) it absolutely *is* a bargain, and deliberately so.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215I have no experience with Whimsy Cards, so I can't really say anything about them.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html

Think of them as aspects that other players activate and play on you. And the rules also encourages you play them on yourself, which is the part that is most like Fate Aspects.

My group and I used them heavily for a better part of a year in the mid 90s and learned the upsides and downsides of narrative mechanics.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215In a lot of ways, Fate is about what you're willing to sacrifice to get your way - whether that's Fate points or Consequences, it's the GM's job to set a price, and your job to decide if you're willing to pay it or not.  If the GM is doing their job, you won't have enough resources to 'buy' everything.

While it may come with a price/consequence the mechanic still amounts to waving a magic wand and something happens. It not quite as bad as going

Quote"Hey I need a +3 magic sword to take out the mecha-goblin, Oh look there is a +3 magic sword that happen to be lying in a forgotten colander. I pick it up and swing it!"

But that exactly what the heart of the mechanic is.

Don't get me wrong the whole "Whismy Card" approach can be fun and produce some interesting experiences. But after a while it ceases to be challenging and interest flags as a result.

It because of two things, the ability to nearly always have what needed to handle the challenge of the moment, and continually having to step out of character to think about the action.

And I stress there is no black and white here. Just a spectrum of mechanics between two opposites. Fate, in my opinion, just happens goes a step too far. But only a step.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215That's also kind of why I put this in story games, actually.  The "Big Question" of Fate is often "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?" as opposed to the more usual "is your build good enough?" "are you clever enough?" or "are you good enough at the tactical combat system?" or even "does luck favor you?" questions that are more common in "traditional" games.

See right there you are casting the problem in terms of mechanics or player skill.  Good enough build, smart gameplayer, rules mastery, lucky dice rolls.

The alternative is to hell with the narrative and to hell with the rules. Play as if you are really there as the character. The referee will translate your actions into the mechanics if needed.  The referee will present the world and entities that surrounds the character at that moment. You can do with a made up personality or character that is merely a reflection of yourself.

In short roleplay.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215*shrug*  It's not a problem I've really encountered.  I know some people that feel very strongly that way, though.  I personally find that, in many cases, being reminded of who my character is on a regular basis helps me get in his head better, but YMMV.

But is that a result of the fact the everybody paying attention because a mechanic exists? To put it another way Would there be any difference if you played a GURPS character with the disadvantages and quirks listed on the sheet.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215Yeah, and that's a very old-school-D&D approach, and one I certainly don't have an issue with.  Old-school D&D is a different (but great) experience.  When I want the old-school D&D experience, I'll play D&D.  I don't mean this as a dismissal in any way, btw.  I'm acknowledging the strengths of D&D, and I *personally* play D&D when that's what I want, rather than trying to turn Fate (or any other game, for that matter) into D&D.

Interestingly enough my thoughts on this didn't develop because of D&D. I may be known as a old school D&D publisher but I play GURPS and have continually played it since 1987. And in GURPS  advantages, disadvantages, and quirks  play a central role in how a character is played. And not mechanic stuff like feats in D&D 3.X/4.X.

All the examples given for aspects in Fate have I seen in GURPS modeled at disads, advantages, and quirks. Note that I do own the fate rulebook and have read it.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215I don't see why that would be - just make your Aspects in line with what you want your character to be.  That can be anywhere from internal personality bits to important bits of gear to relationships.  There's nothing saying how far those aspects must be from 'your' personality.

Many gamers don't want to deal with it whether close to their personality or not. I find in GURPS they minimize the amount of mental disads on their character. SSome just won't take any disads and go with the lower number of starting points.

Quote from: robiswrong;688215I think this is a bit extreme, but it's more-or-less true.  One of the things I do with new Fate players is introduce them to failure *early* - preferably in the first session.  I tell them in advance that Fate is a game where you don't always win.  In conflicts, I make sure they get introduced to the concession mechanics early.

Setting expectations like this, and then showing them "hey, failure happens, and it means you're getting deeper in shit, but it's not the end of the world" seems to go a long way towards resolving this issue.

But your character biting it is somewhat infrequent in Fate, TBH.  Bad things happening and your character getting deeper and deeper in trouble is pretty much the status quo.

It's a bit of a problem in any RPG, but games that rely upon PCs getting deeper in shit on a regular basis to move things along will cause issues for some people.  In a pulp Savage Worlds adventure I once ran (one of Triple Ace's Thrilling Tales of Adventure series), I had to explain to the players very early on that part of what makes this pulp game work was that the characters will find themselves in over their heads and will be forced to surrender.  Not every encounter is designed to be overcome.  In the era of tweaking encounters so that things are perfectly balanced, that can seem counter intuitive, but it should be thrown out there.

Quote from: estar;688239My group and I used them heavily for a better part of a year in the mid 90s and learned the upsides and downsides of narrative mechanics.

