ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Jabberwocky on October 31, 2012, 11:58:10 AM
-
Hello everyone. I am new to the Fate system and the DFRPG and I have some questions regarding the whole aspect / fate point system. The main question is: Doesn't it hamper the roleplaying experience? Don't get me wrong. I have been GMing for twenty years now and I have played many games. I started with AD&D and its Czech clones, we have played Shadowrun for ten years on (I ran a single Moscow campaign for ten years IRL :-) than D&D again (Greyhawk and Eberron), White Wolf's WoD, Fuzion with Alien/Predator plugin by Chris Tavares Dias, Battlestar Galactica based on the Cortex system ... there were many. We even played a campaign in Hell (Infernum, anyone?) And with passing years we moved from the hack&slash phase towards roleplaying and deep in-character experience. Some of my best gaming experiences come from sessions where not a single die was rolled.
I'm halfway through the books now but I'm a bit sceptical about the said Aspect / Fate Point system. Doesn't it get the player's attention from in-character experience and storytelling more towards game mechanics? I mean, why use it in the first place? It's probably an excellent cinematics means but does a good roleplayer need it? Example from the rulebook: Location aspects. A dark warehouse has the aspect SHADOWED CORNERS (YS 113) so the PC can use stealth. But we don't need aspects and fate points moving across the table to utilize that. A good and attentive player comes up with the idea anyway and with the dim lighting the GM just modifies the difficulty accordingly without even needing to tell the player about that. Another example are compels. A good roleplayer doesn't need being compelled to do something which is part of the PC's background and/or description. In one of my games a street thug PC joined the army - and the PC was in problems every session due to insubordination and lack of "army spirit". No one needed to ever compell the player. In another game there was a bard suffering from the bipolar disorder. Both her manic and depression phases were played out very well, without compelling the player to do that at all.
Many games have some sort of point system and game mechanics that enable the PCs to modify events in their favour to some degree. In Shadowrun it's called Karma in other systems it has other names. It doesn't matter really as it's either used sparingly or at least not subject to constant trade. In Fate system and DFRPG it's different, Aspects are a core mechanic. And I'm not sure I like it.
So, please, could you relate your gaming experience with this mechanic? Thanks.
-
I think you're misunderstanding a couple things about the Fate Point system. Foe one, all the things you're suggesting a good player or a good GM should do are and can be done in the Fate Point system.
Yes, a good roleplayer doesn't need to be compelled. That's called a self-compel, and it's basically the player getting rewarded for that good roleplaying.
Fate points and aspects are how modifiers are done in this system. If the player wants to take advantage of something, that's just what fate points are for. I play with several veteran roleplayers, and never once have we had a problem with the system.
The Fate Point system is, basically, rewarding/bribing the player with a fate point whenever one of their aspects is going to cause some tangible complication. Even someone who's constantly playing to the hilt a manic/depressive, bi-polar person is only going to get a fate point when that aspect of them causes a specific problem. It's a tool for the GM to say, "This aspect is going to make this next sequence a bit tougher for you, so here's a fate point to compensate."
-
Aspects are great and I've incorporated them into other systems.
1. They don't hamper role-playing, they encourage it. If a player is rping and constantly getting into trouble, then he's being rewarded for that. Which then gives him lots of currency to do more heroic things later.
2. It allows for greater story-telling. Sure your player might use the Shadowed Corners to hide, but he might tag it to have enemies miss, or a GM might use it to have a recurring villain escape...or become a portal to a part of the NeverNever(depending on what kind of declaration players make). there's more to aspects than the mechanical advantage/disadvantage they provide.
3. You don't need to modify difficulties. It makes combat much more fluent. "What's the bonus for attacking someone who's prone?", "do I get a +2 if I'm flanking?".
Instead an enemy can have a "prone" aspect and the players can use their imagination to use those aspects to their advantage - or detriment, if they want to earn FP's.
"he's prone. I tag for a +2 to dodge" or "he's prone so it's unlikely he'll be able to run away from me" The aspects are there until they are needed and they are used in a way appropriate for the situation.
I've gone back to D&D after playing DFRPG and I found the experience to be overly crunchy and lacking in the depth of role playing that FATE provides. I'm not saying D&D has no Rping, I'm just saying that I find everyone becomes more involved in the story in this game.
-
Thank you for sharing your points of view - they are very valuable for me so please, keep them coming :-)
Maybe it's just me being too conservative and not having enough experience with such a game mechanic. Not that I take D20 for an especially good game - it has its positives but generally speaking it's clumsy and very GM-consuming. I side with skill based systems, e.g. both Fuzion and Cortex are fast, lightweight and easy to steer systems. And predictable. Maybe it's one of the effects of the fate points that I don't like - it makes the game a bit unpredictable, even for the GM. I am not especially comfortable with that. I understand that as a GM I can refuse to accept a fate point but still - when I prepare a dark warehouse scene it's me who knows what's there in the first place. I don't want the PCs fiddle with the general setting of the scene (even if I improvise and change my mind often during gameplay). Either there is a portal to NeverNever or there is none. But I'm the one in the know.
