Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 10:07:12 GMT -8
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. I'm fine with willpower tests, and I'm fine with spending willpower as a resource, even as a temporary resource. I think I'd be more accepting of fate points if they were presented this way, but they're not really. There are two things that I don't like about fate points: 1) They are a meaningful mechanic that influences success and failure and life and death, but the characters aren't aware of them and can't take them into consideration when making decisions; and, 2) They encourage incompetence and failure as a means of improving the likelihood of later success. It's supposed to be bad to be addicted to drugs, or to drink too much of the alcohol, or to eat babies. And sure, those actions have consequences, even in FATE where you only get a fate point when they actually have meaningful consequences. But you can usually deal with consequences now, and (as the book says) you might really need that fate point later on. The ideal soldier should be dedicated and brave and strong and obedient and not addicted to drugs (or any other horrible vice), but in a world modeled with this ruleset, the drug-addict is more likely to succeed in a pinch with a lucky shot that saves the day. If the rules of the game are an accurate reflection of how the world actually works, then the flawed character really is better than the ideal one, because it has better access to fate points. But the characters can't know that the world works this way, because it's not like fate points can be quantified in at all, and now we have a universe which defies the scientific method... and that's just... literally inconceivable. And that's fine. The game isn't for me. It doesn't meet my basic requirements for what I look for in an RPG. Other people have different requirements, and they can play this game.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 5, 2015 11:47:16 GMT -8
The ideal soldier probably wouldn't have "Drug Addict" as his trouble, unless his High Concept was something like "Juicer Super-Soldier" in which case dealing with that addiction is perfectly in keeping with his character. Someone like Captain America, arguably the ideal soldier, might have "Man out of Time" as his Trouble, representing morals and beliefs and a background straight out of the 40s.
As far as the character being "aware" of his Fate points - that depends. Captain America probably does know that he can push himself to lift the tread of that tank - i.e., spend a Fate point for a +2 off "Super Soldier", and after he's been pushing his limits all day he probably feels a little weary - out of Fate points.
One things that I'm seeing happen in these 'hypothetical' Fate discussions is the tendency to narrow one's gaze and focus only on the Trouble aspect a character has. If I Compel a priest's "Man of the People" aspect to remind him that the warehouse is full of homeless people who need help, it's a character moment. Does he hold up the group - or split from the group - and help the people in need? Or rush off in pursuit of the Big Bad they just chased away? If he stays - and earns a Fate point for accepting the compel - he feels better about himself. If he buys it off and leaves, he feels rotten about himself.
It might be fruitful to generate a character or two and pick it apart, in terms of how to use the Aspects that character has, to demonstrate the system. Might be a good thread to start. (hint, hint)
As far as defying the scientific method, the Fate game I played in had magic, demons, and vampires, so... yeah.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 5, 2015 12:09:04 GMT -8
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. I do not agree with your assertion. It would be in-character either way, neither is 'more in-character'.f 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. Vampire has willpower, ghostbusters has brownie points... All of these systems do address the question with a rules mechanic. including FATE => negotiate the compel, and choose to accept it or reject it. 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. It is always up to the player, even in a FATE game. 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. This is your perception. If I offer a compel, I would not classify the player as good or bad based on their acceptance or rejection of said compel. I might ask for their character's interpretation of the situation, but that's for me to gain increased understanding of the character. 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? These are pretty much the last on the list of what the player should concern themselves with, but yes they will be considered in the decision. 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? Again, I disagree wholeheartedly with this assertion. What the character would do is the main question. 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. Were this the case, I could see that. I assert that it is not the case. You are doing what the character would do. 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 can understand how this perception may arise. Perhaps a different perspective would be beneficial. You can make a character with very one-sided aspects, and thus, a low chance to be compelled. My opinion is that this would be boring. I agree that many players are willing to complicate the situation on their own. With good aspect writing, those players would then self-compel occasionally and be rewarded for a) role playing their character and b) making the story more enjoyable for everyone, GM included. Out of time now, back later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 12:50:52 GMT -8
This is your perception. If I offer a compel, I would not classify the player as good or bad based on their acceptance or rejection of said compel. I might ask for their character's interpretation of the situation, but that's for me to gain increased understanding of the character. Think of it as a mechanical system, in a vacuum. The character is performing a certain action, or is put into a certain situation, and the GM compels a negative aspect. Unless you actively do something to stop it - unless you actively spend a resource to prevent that thing from happening - this is what's going to happen. The natural state of the system, without any external force applied, is for that thing to happen. Action, rather than in-action, is where the momentum is directed. But in any case, I yield on this point, since we could restrict the usage of compels to only those situations where the character would act either way depending on... something where it would make sense. It could be played that way. So that shouldn't be a case of good RP vs bad RP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 12:57:10 GMT -8
Vampire has willpower, ghostbusters has brownie points... All of these systems do address the question with a rules mechanic. including FATE => negotiate the compel, and choose to accept it or reject it. Just so you know, you will never convince anyone to take FATE seriously if you try to draw favorable comparisons with Ghostbusters, given how the latter is notorious for being a (poorly-designed) silly joke game. It may seem like I'm critiquing FATE, for the way it tries to model narrative causality, but I still respect it for treating the subject somewhat seriously. I may not like what the rules are, or the goal to which those roles are directed, but I respect that it manages to accomplish what it's trying to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 13:06:35 GMT -8
As far as defying the scientific method, the Fate game I played in had magic, demons, and vampires, so... yeah. Many games have magic and demons and vampires, but these usually behave under strictly known (or at least knowable) rules. A wizard in D&D might be able to cast three Fireball spells per day, each of which will explode at a set range with a measurable amount of force that depends upon the ability of the individual wizard, yet remains constant until that variable is changed. A vampire in Shadowrun is a human that has contracted the HMHVV and demonstrates an allergy to sunlight in addition to many other traits which can be studied and quantified and analyzed to determine their true properties. Just because you say something is magic, doesn't mean that it has to be un-scientific.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 5, 2015 13:16:54 GMT -8
Strangely enough, I wasn't playing D&D or Shadowrun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 13:22:14 GMT -8
Fair enough. It seems simple to just write-off the whole system as un-scientific, and leave it at that.