Based on what I saw, they don't really look like they'd play out in the same way as I've seen aspects play out.  But we're discussing my experience with Aspects and your experience with Whimsy Cards, so we're kind of at an impasse in terms of common ground for discussion.

Quote from: estar;688239While it may come with a price/consequence the mechanic still amounts to waving a magic wand and something happens. It not quite as bad as going  But that exactly what the heart of the mechanic is.

Eh, not really in play.  Usually Fate Point usage in play ends up being invoking aspects - which end up either being things that are already established, or part of your character anyway.  So it's you using your fighting style as a bonus, or your opponent not seeing you because of the darkness, or whatever, or even just your dedication to what you're doing driving you harder (like moms lifting cars their kids are under).

And Consequences really just represent "how far are you willing to go in this before you give up?"  They're very much in line with what your character does

The pulling things out of your ass stuff isn't really common.  In most cases, it's kind of handled as a retcon, anyway, as Fate, as a game, doesn't really encourage you to micromanage every piece of gear you have on you.  I think I've spent a FP to have some rope packed on me, which was something that would have, to a certain extent, made sense for me to have.

I'd certainly never allow the +3 sword to appear from midair.

Quote from: estar;688239It because of two things, the ability to nearly always have what needed to handle the challenge of the moment, and continually having to step out of character to think about the action.

*shrug*.  You seem to be implying that a game is structured as a series of challenges to overcome.  Fate's not a game that works well in that structure, I'll admit.

And the "nearly always" shouldn't be true, anyway.  If you're running Fate 'right', players are having to make tough choices about what they will and will not spend their Fate Points on.  Players should never have enough to do *all* the things they want.

Quote from: estar;688239See right there you are casting the problem in terms of mechanics or player skill.  Good enough build, smart gameplayer, rules mastery, lucky dice rolls.

The alternative is to hell with the narrative and to hell with the rules. Play as if you are really there as the character. The referee will translate your actions into the mechanics if needed.  The referee will present the world and entities that surrounds the character at that moment. You can do with a made up personality or character that is merely a reflection of yourself.

In short roleplay.

Not quite.  And hell, you described 'the challenge of the moment' earlier, anyway.

What I'm saying is very simple.  You have a character facing an orc, and they're going to fight.  What determines which one wins?  Blind luck?  Character build?  Skill/strategy used?

However you got there, if you assume that you're there, fighting the orc, something has to determine which one wins (and it's usually some combination of these factors).  That's not assigning any kind of value judgement, or anything of the like.  In GURPS, it's often a lot of character build, a bunch of strategy, and luck as a minor piece.

Again, that's not saying that anyone should or should not optimize their play towards winning, or that that's the point of the game.  But *something* determines who wins between the two.  The choices you made to get to that decision point are roleplaying.

Quote from: estar;688239But is that a result of the fact the everybody paying attention because a mechanic exists? To put it another way Would there be any difference if you played a GURPS character with the disadvantages and quirks listed on the sheet.

Yes, I think that aspects do differ from GURPS advantages/disadvantages.  They're the clear analogy of Aspects in GURPS terms, and some Aspects may tie directly to GURPS advantages/disadvantages.  But I don't see them as exactly the same by any means.

Quote from: estar;688239Interestingly enough my thoughts on this didn't develop because of D&D. I may be known as a old school D&D publisher but I play GURPS and have continually played it since 1987. And in GURPS  advantages, disadvantages, and quirks  play a central role in how a character is played. And not mechanic stuff like feats in D&D 3.X/4.X.

Fair enough.  And I've come from a heavy GURPS background as well, so I can completely understand where you're coming from.

Quote from: estar;688239All the examples given for aspects in Fate have I seen in GURPS modeled at disads, advantages, and quirks. Note that I do own the fate rulebook and have read it.

And that's how I viewed them when I first started playing Fate.  It was only after deliberately 'emptying my cup' and stopping trying to map Fate concepts onto GURPS, and just kind of take them 'as is' that I understood the system better.  Well, that and playing with some people that really understood the system.

Fate is a pretty shitty version of GURPS.  It's a pretty good version of Fate.  GURPS is a pretty good version of GURPS.  I still like both systems.

Quote from: estar;688239Many gamers don't want to deal with it whether close to their personality or not. I find in GURPS they minimize the amount of mental disads on their character. SSome just won't take any disads and go with the lower number of starting points.

Then choose aspects that aren't mental in nature?  And choose aspects that are mostly positive, though that will impact the Fate Points you can get.

But for players looking to insulate themselves from "bad things", Fate isn't a great choice.  Which is fine.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;688245It's a bit of a problem in any RPG, but games that rely upon PCs getting deeper in shit on a regular basis to move things along will cause issues for some people.

Yup.  I find the best thing is to just push them through the first failure or two, while constantly reminding them that it's okay and telling them the mechanics they have available to minimize things.