Which are all concepts that I have brought from other systems and maybe it's time to change them. Or at least give it a try. And I'm very glad to read that you find the fate point / aspect mechanic useful. There's always hope :-)
-
Thank you for sharing your points of view - they are very valuable for me so please, keep them coming :-)
Maybe it's just me being too conservative and not having enough experience with such a game mechanic. Not that I take D20 for an especially good game - it has its positives but generally speaking it's clumsy and very GM-consuming. I side with skill based systems, e.g. both Fuzion and Cortex are fast, lightweight and easy to steer systems. And predictable. Maybe it's one of the effects of the fate points that I don't like - it makes the game a bit unpredictable, even for the GM. I am not especially comfortable with that. I understand that as a GM I can refuse to accept a fate point but still - when I prepare a dark warehouse scene it's me who knows what's there in the first place. I don't want the PCs fiddle with the general setting of the scene (even if I improvise and change my mind often during gameplay). Either there is a portal to NeverNever or there is none. But I'm the one in the know.
Which are all concepts that I have brought from other systems and maybe it's time to change them. Or at least give it a try. And I'm very glad to read that you find the fate point / aspect mechanic useful. There's always hope :-)
You seem to be misunderstanding one of the core ideas of FATE. This is not a GM writes a story for the players to follow with some variation as to how they accomplish goals. This is not a GM designs the world/sandbox the players wander. Neither of these are bad things, but they aren't what Fate is.
Fate is designed for cooperative storytelling. The players have control over the story and setting as much as the GM through declarations. They get to give NPCs interesting personality traits, add depth and features to scenery pieces. Yes, this makes it unpredictable. But that's what makes it fun. You can't say "Group X can reliably and easily defeat Monster Y." It makes designing encounters, especially combat, a bit more difficult, sure. But it makes being a player much more fun, and takes a lot of the work off of the GM.
-
Expanding on IFV:
Declarations (those pesky little things that let your players mess with the setting), in my experience, allow the GM to get away with doing less work without having a negative impact on the story. The players add some of the detail that is needed for the scene, and all the GM has to do is look it over and approve, deny, or adjust the difficulty of the (possible) roll.
It also is one of the best tools in the system to increase player involvement in the game. And in this system, that already focuses so much on player involvement, that's setting a very high bar for 'best'.
-
I would expand even further on that and say that if you did prepare a scene such as the dark warehouse. The PC's can determine that through assessments. If you already made the call thats cool, but they can see if the call you made was there or not. It also is a lot of fun to have everything flying back and forth with naration. Sure it can cause you to have to make stuff up on the fly, but the players can also help with that. Maybe they dont know the specifics, but it is a lot of fun. Plus the ability to create user content is a great aspect of this system.
-
I've found the Fate system to encourage appropriate RPing rather than detract from it. No out of game discussions about if someone should get a modifier for a certain action, ect. The aspects are already there or up to the players to come up with declairations.
If you're playing with particularly good role players then you won't need to compel them. You just award them fate points for being on target. I've also found that player declairations also pulls some of the work load off of the GM by having the players come up with the details. If you don't want to get bogged down by excessive dice rolls, you can just give them the more likely declairations with no roll needed.
The one thing you would have to get used to is that the narrative is less one-sided in this game. Your story telling has to be fairly flexable, one little declairation for role plying effect can take the entre story down a path you never planned, potentially even more so than in other games.
-
You seem to be misunderstanding one of the core ideas of FATE. This is not a GM writes a story for the players to follow with some variation as to how they accomplish goals. This is not a GM designs the world/sandbox the players wander. Neither of these are bad things, but they aren't what Fate is.
Point made. And thanks to you, guys, I see this too, now. It's really a different approach, a story created more on the fly. I am used to doing things in a more old-fashioned way. Not that I would prepare the story word by word but still I have a prepared, loosely interconnected string of scenes and I modify them according to the PCs' actions. The FATE approach is different, I like the term "cooperative storytelling". The concept is so different, however, that I wasn't able to grasp it at the beginning. Well, I can't say I'm all excited about it - more curious how this actually works. I probably wouldn't pick FATE for me weren't it for the DFRPG. I like the setting ... the system is more of a surprise for me :-) But I'm ready to give it a try. If it doesn't suit me or the group the system can be always modified a bit towards the usual "skill vs. difficulty" and "I am the law" form. On the other hand, when I'm thinking about it, I've done something similar before - in the case of a said warehouse, it's impossible to mention everything, every detail. So the players keep asking during a scene, for example: "Is there something flammable there?" "Is is possible to cross the whole room behind the boxes?", etc. And I make momentary decisions. Sometimes based on common sense, sometimes based on chance (a quick die roll). The difference here is there is an explicit game mechanic that allows the players co-create these circumstances. With the GM always having the option of saying no.