Maybe I'll just start saying that "FATE is a magical system"; it sounds like a compliment, if that's the kind of thing you're looking for, but it also perfectly encapsulates everything I dislike about the game.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 5, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -8
I don't like stooping to these descriptors, but here goes: Fate is narrative, not simulationist. That's all you need. And you've already laid out that you think simulationist games are the only way to properly roleplay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 14:23:03 GMT -8
I would much rather say that Simulationist systems are highly conducive to role-playing in a way that Narrative systems are not.
If you have some alternate definition of role-playing, which doesn't involve making decisions from the perspective of the character, then that statement may not remain true. If you share that definition of role-playing, then it's hard to see how the statement could possibly be false.
|
|
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 5, 2015 15:20:24 GMT -8
I would much rather say that Simulationist systems are highly conducive to my style of role-playing in a way that Narrative systems are not. There. Fixed that for you. So you prefer simulationist games. That's fine. Fate is not that, so you won't like it. I understand, and it's cool. Different people like different things, and no one is trying to make you like Fate. Let's all just move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 15:29:38 GMT -8
I would much rather say that Simulationist systems are highly conducive to my style of role-playing in a way that Narrative systems are not. There. Fixed that for you. So you prefer simulationist games. That's fine. Fate is not that, so you won't like it. I understand, and it's cool. Different people like different things, and no one is trying to make you like Fate. Let's all just move on. If you have an alternate definition of role-playing, then let's hear it. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that "make decisions from your character's perspective" is a bad definition. I don't see how my original statement should not hold under that. Give a different definition of role-playing, which supports Narrative focus instead of Simulation. I'm honestly trying to understand the opposing perspective here.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 5, 2015 16:22:29 GMT -8
Well, we could turn to the Oxford English Dictionary; the primary definition refers to its use in psychology, so we can skip that one. The usage pertinent to us is the second: participation in a role-playing game.
Not particularly helpful. Let's follow the link to 'role-playing game,' shall we? A game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.
Huh. Nothing about Narrativist or Simulationist play styles, which isn't too surprising. It's a dictionary, after all. From here I am tempted to refer to Wikipedia for a thread to follow from here - so I do, which leads me to a Copenhagen paper on GNS game theories. This paper defines Narrativism as "the creation of a story via role-playing" and further discusses the goals of Narrativist roleplaying compared to the style he terms Dramatist - that Narrativist gamers want a story, but Dramatist gamers want a satisfying story. He draws similar classifications with Simulationists and Immersionists - that Simulationists want to explore the fictional world, and Immersionists want to vicariously live out the experiences of his/her character in the fictional world. I'm going to stop there, because if I'm going to get into academia mode, I should be working on my Constructivism paper instead. What I'm driving at is that it's all role-playing, just different flavours. Just because it's not one you enjoy doesn't mean it's not a valid expression of the hobby.
|
|
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 5, 2015 17:31:24 GMT -8
A game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters... That's my definition of a roleplaying game. It's a game in which the players take on the roles of imaginary characters. It is possible roleplay in games that aren't intended to be roleplaying games, just as it is possible to not roleplay in games that are intended to be roleplaying games. But that's besides the point. When you take on the role of a character in a roleplaying game, you narrate what your character does, what they say, how they react, blah blah blah, all that stuff. Sometimes that's done in character, sometimes that's done out of character. It all depends on player preference. The interesting thing about roleplaying games is that the players are writers, actors, and audience all at the same time. I feel you need to make decisions that acknowledge all of those roles.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 5, 2015 17:35:37 GMT -8
So, anyone want to talk about Constructivism and the 5e Learning Cycle?
|
|