TheRPGSite

I've run into this buzz saw on Fate groups as I struggled with the Declaration maneuver. I say "I'd like to have some kind of special written rule that lets me be able to say 'no' or 'yes, but' without having to have an unpleasant conflict with the players because I'm more responsible than everyone else for making a decent, challenging game session" and their response is, essentially, that I'm being a jerk and it's a non-issue (they're nicer about it). So, here's my 2 cents:

1. everyone being able to declare whatever the heck they want, at any time, makes the world feel not-very-real (not immersive) at least for a non-minority group of players;

2. no matter what the rules say, if you have created a character and you are in charge of that character, and you get benefits for that character being successful, you're primary worry is what benefits that character, at least for a non-minority group of players. A player isn't being a dick if he says "it turns out that I can turn any opponent to jelly with this fact I'm declaring". He/she is worrying about the character sheet in front of him/her.

3. no matter what the rules say, if there is traditional setup of players and GM's, the GM has more responsibility for how the session goes. If it doesn't go well, he/she is going to take the fall (or feel responsible).

4. good fences make for good neighbors. If you don't like confrontation, having a written rule that says "in this case, you can make a decision" helps people like that.

Just my two cents. I'm mostly just checking in for moral support to see if anyone else feels the same.

BTW, these rules don't apply to awesome GM's who are never stymied and can pull an excellent 4 hour session off of an index card seed. This isn't a joke. I know a lot of you out there are that GM. However, I wish Fate Core said that you should be that kind of GM if you're going to run the game without loosing players.

When I want to say No, it's not because I'm being a dick with power issues. The only time I ever say no or "yes but complication..." is because (1) it either derails the adventure in a way that I can't fix right now or (2) it makes your character overly spotlit compared to other characters or (3) it sets a precedent in a way that will make me unable to make effective sessions in the future.

It also strikes me as weird is that last year, Fate Core was presented as the best game that solves all your needs and if you're not good at running it you're a crappy GM with power issues, and now Dungeon World (or variants) is that game, even though in Dungeon World player's are limited to moves.

Also, the GM's I know who are good at running Fate, and this might just be a limited sample issue, are all GREAT GM's with STRONG PERSONALITIES, so no one ever comes up with game-breaking crap.

If I have been informed correctly, in Dungeon [strike]Turd[/strike] World  the players can declare whatever action they want and it's the GM's task to "take it out of Teh Fiction" and cram it into one of the available Moves to see what they need to roll. So, the Moves aren't really limiting the players.

I'd LOVE to use Fate Core (and all the PDF's I've bought for it) if I could say "no" and not have to worry about the consensus thing. I hardly ever say no to ANYTHING in non fate games, but I don't like saying NO and not having any way to back it up makes me super uncomfortable. I don't enjoy that.

I must really be missing something here - you're running the game, why can't you say "No"?

I refuse to believe any game system would say that as a GM you are not allowed to say no to your players. Your job is to moderate the world. If a player says: "I summon an X-Wing, therefore it happens", it's your job to say: "don't be an idiot, there are no X-Wings".

It sounds like the people you're playing with are either a bunch of jerks, don't have any respect for you, or both.

Further, if this is the case - why would you be running a game where you were just the player's entertainment monkey, a talk-back to facilitate their adolescently derived power fantasies?

Just say no. If that doesn't work, forget 'em.

//Panjumanju

I  don't think they're trying to be jerks. They're just advocating for their characters. Wouldn't Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard want to find a sniper rifle in a trash can and one-shot the big bad if he could? It's not the player of Bruce's character's fault that the GM can't figure out what to do on the fly after that.

Tabletop RPGs work best at presenting experiences, a pen & paper virtual reality run by the referee. Doesn't have to be immersive but it does have to be interesting and fun.

The whole story game movement is a meme gone apeshit. It strikes a resonance because many referee are shitty as referee and people are under a delusion they can fix it with rules. One extreme turns the RPGs into a wargame (like D&D 4e) the other is make everybody, in theory, equal participants (like storygames).

Storygames and wargames sound good because the former makes the process of the game more democratic and who isn't for more democracy right!. The latter gets rid of the pesky inconsistency of human judgement calls and substitute mor' rules.

But in the end they failed because folks find out they don't magically make people better tabletop RPG gamers.  The only effective way that been shown to do that is to teach people good sportmanship and the techniques that been proven to work with tabletop RPGs. There is no rhyme or reason that unifies these technique other than the fact that for certain conditions a referee used them with success.

Become skilled as a player or referee means learning as many of these techniques as you can and more importantly learning when to use them and when not to use them.

It is terribly unsexy compare to the latest ruleset and RPG theory. It is also a bit of work and disproportionately rewards experience.

Now Fate is in my opinion a nice little set of rules if you ignore all the narrative crap. It has some worthy ideas and can be used to great effect in a campaign especially for something who time pressed and can't do a lot of prep.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809261I  don't think they're trying to be jerks. They're just advocating for their characters. Wouldn't Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard want to find a sniper rifle in a trash can and one-shot the big bad if he could? It's not the player of Bruce's character's fault that the GM can't figure out what to do on the fly after that.

In my games players don't get to advocate for their characters, they get to immerse in their characters. I don't see Bruce Willis arguing with the director why the fuck the script won't allow him to find a sniper rifle in the nearest trash can, even though he has a Fate point.

I liked the idea in theory just because I like setting up self perpetuating systems that require no hands on guidance.

So basically it would let me be lazy. The game would run itself! But in practice there tends to be lots of conflicting directions between players and I still prefer to have the control. Even though injecting the players' idea into the game world helps, I can't bring to bear my interest and enthusiasm unless it's really my idea. I still try to incorporate as many facets as the player's ideas as I can though.

As for the general trend, it's the end result of trying to lesson the GM's (and therefore, bad GMs) impact on the game. That and these games often emphasize rules that direct the story itself rather than simulating a world. They're like metagame rules.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809239It also strikes me as weird is that last year, Fate Core was presented as the best game that solves all your needs and if you're not good at running it you're a crappy GM with power issues, and now Dungeon World (or variants) is that game, even though in Dungeon World player's are limited to moves.

Erm, no.

DW player says what they want to do. If this "triggers a move" (ie, is something that has defined game mechanics) then those mechanics are used; moves has specific descriptions saying what triggers them.

If they don't trigger a move, the GM decides what happens and the game carries on.

DW really doesn't do anything new, it's just very explicit about how it works.

Anyway, you're the GM, so M your G, say no, or just find a system that suits your group better.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809239It also strikes me as weird is that last year, Fate Core was presented as the best game that solves all your needs and if you're not good at running it you're a crappy GM with power issues, and now Dungeon World (or variants) is that game, even though in Dungeon World player's are limited to moves.

Also, the GM's I know who are good at running Fate, and this might just be a limited sample issue, are all GREAT GM's with STRONG PERSONALITIES, so no one ever comes up with game-breaking crap.

A GM is GOD in the game world.
A good GM, though, follows the rules, only to break or bend them when necessary, and to perhaps help out a bit for making the story great (YMMV).

Equal authoring isn't a holy grail for those who play rpgs, but it is for some of those who roleplay in other kinds of games.
....That is one of the reasons why the Pundit divided some rpg-like games into what he calls "storygames", unless i'm mistaken.

I'm not a fan of FATE, but in general GMless and limited-GM systems can be great. I love Polaris, A Thousand and One Nights, The Play's The Thing, and other systems. However, they are just another option - they are not the holy grail or a "fix" for traditional-GM systems. No system is the holy grail.

If some people really love GMless games, they're not wrong in loving them - they're just wrong in saying that they are the right thing for everyone.

As for DW, it's not terrible like D&D only players make it out to be. I like both.

You know how in D&D whenever there's something that doesn't fit the rules, you just fit what the player wants to do in-game into the rules yourself?

Well, that's what DW is, except for everything. The player describes what they want to do as if it was real life, then you see if it applies to any of the pre-made "moves" (abilities) that exist. If not, then you either just let it happen or ask for more detail so you can decide yourself.

So in that sense it's not different from D&D. What makes it different is that the dice rolls aren't to determine if you succed or not, but the direction the story takes. Is the next fork going to be "something good happens" or "something bad happens"? That "something bad" could be as simple as taking damage to having an ogre suddenly burst through the wall and interrupt the barroom brawl. The rules are set up in such a way to deliberately create a certain pace and story, rather than the story simply being whatever happens normally. It creates an ever escalating scale of conflict and action.

A lot of the rules are just good GM habits that have been hard coded into the system.

Since it's so freeform, it means that it is also very dependent on the GM. A boring unimaginative GM will make every "something bad happens" just be damage, zzzz. A good imaginative GM can make it full of twists and turns, using the system's prompts to steer the action in ways that it wouldn't normally have gone.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809272That "something bad" could be as simple as taking damage to having an ogre suddenly burst through the wall and interrupt the barroom brawl.

You wouldn't, though, unless there was some logical reason why an ogre might just show up. *W always follows what makes sense in the game world, not actions for the sake of it or just because a player wants it.

Quote from: Ladybird;809278You wouldn't, though, unless there was some logical reason why an ogre might just show up. *W always follows what makes sense in the game world, not actions for the sake of it or just because a player wants it.

No, you could, as long as you can fit it to make sense.

Suppose they're fighting bandits in the tavern. Ogre bursts into room. Turns out the bandits had an Ogre under their control or something and unleashed it. The challenge is knitting this impromptu patchwork together into something sensible.

And yeah, what the player wants doesn't really have a bearing on it. I mean, it matters insofar as the GM wants to make the players have fun, but they don't get any authority on it or anything.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809281No, you could, as long as you can fit it to make sense.

Suppose they're fighting bandits in the tavern. Ogre bursts into room. Turns out the bandits had an Ogre under their control or something and unleashed it. The challenge is knitting this impromptu patchwork together into something sensible.

Well, sure, that's something that would make logical sense... as long as it was a fact beforehand that the bandits had an ogre.

If you just pull it out of thin air, it doesn't make any sense.

(Of course, unless you do something stupid like tell the players it was an arsepull, they may never know. Again, no different to any other RPG.)

Quote from: Ladybird;809289Well, sure, that's something that would make logical sense... as long as it was a fact beforehand that the bandits had an ogre.

If you just pull it out of thin air, it doesn't make any sense.

(Of course, unless you do something stupid like tell the players it was an arsepull, they may never know. Again, no different to any other RPG.)

No, that's the whole point of Dungeon World. You make up the next development on the fly, and then from that point on it becomes true. The dice decide which direction it goes.

Unless by "out of thin air" you mean I didn't try to justify it. I'd try to link it to things after I introduced it, but it doesn't have to be there beforehand.

Also if things are leading in that direction, you can sow the seeds for it and then produce the ogre, ie,. foreshadowing. But it doesn't have to be that way every time.

For instance, one time in a game of Dungeon World, the PCs had been captured and thrown in jail. The Barbarian started bending the bars to escape, and once out, she snuck over to the sleeping guard to try to sneak his keys without waking him.

She botched her roll. So now I could have just done something like, "Oops, you woke up the guard," but it seems hard to be that clumsy when someone's asleep and the key is right there.

So instead I had the guard's boss burst into the room at that exact moment, throwing open the door and yelling "I KNEW you'd be asleep!" Then he did a double take when he saw the Barbarian out on the loose and everybody started to scramble.

I suppose in a way this isn't truly random since a guard in a castle is already assumed to have superiors. But you get the idea. "Something bad happens" doesn't have to be a straightforward task simulation.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809300For instance, one time in a game of Dungeon World, the PCs had been captured and thrown in jail. The Barbarian started bending the bars to escape, and once out, she snuck over to the sleeping guard to try to sneak his keys without waking him.

She botched her roll. So now I could have just done something like, "Oops, you woke up the guard," but it seems hard to be that clumsy when someone's asleep and the key is right there.

So instead I had the guard's boss burst into the room at that exact moment, throwing open the door and yelling "I KNEW you'd be asleep!" Then he did a double take when he saw the Barbarian out on the loose and everybody started to scramble.

I suppose in a way this isn't truly random since a guard in a castle is already assumed to have superiors. But you get the idea. "Something bad happens" doesn't have to be a straightforward task simulation.

I don't think that makes any sense, though.

The two events - the boss bursting in, and the barbarian failing to sneak across the room - aren't related to each other; they don't follow on... whereas the guard waking up and shouting, does. The character has done something noisy (Bending the bars), and they're now getting close and physical to the sleeping guard (Very easy to wake someone up if they're clumsy - like, the key is a little more securely fastened to the guard than you thought, and you wind up tugging at them).

