|
Post by shadrack on Sept 15, 2015 6:50:53 GMT -8
TLDR: spurred on by a different post. Seems to be some (sometimes ongoing) discussion about FATE and compels on Aspects. Here are some of my $0.02. The short version is: If you made it an aspect, and then it gets compelled, it's how your character would act regardless of if it is a) beneficial or b) what they would 'want' to do. Still in character.
First, I want to say that I am firmly in the camp that FATE is a RPG. (pshew, now that's over).
I can sympathize with those people who state that the FATE point economy is metagame-y. And perhaps it is, but I also think that it can help give you (through your character, primarily) more involvement in the game.
The most common example for the metagamey set lie in compels. Usually the argument is phrased along the lines of the GM 'making' your character do something they wouldn't want to do. Typically, I think that those types either don't quite grasp the concept, or are writing their aspects wrong. Let's say you have a super hero who was basically Captain America, but in Vietnam. He ended up resentful of the establishment and hooked on heroin/opium/... whatever. Perhaps his trouble aspect is something along the lines of "Chasing the dragon". Now, he's had a rough day, rounded up some crooks, what have you. Then the GM says, "you know, it would feel really good to get high. (I am compelling your Chasing the Dragon aspect)". The player then interacts with the world by choosing if the character gets high or not. The player either spends a FATE point (I am acting against my character's nature, so I spend the point. This taxes my internal resources) or receives a FATE point (I am acting with my character's nature, the bad side of it, this fulfills part of my nature).
Did the character want to do the drugs? Probably not, he probably says he's going to stay clean every morning. Did he act out of character by doing the drugs, No. So, while having an aspect be compelled may result in your character doing something that is not in their best interest, they should always be something that is in 'character'.
Or the stand-by, Harry Dresden. I think that he has an aspect along the lines of 'Not so subtle, still quick to anger'. Harry is in a fight in the alley with a ghoul, and the GM says, "you seem mad at this ghoul and you're using fire magic, what if you caught the dumpsters back here on FIRE! (offering a compel on that aspect)." Now, no matter which way the player picks, I would argue that neither is out of character. Is it in character for Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden to get mad a throw fire at a ghoul? YES! is it likely that there will be collateral damage? YES! Can Harry sometimes keep focused and quiet? Well, for awhile anyway. So would it be in character for him to be more focused (probably spending more effort along the way) and try not to cause a scene? Yes.
In character, either way. While the FATE point discussion may be Meta, it is just another tool to interact with the game world. And you can choose to un-meta your response by narrating your character's actions.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Sept 15, 2015 11:49:34 GMT -8
Totally agree. My players roleplay just as much in Fate as any system, the fate points get passed around silently now, no-one needs to explain why they are changing hands.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 16, 2015 9:28:13 GMT -8
Totally agree, not making the character do something they don't want to do, rather making the character do something they DO want to do but isn't good for them. Rather like I WANT to eat that triple cheese burger and chili fries, but it isn't good for me.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Sept 16, 2015 9:39:04 GMT -8
I even think it can be things to don't want to do, but would do. Some sadly IRL examples, PTSD, anxiety attacks, etc.
They don't want to flip out, or curl up in the corner, but it happens.
Let's say it's a supers game, and one of the characters has a PTSD-related aspect. For the sake of argument, "On edge at all times". That is sometimes used to speed her reactions in tense situations. They're at this nice supper, and I offer a compel on that aspect. The character would never want to trigger that. Not here. But what about the player? 1) turns it down. The character maintains a tight rein on themselves and keeps from acting out. But, their mental reserves are taxed by this effort. They will likely be less able to overcome future difficulties (bye bye FATE chip). 2) accept. A waiter and another patron crash into each other, the character springs up and an energy corona forms around her hands, indicating she could blast that offending waiter into oblivion. But she chills out, and sits back down. Scene aspect, "tense atmosphere", and of course, now everyone knows there's a super powered blaster sitting at that table... why are so many people asking for their check?