Once they've seen that 'failure' in Fate just increases the pile of shit they're in (hopefully in an entertaining way) rather than ending the game they seem to loosen up a bit.

But it's a real thing.  I think the RPG hobby, as a whole, has just self-selected for people that never want to 'lose' over the years, outside of certain sub-niches that are perhaps over-represented here.

I have FATE CORE & FAE, I have tried to get both off the ground but none will fly as of yet, it seems my FUDGE system does a better job at getting off the ground than FATE so far.  I have also found that using my HERO system tends to get more work outs than FATE as well, mainly because my players know it better and prefer it overall.  I have also used M&M 2E and 3E for many different Genres as a generic system and it's always worked out nice as well, IDK but it seems like a good SUPER HEROES system can really do just about anything any so called universal or generic style role-play system says they can do (but most typically can't without major work), or they're limited in some way.

Awesome thread.

Mind if I bounce a scenario off of you to see if I'm getting it?

Let's say there's a modern day destined monster fighter.  He's tracked down a few goblins. They're started out as Average nameless NPCs - aspects: scampering little buggars, sensitive to sunlight; skills: fight and athletics both at Average (+1); no stress boxes. The conflict happens in an abandoned warehouse - one zone, two aspects - cluttered crates and painted windows.

OK, our hero goes first.  Let's say he wants to get some sunlight in the area - he dashes up some crates and smashes open one of the painted windows.  That's going to be creating an advantage to create a situation aspect, right?

Let's say he's successful enough to get a boost like "sudden burst of sunlight" or situation aspect like "sunlit area." He could use the +2 to increase the difficulty of the next goblin action instead of improving his next action, right?  If he was successful enough to create the new aspect and get some sunlight in the warehouse, I believe he would need to pay a fate point and use a create an advantage action to compel a goblin's "sensitive to sunlight" aspect or to invoke the new aspect as there is now sunlight in the room.

Now, a goblin tries to scamper away and hide - creating an advantage using the "cluttered crates," right?  The GM could even spend one of his fate points to invoke the goblin's scampering aspect I'm thinking.

Let's say that hidden goblin then pushes some crates over on our hero - create an advantage to put a "trapped under boxes" boost or aspect on our hero to later overcome, right?

Thanks in advance for following along.  I'm pretty excited to wrap my head around this.

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say there's a modern day destined monster fighter.  He's tracked down a few goblins. They're started out as Average nameless NPCs - aspects: scampering little buggars, sensitive to sunlight; skills: fight and athletics both at Average (+1); no stress boxes. The conflict happens in an abandoned warehouse - one zone, two aspects - cluttered crates and painted windows.

The warehouse is dark, and that's relevant, so that probably should be an aspect as well - *Cloaked in Darkness* or the like.

Remember, the warehouse isn't dark because it has a Cloaked in Darkness aspect - it has a Cloaked in Darkness aspect *because* it's dark.

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942OK, our hero goes first.  Let's say he wants to get some sunlight in the area - he dashes up some crates and smashes open one of the painted windows.  That's going to be creating an advantage to create a situation aspect, right?

That's exactly how I'd handle it.  You could argue that it's an Overcome on the darkness aspect as well, but I think Create Advantage works better.  If enough light is let in by breaking the window, that would just get rid of the darkness aspect.

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say he's successful enough to get a boost like "sudden burst of sunlight" or situation aspect like "sunlit area." He could use the +2 to increase the difficulty of the next goblin action instead of improving his next action, right?

Correct.  He gets an invoke on that aspect, which can be used at any point that the sunlight is relevant.

Also, aspects are true.  So it's not just an aspect - there's sunlight coming in through the window.  If that would prevent the goblins from doing something, they're prevented.

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942If he was successful enough to create the new aspect and get some sunlight in the warehouse, I believe he would need to pay a fate point and use a create an advantage action to compel a goblin's "sensitive to sunlight" aspect or to invoke the new aspect as there is now sunlight in the room.

He gets one invoke for free as part of creating the aspect in the first place.  Plus, as mentioned above, anything that the sunlight would prevent the goblins from doing at all is just prevented.  Plus the sunlight could provide a level of passive resistance to various actions (though normally that wouldn't stack with any kind of active resistance).

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Now, a goblin tries to scamper away and hide - creating an advantage using the "cluttered crates," right?  The GM could even spend one of his fate points to invoke the goblin's scampering aspect I'm thinking.

That would make sense for them to do, yes.

Quote from: MattyHelms;689942Let's say that hidden goblin then pushes some crates over on our hero - create an advantage to put a "trapped under boxes" boost or aspect on our hero to later overcome, right?

Yep.  And again, the hero is now *trapped under boxes*.  That means that anything that he couldn't do because he was trapped under boxes couldn't be done, plus they get an invocation of that for free.  That probably wouldn't be a good boost, though, since it's not really temporary enough to qualify.