I have a sneaking suspicion that we're coming at the game from different angles. Which is okay! I'd probably still have had fun at your table, and not thought about it this hard during a game.

As per the other thread discussing Fate, Declarations are more constrained than you seem to think / have been lead to believe. They can only be used in the context of an aspect* and since you as the GM can veto player aspects you can head them off at the very beginning or at least know they might turn up and so think a little about how to handle them in your noodling time between games. And you can veto any declaration you feel would detract from the game rather than add to it.

I hypothesise that the reason people like games which share authorship in some way is three fold:

• First it takes some of the creative burden off the GM, making the game a little easier for them to run
• Second, the GM doesn't have a monopoly on good or creative ideas so the game explicitly recognises the creative abilities of the group as a resource for making the game cooler
• Finally, many people like a bit of authorial fun but don't want to go the full stretch of running their own game. Fate gives them an outlet for this.

On the flip side, running games likes this to their best advantage requires players to be more creative (in a narrative sense) and generally pulling in the same direction. If your group doesn't have these qualities then games like Fate will suck for you. If you don't value the benefits Fate might bring, again, no point in picking that system. It would seem that a significant number of people do like Fate-style games, however, and are quite vocal in their support; as it is very flexible it gets suggested a lot in threads. A new hotness will appear eventually to displace it.

Personally it's my favourite game system but the rest of my group would rather play DnD sowhatyagonnado?

* You can sometimes use skills to make declarations of a kind with the 'create advantage' mechanism. Player - "From my knowledge of tribal anthropology I recognise their clan values the traits of a warrior spirit so I approach them bravely and forthright" GM - "Awesome, you have a temporary aspect of 'respected warrior' and a free invocation.

Quote from: Ladybird;809301I don't think that makes any sense, though.

The two events - the boss bursting in, and the barbarian failing to sneak across the room - aren't related to each other; they don't follow on... whereas the guard waking up and shouting, does. The character has done something noisy (Bending the bars), and they're now getting close and physical to the sleeping guard (Very easy to wake someone up if they're clumsy - like, the key is a little more securely fastened to the guard than you thought, and you wind up tugging at them).

I have a sneaking suspicion that we're coming at the game from different angles. Which is okay! I'd probably still have had fun at your table, and not thought about it this hard during a game.

Do you play Dungeon World? It seems like you're applying a D&D mentality to it, where the rolls are literally to adjucate whether a particular action was successful.

In Dungeon World, the rolls are made when a move is performed (often associated with an action) but it's not to determine the resolution of that action, strictly. The rolls are meant to direct the course of the plot. If you roll a success, it means something good happens. But it doesn't need to have any relation to your roll, nor does a failure.

If you fail an attack roll, the DM might still let you kill the Orc you were trying to skewer with your failure, and then spring some other nasty surprise instead. It just means, "buckle up because the action's going to go against you now," not "you failed this roll so you fail this task specifically." Or if you fail, it doesn't have to be simply because you were a klutz.

So in my example, she rolled to get the keys and failed. The result was the guard's boss burst in -- something bad happened, and she failed to get the keys. The key is that it is all designed to move the action forward and do away with those situations in D&D where you fail, nothing happens, and then you just keep trying without consequence. A good DM in D&D will already know to apply other circumstances to the result to make sure it can't be repeated endlessly, but in DW it's simply hard coded into the rules to make you push the game onward. "Fail forward," is another way of putting it.

I don't always do it that way; sometimes I do it the way you suggested, when that's the only thing I can think of. (For instance, I /could/ have had the rustling of the keys wake up the guard, but I wanted the Barbarian to feel more like the failure was because of bad luck rather than simple incompetence.) But the rolls are definitely not meant to be for task resolution, and meant to push the story forward with an escalated situation.

IME, story mechanics work best with proactive, creative players who are in great synch with the GM and each other.

If any of that isn't true, problems abound. (I had a creative, proactive player who would make up really fucking stupid shit that didn't fit the game at all, so I felt bad constantly telling her 'um, no...' Also, players who just stared at me blankly whenever I gave them an opening to embellish or take the game in a direction)

Declaration is great for giving mechanical 'heft' for experts and psychics/mediums that wasn't utterly passive.

Being able to inject 'the turning of fates brings kings to paupers and paupers to kings' is a fun way to feel like you are adding something to the game, whereas 'ok, GM, I make a Foresight roll. What do I get?' is ... dull.


But in most games, it's not EQUAL authoring, it's just... more.


Now there are certainly indie weird games with equal agency. But I think it's not 'this is the holy grail' so much as exploring untapped territory.

Quote from: Will;809307Now there are certainly indie weird games with equal agency. But I think it's not 'this is the holy grail' so much as exploring untapped territory.

I think that's just "Forge" games, from what I read from the threads I dug up recently.

It seems their focus is almost on everybody being the GM, and the rolls aren't to have the GM figure out if you succeeded but to outright see who gains control of the entire story for that situation.

Like we roll, you say, "If I win, the guard comes and helps out the beggar," and I say, "If I win, the beggar gets hit by a car."

Whenever I ask for Fate Core help (at least other places) the answers always end up feeling kind of insulting, amounting to "well, Fate requires a high-trust table and mature players, or you need a lot of rules, or something." I don't say the same thing about people who don't like the more structured games I prefer when people ask for help.

For ME at least, I don't like confrontation. It makes me upset, in general. And I do RPG's to relax. My players want to have their characters be as awesome and effective as possible, and that's their first concern. When I have rules that let me just say no or say no + severe consequence or don't even allow game-breaking declarations, everything is very smooth and people are nice to each other and I don't have upsetting conversations where I have to justify myself and then they challenge my justification and round and round.

This entire process ends up making me feel really bad (running these games and then asking for help).

Also, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809309Whenever I ask for Fate Core help (at least other places) the answers always end up feeling kind of insulting, amounting to "well, Fate requires a high-trust table and mature players, or you need a lot of rules, or something." I don't say the same thing about people who don't like the more structured games I prefer when people ask for help.

I don't think they mean to be insulting. What they mean by "more mature" is that these games have less rules to settle things between players. So there's nothing to reel everyone back except their own self restraint. If you have a lot of competitive players, doing that can be hard when you don't have a bunch of rules telling them they have to do it. Especially since such rules lite games tend to wither under the threat of minmaxing.

QuoteAlso, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

I think that's true, but that goes for most smaller properties when you have giant flagship brands like D&D for everyone to play. It doesn't mean they are bad.

Quote from: Will;809307IME, story mechanics work best with proactive, creative players who are in great synch with the GM and each other.

If any of that isn't true, problems abound.

That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).
In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

I DO have friends I would play that with... but getting them all together would be a small miracle.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809311I don't think they mean to be insulting. What they mean by "more mature" is that these games have less rules to settle things between players. So there's nothing to reel everyone back except their own self restraint. If you have a lot of competitive players, doing that can be hard when you don't have a bunch of rules telling them they have to do it. Especially since such rules lite games tend to wither under the threat of minmaxing.

Well, sure, people can be insulting assholes without meaning to be. I've certainly experienced it from some story game advocates (and conversely also from some traditional RPG advocates).

Story games can be good fun, but people in general can be assholes - especially when pontificating about their favorite game.

Quote from: 3rik;809263In my games players don't get to advocate for their characters, they get to immerse in their characters. I don't see Bruce Willis arguing with the director why the fuck the script won't allow him to find a sniper rifle in the nearest trash can, even though he has a Fate point.

This is why I don't like or play fate. Players WILL throw an fit if their idea gets shit on. Rather than democractise the play space, it just allows for bullies to bully.

Been there, put up with that, walked out.

Quote from: Simlasa;809314That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).

In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

In my experience, a lot of story games work pretty well with a broad range of players - though not with everyone. At least, I run such games at conventions all the time, and the results are generally pretty fun.

Most recently, I saw this over Christmas when running a mildly story-gamish game (Monster of the Week - based on Dungeon World and its ilk) for my son, nephews, and niece - compared to their previous play of D&D. There are some players who are relatively passive in traditional RPGs, who become much more active when they have a different way to contribute.

Quote from: Simlasa;809314That's my primary doubt about such games. I've very seldom played in a group where EVERYONE at the table was brilliant and creative and on the same page... instead what you get are a couple of strong personalities, a couple of weaker ones, a couple who are creative, one who has no opinion at all and one guy who wants to turn everything into a joke (usually drugs, sex or Monty Python).
In a trad game the strong arm of a good GM can smooth all that out... but tell those Players they all have equal authorship in-game and... fuck if I want anything to do with whatever that mess turns out to be!

I DO have friends I would play that with... but getting them all together would be a small miracle.

Yeah. What I've found is a traditional game with a sprinkling of story teller mechanics to sand the edges and inspire works well, and you can nudge that as needed.

FATE is actually a rather traditional game at heart. It has skills that do the sorts of things skills usually do. Roll dice, add skill, beat target number.

The aspect/Fate point system adds to that, but FATE isn't a storyteller/player author dominated game in quite the same way as My Life with Master and others are.


As for 'fixing' things, I think there's no problem saying that Declarations are a negotiated element just like anything else is. Player wants something or suggests something, GM either goes with it or not.

If you are unsure of players, it may be worth simply talking it out. Say 'hey, this is the sort of thing I expect the GM to do/not do, that is the sort of thing I expect the players to do/not do. What do you guys think?'

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809310This entire process ends up making me feel really bad (running these games and then asking for help).

Also, I can't be the only person with these issues. I get the feeling that Fate and Dungeon World (or whatever story game is super popular) are more popular in internet discussions than they are in the real world. When I actually meet people that play roleplaying games, most of them tend to NOT be playing these games, even though my impression from the internet is that they're the games most people are playing.

If the process you are using ends up making you feel really bad, then stop using that process. If that means telling the gang, "Hey gang, I'm not enjoying running FATE so I've decided I'm not going to do that anymore. I can run [name system and setting you prefer] or one of you can be the GM for FATE. Which do you prefer?"

Obviously you are not the only one who doesn't enjoy FATE. Nothing about it appeals to me for instance. But I'm fortunate in that no one I game with is suggesting I run FATE.

Lastly, if you listen to internet discussions you will get a very skewed view of anything. Most people that play RPGs don't post online about RPGs. Those that do are self selected for a lot of things. Among of those selection criteria is wanting to push their opinions about games at other people. Best advice - ignore anything you don't find applicable and useful.

Quote from: jhkim;809318Most recently, I saw this over Christmas when running a mildly story-gamish game (Monster of the Week - based on Dungeon World and its ilk) for my son, nephews, and niece - compared to their previous play of D&D. There are some players who are relatively passive in traditional RPGs, who become much more active when they have a different way to contribute.

The games I've run for kids have all been a whole lot looser... usually impromptu and sometimes we'd collectively make up setting/rules on the spot. Someone would say 'Are there any trolls around? I want to fight a troll' and sure, I'll find a way to bring in a troll.

Yeah, I think some people are missing the opportunity for this to be an inspiration, rather than players trying to get away with something.

Mind you, it can be frustrating trying to get everyone in that groove if they aren't inclined.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809311I don't think they mean to be insulting. What they mean by "more mature" is that these games have less rules to settle things between players. So there's nothing to reel everyone back except their own self restraint. If you have a lot of competitive players, doing that can be hard when you don't have a bunch of rules telling them they have to do it. Especially since such rules lite games tend to wither under the threat of minmaxing.

Competitive, like you said, isn't confrontational. They're not trying to play a game of me versus them, they just want to get terrific results for their character. In Savage Worlds, it's cool. With Fate-style games or games with very ambiguous power/rules (like some of Demon the Descent's powers or Mage the Awakening's spells) I get a trainwreck.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809329Competitive, like you said, isn't confrontational. They're not trying to play a game of me versus them, they just want to get terrific results for their character. In Savage Worlds, it's cool. With Fate-style games or games with very ambiguous power/rules (like some of Demon the Descent's powers or Mage the Awakening's spells) I get a trainwreck.

That's what I mean. There is no clear rule to decide it so everybody kind of has to come to an agreement together and just accept when too much is too much.

Systems like FATE kind of want to disassociate you from your character's success and focus on the overall narrative. Just like how in a movie the main character might suffer disaster before ultimately prevailing, the player has to go with the flow and accept some bad things (in FATE, getting FATE points and accepting complications) to roll with the story. So in that sense it's more like they're writers or directors for a movie that are being entertained by the character's fate rather than solely rooting and pushing for that character as if they were them.

Basically they would have to be like GMs and how a GM would treat an NPC.