I find both of these to be in-character. I can make valid role play arguments for both sides. Maybe I do have an agenda for her to make a scene. Maybe the paparazzi is around. But I (as the GM) will happily roll with whatever option is chosen.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 16, 2015 11:59:02 GMT -8
I even think it can be things to don't want to do, but would do. Some sadly IRL examples, PTSD, anxiety attacks, etc. They don't want to flip out, or curl up in the corner, but it happens. Let's say it's a supers game, and one of the characters has a PTSD-related aspect. For the sake of argument, "On edge at all times". That is sometimes used to speed her reactions in tense situations. They're at this nice supper, and I offer a compel on that aspect. The character would never want to trigger that. Not here. But what about the player? 1) turns it down. The character maintains a tight rein on themselves and keeps from acting out. But, their mental reserves are taxed by this effort. They will likely be less able to overcome future difficulties (bye bye FATE chip). 2) accept. A waiter and another patron crash into each other, the character springs up and an energy corona forms around her hands, indicating she could blast that offending waiter into oblivion. But she chills out, and sits back down. Scene aspect, "tense atmosphere", and of course, now everyone knows there's a super powered blaster sitting at that table... why are so many people asking for their check? I find both of these to be in-character. I can make valid role play arguments for both sides. Maybe I do have an agenda for her to make a scene. Maybe the paparazzi is around. But I (as the GM) will happily roll with whatever option is chosen. Again, my agreement is total. JiB
|
|
willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Sept 16, 2015 12:37:01 GMT -8
Yeah a compel is a reward for acting in character even when it's against your interests.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 16, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -8
Yeah a compel is a reword for acting in character even when it's against your interests. I want to +1 this soooooo many times. JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 12:51:29 GMT -8
I can't figure out how to thumbs up you all on tapatalk, but you all are awesome.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Sept 17, 2015 14:05:54 GMT -8
I can't figure out how to thumbs up you all on tapatalk, but you all are awesome. You hold your finger on the message, and then let go... it highlights it and gives you some options. I discovered this after only a few months of using the app!
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 1, 2015 17:19:56 GMT -8
Chiming in here to say I agree with everyone here. Also, if players really don't want something to be part of their character's uh... character, maybe don't make it an Aspect, yeah?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 19:35:06 GMT -8
The most common example for the metagamey set lie in compels. Usually the argument is phrased along the lines of the GM 'making' your character do something they wouldn't want to do. Typically, I think that those types either don't quite grasp the concept, or are writing their aspects wrong. Let's say you have a super hero who was basically Captain America, but in Vietnam. He ended up resentful of the establishment and hooked on heroin/opium/... whatever. Perhaps his trouble aspect is something along the lines of "Chasing the dragon". Now, he's had a rough day, rounded up some crooks, what have you. Then the GM says, "you know, it would feel really good to get high. (I am compelling your Chasing the Dragon aspect)". The player then interacts with the world by choosing if the character gets high or not. The player either spends a FATE point (I am acting against my character's nature, so I spend the point. This taxes my internal resources) or receives a FATE point (I am acting with my character's nature, the bad side of it, this fulfills part of my nature). Did the character want to do the drugs? Probably not, he probably says he's going to stay clean every morning. Did he act out of character by doing the drugs, No. So, while having an aspect be compelled may result in your character doing something that is not in their best interest, they should always be something that is in 'character'. I feel like this might be directed at me, but it was posted over two weeks ago, and I don't recall if I was even active in these forums at that time. In any case, it's not acting out-of-character for the character to "do the drugs". It also wouldn't particularly be out-of-character if the player decided that the character was strong enough to overcome this urge. Given the way it's presented, though, we're probably meant to see that it's more in-character if he indulges in this specific case. In some games, they'd address this question with a rules mechanics. GURPS, for instance, would ask you to make a Willpower check against a difficulty that depends on the severity of the character's addiction. I'm sure d20 Gritty would ask you to make a Will save against a DC set by the drug in question. In either case, you don't have to worry about which decision to make, because the mechanics automate that aspect of RP on your behalf; you just accept what happens, either way, in the same way you accept if your character