Quote from: Will;809319As for 'fixing' things, I think there's no problem saying that Declarations are a negotiated element just like anything else is. Player wants something or suggests something, GM either goes with it or not.

If you are unsure of players, it may be worth simply talking it out. Say 'hey, this is the sort of thing I expect the GM to do/not do, that is the sort of thing I expect the players to do/not do. What do you guys think?'

I guess that works for you. But the rules actually say it's table consensus, not GM ruling. (I might be wrong, but some fate guys corrected me on this elsewhere). That means discussion, and in that discussion, they are in the moment and advocating for making their character terrifically effective. And now I'm in a somewhat heated situation and that makes me very uncomfortable, since I have to argue back and forth until I convince the entire table. I just wanted to play a game, not have these conflicts.

My players aren't horrible, I say yes to almost anything, and I don't railroad, we're not immature grognards, and we don't need huge amounts of crunch. However, when I try to say Fate raw doesn't work for me and my friends, one of those gets leveled at me. It's OKAY for players to like to be advocating for their character rather than collectively trying to tell a story where they just happen to have a specific characters sheet in front of them. In fact, I think LOTS of people are like this (or at least I hope). When tempers get heated, as they do when exciting things are happening and you're advocating for a character, it's nice to be able to clearly distribute jobs, particularly for people that don't enjoy metagame conflict.

Quote from: Simlasa;809325The games I've run for kids have all been a whole lot looser... usually impromptu and sometimes we'd collectively make up setting/rules on the spot. Someone would say 'Are there any trolls around? I want to fight a troll' and sure, I'll find a way to bring in a troll.

To clarify, most of the players were teens (age 13-15), not young kids. I would agree about young kids, but these were more interested in a structured game with rules.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809332I guess that works for you. But the rules actually say it's table consensus, not GM ruling. (I might be wrong, but some fate guys corrected me on this elsewhere). That means discussion, and in that discussion, they are in the moment and advocating for making their character terrifically effective. And now I'm in a somewhat heated situation and that makes me very uncomfortable, since I have to argue back and forth until I convince the entire table. I just wanted to play a game, not have these conflicts.

My players aren't horrible, I say yes to almost anything, and I don't railroad, we're not immature grognards, and we don't need huge amounts of crunch. However, when I try to say Fate raw doesn't work for me and my friends, one of those gets leveled at me. It's OKAY for players to like to be advocating for their character rather than collectively trying to tell a story where they just happen to have a specific characters sheet in front of them. In fact, I think LOTS of people are like this (or at least I hope). When tempers get heated, as they do when exciting things are happening and you're advocating for a character, it's nice to be able to clearly distribute jobs, particularly for people that don't enjoy metagame conflict.

I totally agree; see what I said above your post. It just means FATE isn't for your group, probably. Since the whole point of that game is to /not/ be rooting for your own character and to look at it more as a writer making a story. George Lucas doesn't get upset when something bad happens to Luke Skywalker after all.

Maybe you should try Dungeon World. It's still rules lite, but less collaborative. It is still vague though so you'll have to refine your details and explanations to make sure the players understand what's going on in the game so they can act accordingly, as there are no thousands of rules to do it.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809329Competitive, like you said, isn't confrontational. They're not trying to play a game of me versus them, they just want to get terrific results for their character. In Savage Worlds, it's cool. With Fate-style games or games with very ambiguous power/rules (like some of Demon the Descent's powers or Mage the Awakening's spells) I get a trainwreck.

Can you give some more specific examples of the conflict?

While I'm not a big fan of FATE, this sounds like a clash of expectations - where they expect to be cool heroes like Batman or James Bond, and you're trying to dial back those expectations for their PCs to instead be lesser heroes.

I think it generally works better to meet their expectations rather than fighting them. James Bond still has challenges and failures - he just always looks cool when doing so. In GMing, then means accepting that yes, they can pull out both pistols and fire on the guards as they're falling off the roof.  You then bring in the attack helicopter as the guard's reinforcements.

QuoteWhile I'm not a big fan of FATE, this sounds like a clash of expectations - where they expect to be cool heroes like Batman or James Bond, and you're trying to dial back those expectations for their PCs to instead be lesser heroes.

Yea. We always get down to me being a jerk. Thanks!

I want them to be terrifically awesome. However, I also need to say no when:
- they're doing something that would make them absurdly more powerful than everyone else;
- what they're doing puts me in a position where I can't figure out what to do next meaningfully or would make me unable to come up with future challenges

My goal is that they're awesome heroes by the end of the epsiode. Just because I need to occasionally say no doesn't mean that I'm trying to make them unimportant.

Why is it that having to say no in the above cases makes me a horrible GM who is not meeting his player's needs.

They are awesome players by the end of my sessions where I can do the above. They totally can pull both pistols as they fall backwards out a window. They just cant suddenly get the ability to roll through all the challenges I can come up with, or suddenly get a power/control that is way more than everyone else. I can't always come up with an awesome way to handle anything they want to just make up in every instance. I shouldn't have to feel bad because I'm not perfect. However, it seems like the goal of everyone who is super into these games is to make people like me feel like crap.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809342Yea. We always get down to me being a jerk. Thanks!

I think it's clear why you had problems elsewhere. You are reading all these comments about how games play as personal attacks, when they aren't.


People can 'advocate for the success of their character' without being assholes. GMs can want to establish GM authority without being assholes. People saying a game requires more cooperation isn't saying your group is having at each other with long knives.

Yeah, none of that had anything to do with you being a jerk. People have different expectations for different games, different tastes. Obviously yours and the players are clashing in this case; that doesn't mean you are trying to crush their dreams, just that both of you like different things and haven't realized it.

Anyway, if saying "no" makes your players call you a terrible GM then it just means your players are spoiled brats.

Whenever I bring up problems with Fate style games, the response seems to be that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever.

How is saying no to a player's suggestion that they pull a flamethrower out of a trash can magically because of an ambiguously worded power any of those things?

In this case, it would completely bypass a conflict, create a precedent that I'd always have to worry about and would make game prep for me nightmarish, make his power way more powerful than other people's powers, and put me in a situation where I have no idea what to do with the rest of the session. In the past when I've said yes to these few wacky things, it's had those effects. If I instead try to 1 up, we just get in a bizarre escalation cycle.

I'm glad there are people who can effortlessly deal with all these issues (I'm not being sarcastic, I think that's terrific) and never need to say no, but that's not my experience and not the experience of anyone I know.

And I haven't been clear enough, sorry. My player's are totally fine with this. As soon as I went to games that were less ambiguous, and gave out the occasional no for the above situations, everything has been awesome. It's just that when I bring up that when I've tried Fate-type games with my groups it's been a train wreck, I get the above criticisms from at least one poster.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809306Do you play Dungeon World? It seems like you're applying a D&D mentality to it, where the rolls are literally to adjucate whether a particular action was successful.

Not as much as I'd like, but I've ran a few sessions of it.

QuoteIn Dungeon World, the rolls are made when a move is performed (often associated with an action) but it's not to determine the resolution of that action, strictly. The rolls are meant to direct the course of the plot. If you roll a success, it means something good happens. But it doesn't need to have any relation to your roll, nor does a failure.

That's not how I've read it. Key points like exploit your prep, make a move that follows, and moves snowball read like pretty clear assertions the game is studiously normal in it's design and structure. Nothing I read in the next made me even think "fail forward", just to make failure more interesting than "you sucked, what do you do".

I certainly think it's interesting that you're read it differently.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345I don't think so. I think the tone and implication of some of the posts is that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever.

It's characters. You should be a fan of the characters... everybody should be a fan of all the characters in their game, really.

That doesn't mean they should get their own way every time (Because that would be boring), it doesn't even mean you need to like them, it means you should want to put them in situations and see what they do next.

Wrestling and soap operas have got it right. Some games just work better if thought of in that way.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345Whenever I bring up problems with Fate style games, the response seems to be that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever

Dude, just say no. It will make the game better for everyone to have workable parameters.

You've been *incredibly sensitive* on this thread, as though you expect to get into a confrontation about this - but it's very simple. Run the game the way you need to. If you can't, don't run the game. Run something else or let someone else run something. It's not super hard. Just, don't let your players intimidate you (in a friendly way, probably) into what you find as a GM to be an untenable situation. Then, nobody has fun.

Just say: "Guys, I'm sorry - I have to put on some limits, or I can't run the game. Sometimes I'm going to say no if what you're suggesting is too silly. Otherwise, things get too complicated for me." Done. If they don't like it, they can run it.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;809349You've been *incredibly sensitive* on this thread, as though you expect to get into a confrontation about this

Thanks. You're correct. Appreciate the support everyone!

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809342Yea. We always get down to me being a jerk. Thanks!

I want them to be terrifically awesome. However, I also need to say no when:
- they're doing something that would make them absurdly more powerful than everyone else;
- what they're doing puts me in a position where I can't figure out what to do next meaningfully or would make me unable to come up with future challenges

My goal is that they're awesome heroes by the end of the epsiode. Just because I need to occasionally say no doesn't mean that I'm trying to make them unimportant.

I don't think that you're a jerk. You absolutely do need to have your input, and thus say no some of the time. However, if as GM you're consistently having to argue to tone them down and not tone them up, then it sounds to me like there is a difference in expectations.

For your first issue - if something would make a PC more powerful, one option is to give other PCs benefits to bring them up to be comparable rather than denying it. You shouldn't necessarily do this - but it is workable.

For an existing campaign, it's really hard to change player's expectations for their characters - though it can also be difficult for a GM to change. If you want to adjust average expectations down, it's better to create new characters who are explicitly smaller fish in a smaller pond. You need to set your expectation that those smaller fish are quickly going to be bigger fish, and give them stuff to match that. If you really want them to be small fish, then set up for them to be tiny minnows in a puddle, and they'll be pleased to be small fish.

Can you give some concrete examples of what you tend to argue over?

Quote from: 3rik;809250If I have been informed correctly, in Dungeon [strike]Turd[/strike] World  the players can declare whatever action they want and it's the GM's task to "take it out of Teh Fiction" and cram it into one of the available Moves to see what they need to roll. So, the Moves aren't really limiting the players.

That's one way to look at it.

There is also the "Don't Be An Asshole" move, where the referee or another player says "Don't be an asshole" to somebody who tries to do something game-breaking.

I'm an old school D&Der and Dungeon World works just fine if you play with people who aren't utter douchenozzles.

Quote from: Will;809327Yeah, I think some people are missing the opportunity for this to be an inspiration, rather than players trying to get away with something.

The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole.

The world would be a better place if more people realized this.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345How is saying no to a player's suggestion that they pull a flamethrower out of a trash can magically because of an ambiguously worded power any of those things?

The correct answer is "Sorry, you are not Bugs Bunny."

At some point you have to look at the player and say, "Seriously?"

Quote from: Ladybird;809347It's characters. You should be a fan of the characters... everybody should be a fan of all the characters in their game, really.

That doesn't mean they should get their own way every time (Because that would be boring), it doesn't even mean you need to like them, it means you should want to put them in situations and see what they do next.

Wrestling and soap operas have got it right. Some games just work better if thought of in that way.

Actually, I'm a fan of my players, not their characters.  I want my players to have fun.  If the characters die in the next game session because the wandering monster roll came up with eight manticores that got surprised, so be it.  If the players think it was a great fight and their characters died in a blaze of glory, it's all good.

"This is a story of a world.  There were people on it.  Some became great powerful adventurers, some died horribly in an unknown pit somewhere, and somebody got killed by a runaway manure cart at age 12."

Quote from: Old Geezer;809360Actually, I'm a fan of my players, not their characters.  I want my players to have fun.  If the characters die in the next game session because the wandering monster roll came up with eight manticores that got surprised, so be it.  If the players think it was a great fight and their characters died in a blaze of glory, it's all good.

Love that

Quote"This is a story of a world.  There were people on it.  Some became great powerful adventurers, some died horribly in an unknown pit somewhere, and somebody got killed by a runaway manure cart at age 12."

There's a story there.

Quote from: Old Geezer;809360I want my players to have fun.

Eh. I've always just assumed that's a given.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809342Yea. We always get down to me being a jerk. Thanks!

I want them to be terrifically awesome. However, I also need to say no when:
- they're doing something that would make them absurdly more powerful than everyone else;
- what they're doing puts me in a position where I can't figure out what to do next meaningfully or would make me unable to come up with future challenges

My goal is that they're awesome heroes by the end of the epsiode. Just because I need to occasionally say no doesn't mean that I'm trying to make them unimportant.

Why is it that having to say no in the above cases makes me a horrible GM who is not meeting his player's needs.

They are awesome players by the end of my sessions where I can do the above. They totally can pull both pistols as they fall backwards out a window. They just cant suddenly get the ability to roll through all the challenges I can come up with, or suddenly get a power/control that is way more than everyone else. I can't always come up with an awesome way to handle anything they want to just make up in every instance. I shouldn't have to feel bad because I'm not perfect. However, it seems like the goal of everyone who is super into these games is to make people like me feel like crap.

I do not know piddly-poo about Fate, but it looks to me like you are trying too hard to bring the fun as GM.  It simply is not the GM's job to make the player's feel awesome, nor is it the GM's job to decide at what part of the night a player will be awesome.  That is entirely up to the player's decisions and luck with the dice.

The GM's job is to run a consistent milieu, drop story hooks for the players to latch upon, and pick up the pace when things start slowing down.  It is up to the players to choose how they want to attempt to have things play out.  The GM doesn't need to spend any effort worrying about whether it is an appropriate time for someone to be awesome, just let the dice fall as they may and spend efforts toward brainstorming the natural consequences.

Anecdotally, my experience is that players like it when they manage to obliterate their objective early in the night and leave me fumbling, "I have no idea where to go next with this guys, y'all fucked my plans, let's break for a few minutes while I figure out what would happen."

Quote from: Ladybird;809346That's not how I've read it. Key points like exploit your prep, make a move that follows, and moves snowball read like pretty clear assertions the game is studiously normal in it's design and structure. Nothing I read in the next made me even think "fail forward", just to make failure more interesting than "you sucked, what do you do".

What he seems to be trying to describe is the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution.

The classic example to distinguish between conflict resolution and task resolution is the PC attempting to find hidden documents in an office with a locked safe. With task resolution, the mechanics determine whether or not the PC can crack the safe. With conflict resolution, the mechanics determine whether or not the PC finds the documents.

mAcular Chaotic, however, is making a rather thorough muddle of it.

First, he's made the mistake of picking an example of conflict resolution that's actually indistinguishable from action resolution: The action is to sneak over and grab the keys; the conflict is to get the keys. This actually a remarkably common mistake when people are discussing task resolution and I think it's largely because the terminology is muddy. (I would argue that the distinction would be clearer if we referred to these as "narrative resolution" and "action resolution", but I digress.)

Second, he appears to be conflating conflict resolution vs. task resolution with the distinction between internal and external factors in a skill check. (The distinction here is between failing to crack the safe because you're simply not skilled enough and failing to crack the safe because your lockpick was defective and snapped off. A lot of GMs default exclusively to the former when it's arguably more effective to remember that the randomness of the dice roll models the entire situation, not just variance in the character's ability.)

Third, he's then followed up by misusing the term "fail forward" to describe the muddle he's created. This is particularly baffling because the term "fail forward" refers to a situation where a mechanical failure is described as being a success-with-complications in the game world. He is instead describing a situation which is just a complete failure: The barbarian was trying to get the key. The barbarian did not get the key. (Failing forward in this situation would be the barbarian grabbing the key while waking up the guard.)

Fourth, I haven't played Dungeon World, but I've read it and I've also played Apocalypse World. I'm pretty sure DW doesn't actually use conflict resolution. (It certainly doesn't in its core moves.) I also don't recall it discussing fail forward principles at any point. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the "success / partial success / failure" dynamic of its mechanics would actually discourage fail forward techniques (since most of those outcomes are already encoded into the "partial success" category).

(scratches his head)

Okay, I'm bucking the trend here, but it strikes me that if you have a rule system that allows a certain style of play, it can't be an enormous shock that it attracts players who favor that style of play.

No, "authoring" isn't the universal holy grail of all RPGs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;809419What he seems to be trying to describe is the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution.

The classic example to distinguish between conflict resolution and task resolution is the PC attempting to find hidden documents in an office with a locked safe. With task resolution, the mechanics determine whether or not the PC can crack the safe. With conflict resolution, the mechanics determine whether or not the PC finds the documents.

mAcular Chaotic, however, is making a rather thorough muddle of it.

First, he's made the mistake of picking an example of conflict resolution that's actually indistinguishable from action resolution: The action is to sneak over and grab the keys; the conflict is to get the keys. This actually a remarkably common mistake when people are discussing task resolution and I think it's largely because the terminology is muddy. (I would argue that the distinction would be clearer if we referred to these as "narrative resolution" and "action resolution", but I digress.)

Second, he appears to be conflating conflict resolution vs. task resolution with the distinction between internal and external factors in a skill check. (The distinction here is between failing to crack the safe because you're simply not skilled enough and failing to crack the safe because your lockpick was defective and snapped off. A lot of GMs default exclusively to the former when it's arguably more effective to remember that the randomness of the dice roll models the entire situation, not just variance in the character's ability.)

Third, he's then followed up by misusing the term "fail forward" to describe the muddle he's created. This is particularly baffling because the term "fail forward" refers to a situation where a mechanical failure is described as being a success-with-complications in the game world. He is instead describing a situation which is just a complete failure: The barbarian was trying to get the key. The barbarian did not get the key. (Failing forward in this situation would be the barbarian grabbing the key while waking up the guard.)

Fourth, I haven't played Dungeon World, but I've read it and I've also played Apocalypse World. I'm pretty sure DW doesn't actually use conflict resolution. (It certainly doesn't in its core moves.) I also don't recall it discussing fail forward principles at any point. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the "success / partial success / failure" dynamic of its mechanics would actually discourage fail forward techniques (since most of those outcomes are already encoded into the "partial success" category).

Well, first of all, there's a lot of room for interpretation in Dungeon World's rules since they're deliberately vague and meant to be a launching point for the GM's own brand of it. Unlike a lot of games, Dungeon World has a big community around making sense of these rules, and even the creators participate in them regularly, so I'm able to chat with them and get an idea for what they were driving at.

The failure mechanic is NOT a simple task based resolution. Page 19 says "The results always fall into three basic categories. A total of 10 or higher (written 10+) is the best outcome. A total of 7–9 is still a success but it comes with compromises or cost. A 6 or lower is trouble, but you also get to mark XP." It says a 6- is trouble, not a straightforward failure. That means the GM can decide to introduce some new element or complicate the situation somehow in a way that isn't just failing that task.

You are getting confused because DW still makes you roll for those situations that are typically reserved for task resolution, like making an attack. It's just that the results of the rolls are still used for pushing the narrative in a certain direction.

In the case of "fail forward," since we can have "trouble" on a failure, that means that if there's nothing interesting going on by simply failing the task, I can just give them what they were going for and complicate the situation some other way.

However, I probably did misuse some terms, so I'll give you that. I just mean that you are allowed to tie in other events to make a failure more interesting than just, "What you tried didn't work; try again until it does."

Also notice that for the vast majority of Moves, there is no explicit result described on a 6-. For Hack and Slash, for instance, it could just have read, "You don't hit the guy but he hits you," but it leaves the door wide open for anything. Like the GM might describe that you kill the monster after all, but it means you didn't notice the giant spider pouncing on you from above.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345Whenever I bring up problems with Fate style games, the response seems to be that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever.

Well, you are discussing the issues here and no one is suggesting that, so I think you can drop the pressumption that you are a Bad Person. :)

I think you are just experiencing some fairly common transition pain when moving to Fate, and your players are too.

I think that a problem has grown up in the last decade or so, growing from Chekhov's Gun and "level appropriate challenges". Too many of us have been trained that:

• If there is a door we must need to go through it, or the GM wouldn't have put it there, and
• If the door is locked we must be able to open it somehow, or the GM wouldn't have made it a "locked door."

Traditional sandbox players don't suffer this problem as it is anathema to the sandbox principle.

With games like DnD there is often (in my experience) an unconscious assumption that the party can overcome any challenge presented to them, and must overcome it for the adventure to continue. Failure is simply not an option. You get problems when this unspoken assumption bumps into Fates core assumptions, which are very different.

The guys who wrote Fate are on record that it was specifically created so they could, eventually, do The Dresden Files and the earlier Fate games they wrote were more about getting the system refined to the point where this was achievable. In The Dresden Files the main character spends the first half to two-thirds of the book getting his ass whupped until, eventually, he has a break through and manages to solve the mystery then kick it's ass.

This is a radically different expectation. Many DnD players presume that they should "win" every encounter, whilst fate presumes you will "lose" (or succeed at notable cost) the earlier parts of the adventure, building up a cache of Fate points so that you can overcome the final, climactic challenge. (I take it as read that some people will disagree with the premise, so no need to jump on it. ;))

Your players seem to be trying to win every encounter, where as you need them to "not win" some of the encounters for your adventure to progress. This is a fundamental mis-match of expectations, so just bringing the expectations into the foreground and discussing them between games may improve a lot of your table issues.

You also seem to be experiencing a competency mis-match where the players expect to be (in DnD parlance) 10th level characters but you still see them as 2nd level characters or some such. This is also a relatively common problem as the games bill PCs as powerful characters, but don't necessarily make it clear how challenging the world is. Even Batman doesn't usually jump straight to the supervillan's base after the first page of the comic! Again, talk these things through with your group outside of the game to better get on the same page of expectations.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809350Thanks. You're correct. Appreciate the support everyone!

Again, you missed the point - why can't you just put your foot down and say: "No, that's unreasonable"?

//Panjumanju

We've all played and enjoyed Dresden Files because, IMHO, it has all of the parts we like about Fate but plays much like a traditional game. No group discussion/consensus is required constantly, powers are pretty clearly defined, declarations aren't assumed to be world breaking.

I was very disappointed when Fate Core came out because I had incorrectly assumed that it would be a generic Dresden Files. Instead, it took out the parts we liked from Dresden Files and heightened the parts that were problematic for us.

BTW, I don't mind players all starting out as effective. I just don't want one player being absurdly more powerful than everyone else. No, I don't mind them being 10th level characters. They can be whatever they want. I just don't (1) want them to have magic solutions that bypass everything I can think of (e.g., the Flamethrower was the targets specific bane so it would one-shot a big conflict we had built up to) and (2) don't want one character to be absurdly more powerful than other people.

I don't think that having clarified roles for how meta-game conflicts get resolved is a bad thing. If you don't like conflict (I don't) than knowing that you have a right to say "yay/nay" without hurt feelings makes for a smooth running game.

Also, for LOTS of people I'd guess, everyone constantly making *hit up feels very non immersive, and lots of people like immersion.

Remind me how the guy pulled a flamethrower out of nowhere again? What was his justification?

Off-loading some of the world creation is pretty typical. During a campaign I played in (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/140450/Slumbering-Ursine-Dunes-PDF?manufacturers_id=7124), one of the players would make up all sorts of crap when talking to NPCs, and the DM incorporated it into the world. Collaborating with the DM just happens naturally when you have good players. A game system that forces collaboration just seems annoying to run.

Quote from: Vargold;809580Remind me how the guy pulled a flamethrower out of nowhere again? What was his justification?

Erm... Aspects?

Quote from: 3rik;809598Erm... Aspects?

Right, but what Aspect, and what was the rationale?

Something like "The Right Tool for the Job" doesn't seem to me to permit pulling flame throwers and bazookas out of one's trench coat.

I suspect that the real disconnect in the OP's game may have happened in character creation--the players and the GM having radically disparate ideas about what the Aspects permitted.

Flamethrower is of course silly, but I think there's a degree for negotiations left - rather than a flamethrower, why not a can of deodorant and a zippo lighter?

Quote from: Rincewind1;809607Flamethrower is of course silly, but I think there's a degree for negotiations left - rather than a flamethrower, why not a can of deodorant and a zippo lighter?

Yes, that would be fine. It's also not game-breaking.

The original flamethrower reference was "they pull a flamethrower out of a trash can magically because of an ambiguously worded power". That doesn't sound offhand like just a normal Aspect, but I don't know for sure. Also, does "magically" mean actual hocus-pocus magic?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809568BTW, I don't mind players all starting out as effective. I just don't want one player being absurdly more powerful than everyone else. No, I don't mind them being 10th level characters. They can be whatever they want. I just don't (1) want them to have magic solutions that bypass everything I can think of (e.g., the Flamethrower was the targets specific bane so it would one-shot a big conflict we had built up to) and (2) don't want one character to be absurdly more powerful than other people.

I'm not sure of the specifics here, so I don't know what I think of the particular conflicts here. In general:

1) I mind if something is illogical or genuinely hard to fit. I don't mind, though, if the PCs one-shot a big conflict. If they have a good plan and/or get lucky, sometimes the main villain will go down in one shot.