has been shot or stabbed. For older games or games that don't address the topic, or for pure role-playing non-games where you're just improvised acting against each other, it's up to the player to decide. Given the presentation, we're probably meant to think that the character should succumb this time. That being the case, a "good role-player" would probably say that the character gives in; and, a "bad role-player" would probably say that the character heroically overcomes addiction with nary a second thought. With FATE, as I understand it, the player is put in a similar position of deciding what the character should do. The key difference is that the rules instruct the player to make this decision on the bases of 1) What makes for a more interesting story? and 2) Would you rather gain a fate point, or spend one? As far as I can tell, something that never enters the equation is what the character actually would do in this situation. What would the character do, if you ignore the player instruction to complicate the story? What would the character do, if the player wasn't being bribed with a margin of two fate points? You're supposed to ignore the basic tenets of good role-playing - do what the character would do, and don't do what the character wouldn't do - and instead focus on good story-telling and mechanical advantage. I hope you can see why that doesn't exactly sit well with me, from a pro-role-playing standpoint. There's also subtext, particularly in regards to the fate points, that players wouldn't have any reason to play flawed characters who make bad decisions to complicate the situation, unless they got some mechanical advantage out of it. As much as this might seem obvious from a power-gaming standpoint, I think most of us can agree from personal experience that many players are perfectly willing to make flawed and interesting characters regardless of any mechanical benefit. Role-playing your flaws can be a lot of fun, just in itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 19:55:35 GMT -8
Oh, or maybe you're only supposed to compel an aspect in situations where it's too close to call, because either way would be equally in-character and the player doesn't have enough information to make the decision? That would relegate the mechanic to breaking a tie in the decision-making process, for situations that are already being well role-played.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 4, 2015 19:58:13 GMT -8
With FATE, as I understand it, the player is put in a similar position of deciding what the character should do. The key difference is that the rules instruct the player to make this decision on the bases of 1) What makes for a more interesting story? and 2) Would you rather gain a fate point, or spend one? As far as I can tell, something that never enters the equation is what the character actually would do in this situation. --snip-- There's also subtext, particularly in regards to the fate points, that players wouldn't have any reason to play flawed characters who make bad decisions to complicate the situation, unless they got some mechanical advantage out of it. As much as this might seem obvious from a power-gaming standpoint, I think most of us can agree from personal experience that many players are perfectly willing to make flawed and interesting characters regardless of any mechanical benefit. Role-playing your flaws can be a lot of fun, just in itself. Yeah, I don't have the book handy, but I doubt it instructs you to completely ignore what the character would do in the situation. I'm pretty sure it is one of the considerations, along with the other two you mention. Also, you seem to think that getting a Fate point for roleplaying a flaw completely negates the player's ability to have fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 20:24:25 GMT -8
Yeah, I don't have the book handy, but I doubt it instructs you to completely ignore what the character would do in the situation. I'm pretty sure it is one of the considerations, along with the other two you mention. Also, you seem to think that getting a Fate point for roleplaying a flaw completely negates the player's ability to have fun. If both ways are equally in-character, and the compel is just for the tie-breaker, then you should already be role-playing well enough at this point that addressing that further would not help the situation much. That works well enough that I'm not sure I have an issue with it anymore, really. But yeah, if you put my RP-inclinations in direct conflict with my game-playing-inclinations, then that's going to seriously hinder whatever fun I might be having. I mean sure, I want to play my character as I see him, but I also don't want the entire party to die and have the BBEG take over the world when I could have done something to stop it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 5:15:33 GMT -8