2) For me as GM, I don't inherently mind if there is a big power difference among PCs - like having Pippin and Gandalf in the same party. If the power difference is causing resentment or other problems among the players, then I'd work to address it - but that depends on the players and what their issues are.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809345Whenever I bring up problems with Fate style games, the response seems to be that if I don't allow players to create whatever the feel like at any time or I say no, I'm on some kind of power trip, or I'm not a fan of the players, or I don't let them be awesome, or whatever.

And I haven't been clear enough, sorry. My player's are totally fine with this. As soon as I went to games that were less ambiguous, and gave out the occasional no for the above situations, everything has been awesome. It's just that when I bring up that when I've tried Fate-type games with my groups it's been a train wreck, I get the above criticisms from at least one poster.

Stop playing Fate-style games, then.

It's as simple as that.

I wonder why you have kept playing them for this long?
You thought there were better advice, perhaps.
The "better advice" in this case is: ignore the criticisms you have referred to, as they are wrong.

This all started because we LOVED Dresden Files. It had all of the awesome stuff we like about fate (cool ways to use aspects, etc), but everyone's powers were fairly clear, it was assumed that declarations were mostly smaller, more limited facts, etc.

So when Fate Core came out I bought everything assuming it would just be Generic Dresden Files (like Strands of Fate with way less aspects and powers).

I've run Fate Core/Accelerated several times, and not once did I really notice a "group consensus required" part of the rules. I ran it mostly like I would most other games, except with compels and other aspect point use.

As the GM I said whether things were reasonable or not. Nothing stops you from doing that. I don't remember anything in the rules that did, and even if there was, fuck that, do what is best for your game. If you get tired of it and don't want to run it because you aren't having fun, then whats the point of playing at all.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809483In the case of "fail forward," since we can have "trouble" on a failure, that means that if there's nothing interesting going on by simply failing the task, I can just give them what they were going for and complicate the situation some other way.

Once again: That's not what "fail forward" means.

QuoteIt says a 6- is trouble, not a straightforward failure.

On a 6- result you're supposed to make a move. This is spelled out on pages 165-166. This is not a huge difference from what you're saying, but it's a significant one.

I will say that one of the problems I have with Dungeon World is that they took the strong, clear presentation of Apocalypse World and turned it into milquetoast. So I can see how DW-only players can overlook the specific structure of how a *World game is designed to be played. But the rules are still there.

Well, yes. But most of your generalized trouble can fit the GM moves. For instance, "reveal an unwelcome truth" would be "oh hey the bandits have an Ogre in tow."

Just curious, why did the elements that make Fate easily workable for more traditional elements get removed between Dresden Files and Fate Core?

Clearly (relatively) defined powers: Exists in DFRPG, Dropped in Fate Core

Traditional GM Role (at least insofar as it exists in a game with Declarations): Exists in DFRPG, dropped in favor of "consensus" in Fate Core.

I bought all the Fate Core books assuming I would be getting a Generic Dresden Files game (my fault). Instead, I got a game that was much more collaborative story focused, and those elements were either ADDED or GIVEN MORE PROMINENCE in Fate Core.

I'm only talking about preferences here, not whether more story focused, consensus games are better or worse.

It's like going from a sports car to a car frame and a pile of parts.

Fate Core doesn't actually change anything, it's just that it does a much worse job explaining things in the interest of being more broadly inclusive.
(Some editions of Fate Core are really opaque; Fate 2 looks interesting, but I don't know how much better it is yet)


You can play Fate Core _exactly_ like Dresden. It's the same game. Dresden just has a lot of preset bits and coded power widgets right there, while with Core you will have to invent or handwave any needed bits.
(Or use the Tools and whatever supplement, which apparently has a lot of advice on how to design more coded bits)

I hear what you're saying Will, but I'm pretty sure Table Consensus is a HUGE part of Fate Core, since it gets brought up whenever i post for help about it (e.g., I'm having trouble with X). I never had any of these issues when we used Dresden Files.

Quote from: Will;809307IME, story mechanics work best with proactive, creative players who are in great synch with the GM and each other.

And I suspect a group of local players who are all proactive, creative, and in great sync with one another is vanishingly rare. Which is why I think the storygames movement is driven largely by bitter non-gamers, who long ago abandoned the messy reality of tabletop RPGs in favour of the idealized dreamworld of theory-craft.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809940Just curious, why did the elements that make Fate easily workable for more traditional elements get removed between Dresden Files and Fate Core?

Because they're different games. Fate Core is a toolkit for groups to build their game from, like GURPS or HERO et al, while Dresden Files or Atomic Robo are worked examples, or games in their own right. One isn't an upgrade to the other.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809951I hear what you're saying Will, but I'm pretty sure Table Consensus is a HUGE part of Fate Core, since it gets brought up whenever i post for help about it (e.g., I'm having trouble with X). I never had any of these issues when we used Dresden Files.

STOP CARING WHAT PEOPLE ONLINE SAY AND PLAY THE GAME THE WAY YOU WANT.

Seriously, I have issues with certain parts of Fate Core, but its not the "group consensus" part because I've never done that, nor even noticed it being in the rules. Granted, it might be there, but I just wasn't paying attention to it because its not something I want in my games, so I wouldn't use it anyway.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809951I hear what you're saying Will, but I'm pretty sure Table Consensus is a HUGE part of Fate Core, since it gets brought up whenever i post for help about it (e.g., I'm having trouble with X). I never had any of these issues when we used Dresden Files.

You may have noticed, that Table Consensus haven't been brought up very often by the people on this site?

That is because a certain aspect of most rpgs permeates this forum, and that is the DIY of "If a rule is in the way, change it or ignore it".

I backed the FATE Core KS (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/fate-core), ended up selling the book. I *love* FUDGE; I think it's one of the best rpgs ever...but fuck, I hate FATE. Something about it rubs me the wrong way and I cannot figure out what that is.

It's possible PencilBoy99 just has the same inexplicable distaste for the game and is unable to articulate what is causing the problem.  In which case, yeah, play something else, or just ignore whatever you don't like. If the second one proves problematic with your players, why not just use the Dresden Files system instead?

Quote from: Brad;809964I backed the FATE Core KS (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/fate-core), ended up selling the book. I *love* FUDGE; I think it's one of the best rpgs ever...but fuck, I hate FATE. Something about it rubs me the wrong way and I cannot figure out what that is.

It's possible PencilBoy99 just has the same inexplicable distaste for the game and is unable to articulate what is causing the problem.  In which case, yeah, play something else, or just ignore whatever you don't like. If the second one proves problematic with your players, why not just use the Dresden Files system instead?

I think the question, more straight, is:
Without going to FATE Core, how do one change the setting and the genre for Dresden Files?

It's mostly that (1) i don't like conflict and am not super assertive and (2) I have players that like to make their characters as effective as possible and play with a focus on making that character successful. Not a great combination for Fate Core as written.

Maybe Mechalus will release a new edition of Strands of Fate.

I feel like I want more data to figure out what's going on, though. "Super-effective" != "I find a flame thrower in a trash can," unless we're talking about magic or superpowers. Same for "I spend a Fate point to declare that this guy is now jelly-bones and thus out of the fight."

In fact, as I look at p. 13, the only place where declarations are mentioned in Core, I only see mention of "details," which implies small facts and small changes to me.

Quote from: Brad;809964I backed the FATE Core KS (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/fate-core), ended up selling the book. I *love* FUDGE; I think it's one of the best rpgs ever...but fuck, I hate FATE. Something about it rubs me the wrong way and I cannot figure out what that is.

Have you looked at Fate 2? From what folks have said it might eliminate some of the stuff I dislike about it, though I haven't had time to sit down and read it through.

I've always found Fate really inspiring but frustratingly vague or hard to conceptualize as explained.
It feels like there's something wrong with the presentation or clarification, but it might be me.

Quote from: Will;810018Have you looked at Fate 2? From what folks have said it might eliminate some of the stuff I dislike about it, though I haven't had time to sit down and read it through.

I've always found Fate really inspiring but frustratingly vague or hard to conceptualize as explained.
It feels like there's something wrong with the presentation or clarification, but it might be me.

Well, it's a toolkit game that relies heavily on narrative elements. I had one great game in fate, and one poor one. I think it's definitely a game I see working out best when you have a party of 1 GM and 3 - 4 other GMs taking a break to play.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809989It's mostly that (1) i don't like conflict and am not super assertive and (2) I have players that like to make their characters as effective as possible and play with a focus on making that character successful. Not a great combination for Fate Core as written.

Maybe Mechalus will release a new edition of Strands of Fate.

Then literally just go play a different game. This is like saying "I hate talking in front of people" and then constantly trying to make your fun time be giving public speeches.

Or just ignore the parts you don't like. Who cares what the rules say.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809989Maybe Mechalus will release a new edition of Strands of Fate.

Why not stick with first edition Strands of Fate? There was a Strands of Power support book, too.

Quote from: Will;809942It's like going from a sports car to a car frame and a pile of parts.

Fate Core doesn't actually change anything, it's just that it does a much worse job explaining things in the interest of being more broadly inclusive.
(Some editions of Fate Core are really opaque; Fate 2 looks interesting, but I don't know how much better it is yet)


You can play Fate Core _exactly_ like Dresden. It's the same game. Dresden just has a lot of preset bits and coded power widgets right there, while with Core you will have to invent or handwave any needed bits.
(Or use the Tools and whatever supplement, which apparently has a lot of advice on how to design more coded bits)

Will, this is not true.

Fate Core and Fate 3 work differently in many ways.

In Fate 3, Aspects were not always true. They are in Fate Core, which means that it is possible for Aspects to do things that only Stunts used to be able to do, like give access to powers, etc.

This change in and of itself makes the game feel very different in play, and has far reaching consequences. For example, in Fate 3, because Aspects were not always true, you had to have separate rules for things like fire and darkness. But in Fate Core, it being Fire or Dark gives it the ability to do stuff all on its own.

Fate Core is the first full-on Fate game to have no extra rules for environmental things like fire and darkness, etc. Aspects now being always true means it doesn't need them.

Aspects always being true now also means that there is no reason for the Block action that exists in Fate 3. An Aspect alone can now do what a Block action used to be needed for.

I was a major Fate 3 fan, and when Fate Core first came out, I hated it. HATED it, because of how different it was to all the Fates that had come before. Now I have warmed up to it, and have come to prefer it. Now I find that I can't go back to Fate 3 games because they play so differently from Fate Core, which I am now used to.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809989Maybe Mechalus will release a new edition of Strands of Fate.

What is wrong with the current edition?

Maybe that's where the disconnect happened for me and people like me. I'm glad aspects are always true, but a side effect is now aspects are doing what powers and stunts do in Dresden, so you have the more ambiguous aspects doing heavy lifting. So to handle that, you have a lot more situations requiring table consensus.

Nothing is wrong with the current version of strands , it just isn't really supported anymore . He said he will make a new version.

It doesn't require a table consensus, it requires a GM decision.

All this "I don't like confrontation" stuff is just... how did you ever adjudicate anything in any game if you couldn't just say "no, that doesn't work"?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810122He said he will make a new version.

Did he? Do you remember where you saw him say that? I'm curious.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;810128It doesn't require a table consensus, it requires a GM decision.

All this "I don't like confrontation" stuff is just... how did you ever adjudicate anything in any game if you couldn't just say "no, that doesn't work"?

He has said elsewhere that it was by pointing to rules in the book.

But with Fate Core all the book says is talk it out. Some people don't feel comfortable with that because it means that they, not the impartial rules, are saying no.

EDIT: But if you are the kind of person that feels uncomfortable talking things out and then making and standing by a decision as being your own, then Fate won't ever work for you because it kind of requires it.

Quote from: Enlightened;810129Did he? Do you remember where you saw him say that? I'm curious.

Mechalus did talk in vague terms about a new version of Strands once Core came out, but it was never a strong statement and I doubt it will happen, personally.

Strands works fine if you want a crunchy implementation of Fate.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;809239I've run into this buzz saw on Fate groups as I struggled with the Declaration maneuver. I say "I'd like to have some kind of special written rule that lets me be able to say 'no' or 'yes, but' without having to have an unpleasant conflict with the players because I'm more responsible than everyone else for making a decent, challenging game session" and their response is, essentially, that I'm being a jerk and it's a non-issue (they're nicer about it).

There cannot be such a rule, if you look at it from a Storygaming perspective. You can so No, of course. But if you do, you stop playing. "You" in this case, is anyone at the table.

Because according to Storygamers gaming works like this: There is a group of people who decide that they will play a game. They then decide upon the rules. The rules might have specifications for something called "GMing" and require one the players to be the "GM" who then does the "GMing".

So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true. If it were something official, you might call it legal fiction. But these fictions do inform how people will talk about gaming and how authors will write texts about gaming.

So why can't the GM say no, according to Storygamers? - Because the GM is a rule.

That doesn't mean that the persons who happens to do the "GMing" cannot say no. But that person cannot say no because of being the GM. That is very important because to that legal fiction, every one at the table has consented to play by the rules. If anything happens that requires someone to say know, apparently something has gone wrong when the rules were being negotiated.

So when someone at the table feels required to say NO!, you should stop playing and reevaluate what you are actually playing.

That's also why Storygames are usually short. Everyone is expected to know all of the rules.

Of course, according to Storygamers it's not your fault, when the session sucks. It just didn't work out between you.

http://thedongion.blogspot.com/2015/01/indie-game-genius-wraps-head-around.html

Quote from: 1of3;810185So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true.

:rolleyes: Try looking out the window of your ivory tower. If I invite someone to my house to game, that isn't a fiction. The invitation is an actual social interaction that happens in the real world between real people.

All super interesting comments.

I'll be straight out honest that I'm upset with Fate Core. I wanted it to be something it's not. DFRPG was played by everyone I know like a traditional game. The super "everything is consensus and the GM is just another person has been super emphasized" in Fate Core, and by its supporters.

Fate people respond that every game has conflict issues and Fate is better because it "brings these to the forefront." I'd argue that other traditional games allow people with very different personalities and play agendas to enjoy a role-playing game cooperatively.

Some traditional games provide more support for people that don't enjoy interpersonal conflict in their hobbies. If you're playing D&D, and the rules say you can cast a fireball and that makes you awesome, you can do that. You don't need everyone at the table's permission that your "bad ass wizard" aspect allows you to do that in this scene.

It's not true that the only vailid view of an RPG game is a table consensus. Another analogy is a host at the dinner party. He/she is not responsible for all of the conversation, but it's his/her job to make sure that this is a great dinner party. He can even expend extra effort to gently reign in overly aggressive conversationalists and encourage shy people. It's not true that the only alternative to table consensus is a dictatorial monomaniac.

If I was a game designer I'd make my own version of Fate that was more like a generic version of Dresden with a lot of the fun improvements they added for maneuvers and such in Fate core. However, I'm not a game designer.

Quote from: 1of3;810185There cannot be such a rule, if you look at it from a Storygaming perspective. You can so No, of course. But if you do, you stop playing. "You" in this case, is anyone at the table.

Because according to Storygamers gaming works like this: There is a group of people who decide that they will play a game. They then decide upon the rules. The rules might have specifications for something called "GMing" and require one the players to be the "GM" who then does the "GMing".

So the GM only exists as a rule. That is quite different from the fiction that other schools of gaming might use to explain gaming. They might say that the GM invites people to his or her game.

Of course all these approaches are not actually true. If it were something official, you might call it legal fiction. But these fictions do inform how people will talk about gaming and how authors will write texts about gaming.

So why can't the GM say no, according to Storygamers? - Because the GM is a rule.

That doesn't mean that the persons who happens to do the "GMing" cannot say no. But that person cannot say no because of being the GM. That is very important because to that legal fiction, every one at the table has consented to play by the rules. If anything happens that requires someone to say know, apparently something has gone wrong when the rules were being negotiated.

So when someone at the table feels required to say NO!, you should stop playing and reevaluate what you are actually playing.

That's also why Storygames are usually short. Everyone is expected to know all of the rules.

Of course, according to Storygamers it's not your fault, when the session sucks. It just didn't work out between you.

...wow.  RPGs meet academobabble.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810254If I was a game designer I'd make my own version of Fate that was more like a generic version of Dresden with a lot of the fun improvements they added for maneuvers and such in Fate core. However, I'm not a game designer.

Being a gamer is about dicking around with games.

So dick around with Fate to turn it into something you like.

Make some changes and if they don't work make some other changes.

Make up some shit you think will be fun.
Play the game.
If not fun, throw it out and make up some different shit you think will be fun.
Repeat until fun.

Congratulations, you have just duplicated the process Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax used to create Dungeons & Dragons.

For fuck's sake. Run the game you want to run.

Every game requires making decisions not in the rules, if you literally cannot say no because you hate conflict and your players get mad you have two options:

1. Man the fuck up
2. Get players who aren't children.

I've played Fate Core quite a bit, and while it has its issues (I think that sometimes its just too much brain burn to keep all the fate point economy stuff going), the one you are having isn't a problem with the rules, its a problem with the way you are running it.

If you don't want to run it as a "group consensus" game, then DON'T. Take charge of your fucking game and change it into the game you want.

This is starting to just look like a post to whinge about gaming advice you don't like (a lot of the consensus type stuff, which surprise, I don't like much either, but I just don't USE it, because I am not beholden to a rulebook to have fun), rather than an actual attempt to fix any problem, because every post you make is ignoring advice and stating "I just hate that it requires this".

It doesn't, fucking, require it. You are just being a ninny about it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;810259For fuck's sake. Run the game you want to run.

Every game requires making decisions not in the rules, if you literally cannot say no because you hate conflict and your players get mad you have two options:

1. Man the fuck up
2. Get players who aren't children.

I've played Fate Core quite a bit, and while it has its issues (I think that sometimes its just too much brain burn to keep all the fate point economy stuff going), the one you are having isn't a problem with the rules, its a problem with the way you are running it.

If you don't want to run it as a "group consensus" game, then DON'T. Take charge of your fucking game and change it into the game you want.

This is starting to just look like a post to whinge about gaming advice you don't like (a lot of the consensus type stuff, which surprise, I don't like much either, but I just don't USE it, because I am not beholden to a rulebook to have fun), rather than an actual attempt to fix any problem, because every post you make is ignoring advice and stating "I just hate that it requires this".

It doesn't, fucking, require it. You are just being a ninny about it.

Good advice. Consider yours (and other advice taken). I will put away my Fate Core books for now.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810269Good advice. Consider yours (and other advice taken). I will put away my Fate Core books for now.

Err..I don't think that was the advice.

________________________


After reading all your comments on this in various threads here and on Google+, I am left thinking that this is a group dynamics issue.

You find that you don't feel comfortable telling your players no, and they use that fact to walk all over you. So without some authoritative third party (the rules) to stand between you and your players, you get used.

Your players are either not self aware enough to know that that is what they are doing to you or they just don't care. I wouldn't play with either kind of person.

It's clear Pencil just wants to bitch about how upset he is at Fate Core. Look at all his closed threads.

Grow up.

(And for the curious, this is the considerably cleaned up version of this post)

Quote from: Enlightened;810272Err..I don't think that was the advice.

Actually among other things not playing Fate was mentioned. All things considered it sounds like a reasonable solution.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810254It's not true that the only alternative to table consensus is a dictatorial monomaniac.

There are many options!

Players form a Union
Elect representatives
Steel cage death match
Drawing straws
Paper, rock, scissors

You forgot to mention setting fire to any and all copies of FATE.

Can Fate be played without such an emphasis on the Fate Point economy?

I mean, I don't mind the basic set up of Aspects and how they can grant bonuses to certain skill checks if they're relevant. Can that be done without Fate points, though? Maybe keep those as a just a bonus feature?

The one or two times that I played, we all constantly referred to our character sheets to see how our aspects could squeeze out the use of a Fate Point. I found that distracting.

Quote from: Necrozius;810372Can Fate be played without such an emphasis on the Fate Point economy?

Fate 2 had aspects that worked very differently. They had a numerical rating which was the number of time you could use each one before a 'refresh' happened (don't know the trigger, but presumably the GM decides). You could graft this approach into Fate Core if you wanted to?

QuoteI mean, I don't mind the basic set up of Aspects and how they can grant bonuses to certain skill checks if they're relevant. Can that be done without Fate points, though? Maybe keep those as a just a bonus feature?

The one or two times that I played, we all constantly referred to our character sheets to see how our aspects could squeeze out the use of a Fate Point. I found that distracting.

More recent Fate games tend to have a smaller number of aspects per character. Spirit of the Cenury had 10 per character, Dresden File 7 and Core 5. This makes it easier to keep your own aspects in mind, but there is still quite a lot going on. I think internalising them just takes practice.

Quote from: Necrozius;810372Can Fate be played without such an emphasis on the Fate Point economy?

I mean, I don't mind the basic set up of Aspects and how they can grant bonuses to certain skill checks if they're relevant. Can that be done without Fate points, though? Maybe keep those as a just a bonus feature?

The one or two times that I played, we all constantly referred to our character sheets to see how our aspects could squeeze out the use of a Fate Point. I found that distracting.

Just play Fate 2nd edition.


It had none of these problems.

Quote from: Necrozius;810372Can Fate be played without such an emphasis on the Fate Point economy?

Generally speaking yes, though I there are some many Fate variants I can't claim this true for all. But overall it is actually easier to dial up or down the emphasis on the Fate Point economy in Fate with out breaking anything than it would be to remove say Alignment or Attacks of Opportunity in some flavours of D&D where the rules are all interconnected. Fate is designed with the whole idea of dials and levers so that you can adapt it your desired playstyle.

Bear in mind that Fate 2 there is no mechanism for a Fate Point economy and even in Fate 3.0 the term Fate Point Economy does not actually appear anywhere in SotC or most of Fate based games. It is a notion that has come from the blogsphere.

What you get in SotC in some GM advice  on the lines that getting a lot of invokes and compels is a good thing. But that is advice, how often do you stick to the advice found in roleplaying game books?

Personally I like it when invokes and compels are used dramatically. It stands to reason that if something happens all the time it is no longer dramatic but commonplace. As a GM I can influence this this by making sure I do not allow soft compels, compels that don't really have much of a bite. If the players are not earning Fate Points cheaply, they will be less inclined to spend Fate Points on trivial rolls.

Then again each session is different, sometimes you do want a crazy-fast Fate Point economy. It's not a question of playing the game right or wrong, it's all about what is right for your group on that night.

Will is right! No more bitching about Fate!

The advice to just do something I do like and adapt it will be taken. I'm going to try re-skinning Kerberos Club (Fate) w/ the maneuvers and such from Fate Core.

Can anyone point me to something that explains how Fate refreshes worked in Fate 2 or something similar?

http://faterpg.com/dl/FATE2fe.pdf

And thank you for taking the spirit of my rebuff.

Going back to the premise of the original post, about the rules allowing too much flexibility, there is another solution to that problem. The rules of Fate Core are just that, the core of the rules. If you want more crunch in a specific area of the game, you can add those yourself as 'extras' to the rules. The Toolkit companion book goes into how to develop these things in a fair chunk of detail.

So if your players want to have powers which bend the notions of believable reality, but have trouble identifying where 'the line' is that they shouldn't cross then build extras which explain how these abilities work in your world. You, the GM, are the primary agent in developing these campaign rules so you have the ability to work through them in advance, define what can be done and what the limits of power are.

That is, in effect, what Dresden files et al. are: core rules plus campaign specific rules for greater mechanical depth in certain areas.

Well, also, it turns out complaining doesn't help. I did it for two days and it didn't generate a better version of Fate for me. But until someone mentioned, well hey, just make your own version, it didn't actually OCCUR to me that i could do that.

Which is weird, because 20 years ago it would have. In those days NO ONE I KNEW used D&D as written - part of the fun of being a GM was making your OWN set of rules (otherwise, you'd just play).

I'll post it if I can figure out how to get it to work.

There's this weird culture that 3e D&D engendered, for some reason, that one should use the rules as written and, of all things, a de-authoring of the GM as having little say in what goes on in the game.

If your players started gaming in that culture or let it seep into them, I could see how it might be tough steering things in a different direction.


But, again, I DO sympathize with 'what do I do with this?' with Fate Core. I take issue with some of the specific complaints, but overall, I've found most of the Fate versions murky and confusing. This might have to do with having limited opportunities to actually play the game, though.

Well, I've frequently put out open invitations to run some Fate Core for folks if they want.  I've been told I'm pretty good at it.

When I play (either as GM or as a player), I haven't really seen the huge emphasis on 'consensus' or the Fate Point economy that some people seem to get caught up on.  I'm not saying that they're wrong (their experiences are obviously their experiences), just that my experiences are pretty dramatically different.

By the way, as far as "consensus" and all that other crap goes, I'd just like to point out that Fate pretty explicitly enshrines GM authority, but does encourage the GM to actually, you know, listen to the other people at the table.