The most common example for the metagamey set lie in compels. Usually the argument is phrased along the lines of the GM 'making' your character do something they wouldn't want to do. Typically, I think that those types either don't quite grasp the concept, or are writing their aspects wrong. Let's say you have a super hero who was basically Captain America, but in Vietnam. He ended up resentful of the establishment and hooked on heroin/opium/... whatever. Perhaps his trouble aspect is something along the lines of "Chasing the dragon". Now, he's had a rough day, rounded up some crooks, what have you. Then the GM says, "you know, it would feel really good to get high. (I am compelling your Chasing the Dragon aspect)". The player then interacts with the world by choosing if the character gets high or not. The player either spends a FATE point (I am acting against my character's nature, so I spend the point. This taxes my internal resources) or receives a FATE point (I am acting with my character's nature, the bad side of it, this fulfills part of my nature). Did the character want to do the drugs? Probably not, he probably says he's going to stay clean every morning. Did he act out of character by doing the drugs, No. So, while having an aspect be compelled may result in your character doing something that is not in their best interest, they should always be something that is in 'character'. I feel like this might be directed at me, but it was posted over two weeks ago, and I don't recall if I was even active in these forums at that time. In any case, it's not acting out-of-character for the character to "do the drugs". It also wouldn't particularly be out-of-character if the player decided that the character was strong enough to overcome this urge. Given the way it's presented, though, we're probably meant to see that it's more in-character if he indulges in this specific case. In some games, they'd address this question with a rules mechanics. GURPS, for instance, would ask you to make a Willpower check against a difficulty that depends on the severity of the character's addiction. I'm sure d20 Gritty would ask you to make a Will save against a DC set by the drug in question. In either case, you don't have to worry about which decision to make, because the mechanics automate that aspect of RP on your behalf; you just accept what happens, either way, in the same way you accept if your character has been shot or stabbed. For older games or games that don't address the topic, or for pure role-playing non-games where you're just improvised acting against each other, it's up to the player to decide. Given the presentation, we're probably meant to think that the character should succumb this time. That being the case, a "good role-player" would probably say that the character gives in; and, a "bad role-player" would probably say that the character heroically overcomes addiction with nary a second thought. With FATE, as I understand it, the player is put in a similar position of deciding what the character should do. The key difference is that the rules instruct the player to make this decision on the bases of 1) What makes for a more interesting story? and 2) Would you rather gain a fate point, or spend one? As far as I can tell, something that never enters the equation is what the character actually would do in this situation. What would the character do, if you ignore the player instruction to complicate the story? What would the character do, if the player wasn't being bribed with a margin of two fate points? You're supposed to ignore the basic tenets of good role-playing - do what the character would do, and don't do what the character wouldn't do - and instead focus on good story-telling and mechanical advantage. I hope you can see why that doesn't exactly sit well with me, from a pro-role-playing standpoint. There's also subtext, particularly in regards to the fate points, that players wouldn't have any reason to play flawed characters who make bad decisions to complicate the situation, unless they got some mechanical advantage out of it. As much as this might seem obvious from a power-gaming standpoint, I think most of us can agree from personal experience that many players are perfectly willing to make flawed and interesting characters regardless of any mechanical benefit. Role-playing your flaws can be a lot of fun, just in itself. I think you're missing the point here. Firstly if it's a character compel then it should be entirely in line with what the character might do. The thing is, however, a lot of people often do things on the spur of the moment that if you asked them at any other point they wouldn't do. When you're sat at a table playing a game it's easy to miss those moments, especially in combat scenes where the time dilation means you have minutes to think about a few seconds of action. Secondly most character compels are essentially willpower tests, just with a point/barter system rather than a dice roll. You also seem to be forgetting that the willpower can win out, by the player paying a fate point from their pool. Again though we're often talking spur of the moment reactionary willpower, not necessarily long term willpower. Real world example: I used to play rugby when I was at school. Most of the time I like to think of myself as a relatively mild, calm individual. Now most of the time I'd have my head in the game and be playing to the best of my ability. Occasionally though, in games where we were losing badly or I was just in a bad mood I'd not bother to chase down opponents properly or would get overly aggressive with tackles. From an RPG perspective those would be good examples of compels, of the GM essentially overcoming what I would normally do by a momentary lapse of willpower to let my frustrations slip out and into play. Still in character but not something I'd normally choose if I was sat actively thinking about it.
|
|