Quote from: Fate CoreYour job is really to have the “last word” on any rules-related subject, rather than to dictate from your chair. Keep that in mind.

While it's obviously encouraging discussion in cases where there's a dispute, it also pretty explicitly states that the GM *does* have the last word.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810215http://thedongion.blogspot.com/2015/01/indie-game-genius-wraps-head-around.html

LOL.  Ah, I'm so glad this is back.

Quote from: robiswrong;810430Well, I've frequently put out open invitations to run some Fate Core for folks if they want.  I've been told I'm pretty good at it.

I'm sure you are. I'm sure the game will make more sense to me if I play in it properly.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;810215http://thedongion.blogspot.com/2015/01/indie-game-genius-wraps-head-around.html

That is indeed awesome. But I laughed even more at the threads the article linked to. I don't work in academia, so in my day-to-day life I'm not exposed to that remarkable combination of arrogance, obtuseness, and lack of awareness of normal human preferences. Storygame theorists are comedy gold.

Donjion being back is awesome.

That middle article made me actually feel sorry for Stephen Lea Sheppard.  I mean, Christ, I don't know why the hell he thought he could best make a world a better place and solve the ills of the human condition by writing roleplaying games, but Yes, he should definitely completely disengage from the roleplaying community and go be a real activist.  Work in a soup kitchen, work at a non-profit, volunteer as a big brother, help build someone one of those mini-houses.  Flush GamerGate, and AwfulPurple, and Google+ right down the shitter and then walk outside and go and make the world a better place through non-virtual actions in the non-virtual world.  Seriously, he'll be way happier.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811326Donjion being back is awesome.

That middle article made me actually feel sorry for Stephen Lea Sheppard.  I mean, Christ, I don't know why the hell he thought he could best make a world a better place and solve the ills of the human condition by writing roleplaying games, but Yes, he should definitely completely disengage from the roleplaying community and go be a real activist.  Work in a soup kitchen, work at a non-profit, volunteer as a big brother, help build someone one of those mini-houses.  Flush GamerGate, and AwfulPurple, and Google+ right down the shitter and then walk outside and go and make the world a better place through non-virtual actions in the non-virtual world.  Seriously, he'll be way happier.

That's ... amazing, but not in a good way.  Fuck, sometimes a game about pretending to bash an orc on the head is just a game about pretending to bash an orc on the head.

Maybe wargamers really are different; we used to throw dice before games to see who'd play the Germans and who'd play the US, and never thought the fact that we were playing the Germans meant anything other than that we were playing a game.

I don't have super strong opinions about story games (besides that I would rather sit down and write a story than play a story game) but the phrase "sad pirate choices" has been making me laugh for the past two days.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811326Donjion being back is awesome.

That middle article made me actually feel sorry for Stephen Lea Sheppard.  I mean, Christ, I don't know why the hell he thought he could best make a world a better place and solve the ills of the human condition by writing roleplaying games, but Yes, he should definitely completely disengage from the roleplaying community and go be a real activist.  Work in a soup kitchen, work at a non-profit, volunteer as a big brother, help build someone one of those mini-houses.  Flush GamerGate, and AwfulPurple, and Google+ right down the shitter and then walk outside and go and make the world a better place through non-virtual actions in the non-virtual world.  Seriously, he'll be way happier.

Funny, he used to be one of the saner mods. He drank the kool-aid hard, and the sadest part about it is that unlike many of the mods there, I think he's actually completely in earnest trying to be a decent fellow. Just....well, a little dumb.

So, I forget, what makes a game "coherent/incoherent" according to Forge theory?

'This is a game of exploring OR a game of trying to maximize your levels, but if you do both you are brain damaged and stupid.'

Quote from: TristramEvans;811600So, I forget, what makes a game "coherent/incoherent" according to Forge theory?

A game is coherent if all the waves are in phase.

Oh, sorry, that's light.

Quote from: TristramEvans;811600So, I forget, what makes a game "coherent/incoherent" according to Forge theory?

Coherent means the game is doing one thing. Incoherent means that the game is doing many things.

Edwards later realized that this was actually hugely problematic and swapped to a spectrum between "focused" and "incoherent". This didn't actually change anything substantive about the theory, it just varied the different ways in which you were doing it wrong by trying to do more than one thing at a time.

For example, he introduced the category of "semi-adaptable" to acknowledge that a game could theoretically be trying to appeal to different types of people, but couldn't resist adding, "Whether this category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable incoherence, is debatable."

If you really want to know what an unbelievably smug arrogant putz Ron Edward is, here he is to tell you that gaming wrong is abuse and leads to brain damage:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0


What a colossal festering asshole.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;811888Coherent means the game is doing one thing. Incoherent means that the game is doing many things.

Edwards later realized that this was actually hugely problematic and swapped to a spectrum between "focused" and "incoherent". This didn't actually change anything substantive about the theory, it just varied the different ways in which you were doing it wrong by trying to do more than one thing at a time.

For example, he introduced the category of "semi-adaptable" to acknowledge that a game could theoretically be trying to appeal to different types of people, but couldn't resist adding, "Whether this category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable incoherence, is debatable."

So that's why so many of those games seem to be laser-focused. To use the Dongion's example, milking a sheep is deeply engaging work, not to be multitasked or glossed away. Still don't see why it needs a whole table of people invested in sharing mechanics for the imagination to resolve that meaningfully, if that is at all possible.

It sounds like exploring the everyday, one task at a time, by committee. Through imagination.

Quote from: Will;811896If you really want to know what an unbelievably smug arrogant putz Ron Edward is, here he is to tell you that gaming wrong is abuse and leads to brain damage:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0


What a colossal festering asshole.

We have to stop agreeing like this.  In Edward's defense, he likes Howard, so he can't be all bad.

Quote from: Opaopajr;811925So that's why so many of those games seem to be laser-focused.

Yup. They started with "system matters", meaning that mechanics have an impact on how the game is played (which is pretty obviously true), and then concluded that the system should therefore only do one thing.

Which is like realizing that hammers, screwdrivers, and cement mixers are all useful for different things and concluding that, therefore, your toolbox should only ever have one tool in it at a time.

It's so far past right than it's not even wrong any more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811930We have to stop agreeing like this.  In Edward's defense, he likes Howard, so he can't be all bad.

I'm not afraid of Howard. As long as you don't tell him your name, he can't steal your identity.

(http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-blog/anti-howard-hed-2014.jpeg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQLdhVpLBVE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQLdhVpLBVE)

HA!!!

Um.

I'm just glad I caught a reference.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;811950Yup. They started with "system matters", meaning that mechanics have an impact on how the game is played (which is pretty obviously true), and then concluded that the system should therefore only do one thing.

Which is like realizing that hammers, screwdrivers, and cement mixers are all useful for different things and concluding that, therefore, your toolbox should only ever have one tool in it at a time.

Well,no, it's more the opposite. It's saying that hammers and screwdrivers are useful for different things, therefore have both of them in your toolbox rather than carrying round a less effective multitool.

Quote from: soviet;812033Well,no, it's more the opposite. It's saying that hammers and screwdrivers are useful for different things, therefore have both of them in your toolbox rather than carrying round a less effective multitool.

Really? Within the same game?

Isn't the so-called "story game" approach to have one game that is all about hammers and then a completely separate game that is all about screwdrivers?

They're not technically "in the same toolbox" because they are separate games.

If so, then it's still exactly what Justin is talking about.

Quote from: Enlightened;812034Really? Within the same game?

Isn't the so-called "story game" approach to have one game that is all about hammers and then a completely separate game that is all about screwdrivers?

They're not technically "in the same toolbox" because they are separate games.

If so, then it's still exactly what Justin is talking about.

Actually, yes, you're right, I missed the 'at a time' bit.

I think of it more in terms of ice cream flavours, or movie genres.

Sometimes mixing different things can work out well. Neapolitan ice cream, Evil Dead II's combination of horror and comedy, etc. But for the most part, focusing more clearly on one thing allows you to enjoy that one thing more. You don't throw in a few crisps, some salad, a burger, and some chocolate into your favourite soup. A film that goes from horror to comedy to arthouse philosophising to political allegory to dance number is probably not going to be a great movie. A bit of focus is a good thing.

Quote from: soviet;812036I think of it more in terms of ice cream flavours, or movie genres.

Sometimes mixing different things can work out well. Neapolitan ice cream, Evil Dead II's combination of horror and comedy, etc. But for the most part, focusing more clearly on one thing allows you to enjoy that one thing more. You don't throw in a few crisps, some salad, a burger, and some chocolate into your favourite soup. A film that goes from horror to comedy to arthouse philosophising to political allegory to dance number is probably not going to be a great movie. A bit of focus is a good thing.

Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced. And, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Quote from: TristramEvans;812037Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced. And, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Sure, a more focused game has a lower potential audience than a less focused one. I agree with that. I think it's no coincidence that so many self-published games go down this kind of route - if your goal is to realise your personal vision of a game rather than to keep a publishing business going, you can afford to take risks and narrow things down.

The majority of RPGs that are presented as story games come across as what would be adventures or campaign supplements in a traditional RPG. Once you are done exploring the subjedt matter of the game you are done with the game. Coupled with the fact you have to interested in the specifics in the first place means that story games will never be more than a specialized interest in the the larger hobby.

Traditional RPGS have a more versitle approach capable of depicting and handling a wide variety of circumstances. In fact this is inherent to any game about players interacting with a setting as their characters where thier actions are adjudicated by a human referee. The only to limit this potential is to "brain damage" the game into something with more limited potential.

Quote from: TristramEvans;812037Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced.

That's a feature, not a bug, though. Those people should be finding a game that suits them better, rather than forcing themselves into a game they don't really like (Which would result in everybody having a worse time).

QuoteAnd, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Individual focused games are never going to top the charts themselves, and that's fine; again, feature, not bug. They're not designed for mass appeal at an individual game level.

Quote from: Ladybird;812044That's a feature, not a bug, though. Those people should be finding a game that suits them better, rather than forcing themselves into a game they don't really like (Which would result in everybody having a worse time).Individual focused games are never going to top the charts themselves, and that's fine; again, feature, not bug. They're not designed for mass appeal at an individual game level.

1) if Edwards had described these things in terms of "feature not a bug" rather than "games not designed this way inflict brain damage" I don't think he would still be held up a decade later as the poster child for "Pretentious Arse de Jeur" of the online rpg world"

2) I think its quite clear that the Forge intended this to be the standard for rpgs, so they were indeed intended for mass appeal.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;811950Yup. They started with "system matters", meaning that mechanics have an impact on how the game is played (which is pretty obviously true), and then concluded that the system should therefore only do one thing.

Which is like realizing that hammers, screwdrivers, and cement mixers are all useful for different things and concluding that, therefore, your toolbox should only ever have one tool in it at a time.

It's so far past right than it's not even wrong any more.

So it doesn't have as much to do with a unified mechanic as it much as a game specifically about one thing? Sounds like these guys could just use Parcheesi and ascribe different elements to the pieces each time they play. Like one game they're cavemen searching for berries, the next sailors trying to navigate the Bering Strait.

Seriously, wtf...

I think honestly that some of the premises of "forge theory" isn't wrong, its that they took the wrong lessons from it.

Like "System Matters". Well, yeah, it does. The way the system plays will influence the game. I mean, that is part of the reason we've all got house rules for our home games right? To make the game run more how we intend. That is why some of us like D&D, some of us like Runequest, etc.

But then they somehow got into their heads that "System Matters" means that all games should be laser focused. And that just... doesn't make any sense at all. Its such a weird jump in logic.

Now, there can be a place for laser focused games (I still think the Leverage RPG creates some of the best heist games), BUT for the most part, an "unfocused" game house ruled to match the table will be able to get to the table more.

Sometimes I like waffles for lunch. or dinner. Sometimes I like them with syrup, or just butter, or maybe chickens and gravy.

The Forge stuff sounds like people going "NO! BREAKFAST ONLY, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED! You are being traumatized by trying to shoe-horn a breakfast item into dinner!"

But yeah, what the fine Emperor of These United States said.

Quote from: Will;812062Sometimes I like waffles for lunch. or dinner. Sometimes I like them with syrup, or just butter, or maybe chickens and gravy.

The Forge stuff sounds like people going "NO! BREAKFAST ONLY, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED! You are being traumatized by trying to shoe-horn a breakfast item into dinner!"

But yeah, what the fine Emperor of These United States said.

Breakfast foods are the "incoherent games" of the food world. its good for every meal.

(http://i.imgur.com/wHAbXXG.png)

So would Forge gamers say HERO and GURPS and BRP are crap?

Quote from: soviet;812033Well,no, it's more the opposite. It's saying that hammers and screwdrivers are useful for different things, therefore have both of them in your toolbox rather than carrying round a less effective multitool.

The multi-tool came around because people were doing many different things at roughly the same time and didn't want to take a toolbox with them, so they put the most common tools that work for the most common tools into a smaller package. I have a multi-tool and I use it for 99% of tool related functions. In addition to my multi-tool, I can add some specialized tools that do some other functions common for me to cover without needing to bring the entire toolbox every time I might need to work on something.

A game like DnD is a toolbox with a few extra specialized tools added as individuals see fit (houserules). Many playstyles are covered in the core with add-ons (supplements) over the course of the game's life cycle.

The problem with super focused theme games is that the idea that the game must support anything the players want to do in the game without the need for houserules, so they exclude a lot of things that "don't fit  the game theme" which is great if everyone wants to do that exact thing at the time. It also means that they build a toolbox of games for different tastes, but everyone has to play with screwdrivers at the same time or hammers at the same time, but you can't have one person playing with a screwdriver and the other with a hammer at the same time.

I think we have gotten lost in the analogy.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;812050I think honestly that some of the premises of "forge theory" isn't wrong, its that they took the wrong lessons from it.

Like "System Matters". Well, yeah, it does. The way the system plays will influence the game. I mean, that is part of the reason we've all got house rules for our home games right? To make the game run more how we intend. That is why some of us like D&D, some of us like Runequest, etc.

But then they somehow got into their heads that "System Matters" means that all games should be laser focused. And that just... doesn't make any sense at all. Its such a weird jump in logic.

Now, there can be a place for laser focused games (I still think the Leverage RPG creates some of the best heist games), BUT for the most part, an "unfocused" game house ruled to match the table will be able to get to the table more.

Well, I think that there's some level of value in the basic concept, but I think the Forge went in the wrong way with it.

I mean, I don't think it's bizarre to say that "the things that the game supports should be supported by the game mechanics".  If you intend for your game to be highly heroic, with characters fighting through hordes of lesser enemies (for instance), then having a mechanic that allows any single shot to turn into an instant death, no matter who the combatants are, is probably at odds with the goals for the system.

It also seems reasonable that the more things your system tries to do, the more likely it is that you'll have some level of that conflict.

But that's a far cry from saying "ANY attempt to try to do more than one thing is inherently wrong and a flaw of the game".  It says that making a game that does multiple things well is *harder*, and the more things you try to do, the more likely it is that people playing it will have to houserule or fudge.

And that's the thing.  A game that does more than one thing will allow people that have multiple desires for their gaming, or overlapping desires to sit at the table together.  If I like A, and you like B, then we can probably sit at the table and play a game that does both A and B, so long as we're reasonable adults and willing to compromise to some extent.  But a game that only does B won't interest me if I really like A.

And someone that likes A, B, and C is probably better served by a game that does *all* of those things, and allows him to maintain character continuity as he switches between them, rather than have them isolated into totally different games.

But I can see where a game that tries to do TOO MANY things, or too many things that require things that conflict, can get to the point where it's not doing anything very well at all.

It's also worth drilling in to system ideas to see what cool ideas you can uncover, and then go integrate it into a more broad system.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;812050I think honestly that some of the premises of "forge theory" isn't wrong, its that they took the wrong lessons from it.

Like "System Matters". Well, yeah, it does. The way the system plays will influence the game. I mean, that is part of the reason we've all got house rules for our home games right? To make the game run more how we intend. That is why some of us like D&D, some of us like Runequest, etc.

I always took "System Matters" to be akin to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; that playing D&D would necessarily lead to D&D-ish play, just as language is claimed to influence thought. But people coin new words for new ideas, and making up new house rules would rebut the importance of "System Matters".

QuoteBut then they somehow got into their heads that "System Matters" means that all games should be laser focused. And that just... doesn't make any sense at all. Its such a weird jump in logic.

Now, there can be a place for laser focused games (I still think the Leverage RPG creates some of the best heist games), BUT for the most part, an "unfocused" game house ruled to match the table will be able to get to the table more.

Yes, my interpretation makes this even more senseless: having a separate language specialized for each idea.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;812077I think we have gotten lost in the analogy.

I've been confused from the start: I'm not sure if the toolbox is my game shelf, my campaign, my group of players, a game theme, or the RPG hobby. And then I put ice cream flavors in my toolbox and they all melted. So I propose a meta-metaphor in which each game is a metaphor and we don't want to mix them. Except D&D is somewhere you could find fascist octopi singing swan songs, so I don't think the meta-metaphor supports any particular conclusion or its own weight. But we could add it to the toolbox, whatever that is, just in case.

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/387/3680478087_b74b245335.jpg)

I think coherent and laser-focused are not the same thing. Coherence is about playstyle rather than necessarily genre or a specific sequence of events. You can have generic/universal games that are perfectly coherent quite easily - I believe I wrote one. The issue is, do the mechanics push towards a certain style of play? Do any of the other mechanics in the game work against it?

Quote from: rawma;812115I've been confused from the start: I'm not sure if the toolbox is my game shelf, my campaign, my group of players, a game theme, or the RPG hobby. And then I put ice cream flavors in my toolbox and they all melted. So I propose a meta-metaphor in which each game is a metaphor and we don't want to mix them. Except D&D is somewhere you could find fascist octopi singing swan songs, so I don't think the meta-metaphor supports any particular conclusion or its own weight. But we could add it to the toolbox, whatever that is, just in case.

That was fun.
Now, i'll explain:
The toolbox is the game system, the tools are the roolz.

I would say that, for example, 3e strongly promoted a certain playstyle, and was decoherent/incoherent/abcoherent/woodeding for stuff like careful gameplay, avoiding combat, extensive social plots, and so on.

For me, that's a good entry point to start considering modifications that can be made to fit playstyles I want, or different playstyles that might work better, or... whatever.

I think my biggest problem with Forgey stuff is that the playstyles and cladistics of RPGs that they use seem utterly foreign to most of the gaming I've engaged in.

For example, I'm interested in identifying how much players are interested in character background, socializing IC or OOC, how much combat people want vs. how much gets fatiguing, the scope of adventure, how much players are interested in 'touring' a ficitonal place, and so on.

The whole 'exploring character themes through RPGs' is something that seems to be an interest a SMALL fraction of gamers are interested in. Which is fine, but trying to jam those experiences and declare Narrativism (or whatever) as 1/3 of gamers is just dumb.

So is making up terms that suggest one thing but in your jargon means something utterly different that you can never quite explain to anyone's satisfaction.

Quote from: Catelf;812129That was fun.

Add it to the toolbox or the ice cream truck or the breakfast menu (available all day)! :D

Quote from: Will;812131The whole 'exploring character themes through RPGs' is something that seems to be an interest a SMALL fraction of gamers are interested in. Which is fine, but trying to jam those experiences and declare Narrativism (or whatever) as 1/3 of gamers is just dumb.

Whoever said that 1/3 of gamers prefer narrativist games?

Quote from: rawma;812132Add it to the toolbox or the ice cream truck or the breakfast menu (available all day)! :D

All I know is that trying to turn a screw using ice cream is doomed to failure :-)

Quote from: soviet;812134Whoever said that 1/3 of gamers prefer narrativist games?

True, but if hardly anyone has ever played that way, why are you bothering everyone and coming up with special terms for it?

I mean, I'm sure some people play RPGs in the nude, but I'm not going to put that as a significant part of 'explaining all RPGs' theory.

Edit:
Amusingly, I'm basing this on the spirit of 'system matters' -- if your 'system' is including something as one of three parts of your overarching theory, clearly you think it's an important part of gaming as a whole, eh?

Quote from: Will;812136True, but if hardly anyone has ever played that way, why are you bothering everyone and coming up with special terms for it?

I mean, I'm sure some people play RPGs in the nude, but I'm not going to put that as a significant part of 'explaining all RPGs' theory.

Well the point is that it's a viable playstyle that can be fun. I don't know what other reason anyone would need.

This is true for narrativism as well. :-)

Note that narrativism being a playstyle doesn't mean that narrativists are a player type. Or simulationists, or gamists, etc. People will have preferences, sure, but I think most people can enjoy most types of game. For example my group, including myself, are primarily D&D players and have been for generally somewhere between 2 and 3 decades. But we still enjoy a bit of narrativism (Other Worlds) now and then. There are things OW can do that D&D can't, and there are things that D&D can do that OW can't. It just depends on what kind of game we feel like playing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;812077I think we have gotten lost in the analogy.

People are talking about playing with their tool.

Quote from: soviet;812036You don't throw in a few crisps, some salad, a burger, and some chocolate into your favourite soup.

That's a really weird analogy: Crisps by themselves aren't a meal. Burgers are often served with crisps on the side. A salad consisting of only lettuce and nothing else is a pretty shitty salad. And soups consisting of only one ingredient are also pretty bland.

And chocolate? Christ, we dip everything and its cousin into chocolate.

Quote from: soviet;812134Whoever said that 1/3 of gamers prefer narrativist games?

There is an implication, given that it is one of three named styes, each given 'equal billing'.

Quote from: dbm;812211There is an implication, given that it is one of three named styes, each given 'equal billing'.

The problem with defining them as styles, is that they are Aspects, not Styles.
Even the most Narrativistic rpg ever still includes the other two aspects(Gaming and Simulation) or it seize to be a Roleplaying Game.
Instead you get a game like Once Upon a Time or a Choose your own Adventure, but without battles.
(EDIT: ) If you make a purely Narritavistic game, I mean.

Quote from: dbm;812211There is an implication, given that it is one of three named styes, each given 'equal billing'.

If you were to base it on the relative attention that the Forge gave to each one, in terms of games produced, you'd think they imagined that 9/10ths of all gamers would be narrativists once they were properly "educated" about how little fun they were having being all incoherent and brain damaged.

Of course the truth is that 0% of regular gamers are "narrativists".  Or "gamists", or "simulationists".  The entire theory is fucked up, because what most gamers really like is precisely what they define as either incoherent (a large and varied combination of elements in the game) or impossible/wrong (Immersion and Emulation).

Quote from: RPGPundit;812791If you were to base it on the relative attention that the Forge gave to each one, in terms of games produced, you'd think they imagined that 9/10ths of all gamers would be narrativists once they were properly "educated" about how little fun they were having being all incoherent and brain damaged.

Of course the truth is that 0% of regular gamers are "narrativists".  Or "gamists", or "simulationists".  The entire theory is fucked up, because what most gamers really like is precisely what they define as either incoherent (a large and varied combination of elements in the game) or impossible/wrong (Immersion and Emulation).

Even though the Forge was more homogenic than this site, I do need to point out that there were several there who didn't agree with the "Braindamage essay", nor did all there focus solely on "Narrativist" games.

"Narrativist Gamer", from my understanding, used to only mean a gamer that preferred that aspect of the game, not someone that ONLY wanted that aspect in games.

But I agree that the theory became severely fucked up, by the interpretation that the GNS should become either G, N or S, rather than a mix of all.

Quote from: soviet;812039Sure, a more focused game has a lower potential audience than a less focused one. I agree with that. I think it's no coincidence that so many self-published games go down this kind of route - if your goal is to realise your personal vision of a game rather than to publish a game more than 20 strangers will ever actually play at a table, you can afford to take risks and narrow things down.

FYP

Forgites created games for other Forgites to download in PDF and gush about to each other. Liberated from any chance of commercial viability or actual play by non-theorists, they could indulge their every exotic whim and abstract theory.

Quote from: soviet;812138Note that narrativism being a playstyle doesn't mean that narrativists are a player type. Or simulationists, or gamists, etc. People will have preferences, sure, but I think most people can enjoy most types of game.

GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;812848GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?

//Panjumanju

It only received an F for Fact once it became clear that too many had drawn faulty conclusions from it, and decided to think an rpg could and should consist of ONLY Game, or ONLY Narration, or ONLY Simulation.
Before that, it just seemed really good.

I do not mind if you ditch the idea entirely though, as it is clearly limited.
(Just like the yin/yang model is flawed when describing reality.)

Quote from: Panjumanju;812848GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?

I would say that it has become less popular, but it is still referred to in some circles.

Also, I would not call it the beginning of critical theory - especially since it is explicitly an altered version of the "Threefold Model" developed in the 90s on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Key differences include that Ron Edwards' GNS heavily redefined Simulationism to include older drama-based gaming such as most World of Darkness games.

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/