-
I've done something similar before - in the case of a said warehouse, it's impossible to mention everything, every detail. So the players keep asking during a scene, for example: "Is there something flammable there?" "Is is possible to cross the whole room behind the boxes?", etc. And I make momentary decisions. Sometimes based on common sense, sometimes based on chance (a quick die roll). The difference here is there is an explicit game mechanic that allows the players co-create these circumstances. With the GM always having the option of saying no.
This is how my group usually uses Declarations, to handle stuff I didn't think of yet. I wouldn't mind them using their more narrative-influencing capabilities, but we play a pretty traditional game despite it being FATE. It can handle just straight modifiers, too, if you want. Not everything has to be an Aspect.
-
Yeah, I'd say 99% of the declarations in my groups start with exactly that, a player asking, "Is the area _______" or "Is there something _______ nearby?" rather than saying, "I declare there's a ______"
My favorite recent one was a PC wizard taking out the driver in a drive-by shooting by asking the question, "Did the airbag go off yet?"
-
FATE is a paradigm shift away from how D&D adventures are written... The players often have equal control of what is happening.
There's a near FATE game called Houses of the Blooded. One of the scenarios in the back of the book describe a party that the PCs are at and play opens with "You find a body, anyone want to make declarations?".
I understand that the "plot" has been run several times Cons and it's rarely the same murder victim, let alone the same murderer. That is, the person running the game knows who the NPCs are but not who the victim and murderer is. Who decides which NPC was murdered? The player who makes a declaration. Who decides what clues are there to be found? The players do through declarations.
Richard
-
Well, I'm not much into D&D or D20 systems (I do like the Eberron setting, though) and I don't fancy pre-made adventures with every detail prepared and every room having its small map. Improvisation and rich storytelling are GM's best friends, not miniatures being moved on a hex-grid (although it could be fun sometimes). But I'm still a bit uneasy with the declaration and compelling others' aspects system. Up to this day I was used to having the storyline in my hands and as a player letting it in the hands of the GM. This proactive system is ... interesting and definitely worth trying. I'm just not 100 % sure it will suit me and my players. Which is of course a matter of habit and taste.
On a different note (I don't want to start a separate thread for every question I'll ask): What is your experience with the game-time and real-time ratio? I mean does the game-time in your games tend to flow slower or faster than real-time? For example, if I start my campaign in the autumn 2012 I don't want to have the year 2015 in my game after six months of gaming real-time. And vice versa. This is no problem with most settings but with a contemporary campaign it might be. Thanks.
-
Pacing depends a lot on the activities and personalities of the PCs, as influenced by the activities and personalities of the NPCs and non-embodied phenomena.
If there's not much going on, then jumping forwards until something DOES happen (or at least fast-forwarding until the PCs' own plans run into meaningful obstacles) is really only logical. Of course, you can avoid having to jump TOO far by simply MAKING something happen (or by creating obstacles), but that can seem a bit forced at times if you're not careful.
-
Well, I'm not much into D&D or D20 systems (I do like the Eberron setting, though) and I don't fancy pre-made adventures with every detail prepared and every room having its small map. Improvisation and rich storytelling are GM's best friends, not miniatures being moved on a hex-grid (although it could be fun sometimes). But I'm still a bit uneasy with the declaration and compelling others' aspects system. Up to this day I was used to having the storyline in my hands and as a player letting it in the hands of the GM. This proactive system is ... interesting and definitely worth trying. I'm just not 100 % sure it will suit me and my players. Which is of course a matter of habit and taste.
On a different note (I don't want to start a separate thread for every question I'll ask): What is your experience with the game-time and real-time ratio? I mean does the game-time in your games tend to flow slower or faster than real-time? For example, if I start my campaign in the autumn 2012 I don't want to have the year 2015 in my game after six months of gaming real-time. And vice versa. This is no problem with most settings but with a contemporary campaign it might be. Thanks.
As far as time passing goes, that's mostly up to how the GM frames the campaign. If you're going for an episodic approach you have a lot of control over time passing, because you decide how much time passes between story scenarios. I frame my stories to take around 20 hours to complete. This is about 4 sessions for my group. The tome lapse between scenarios for me is anywhere from a few weeks to several months.
If you're doing a serial method where it's basically one long continuious story then I could see that being a potential problem, but I can't really comment on how big an issue it could be. You could also do what I do and remain ambiguious about the specific year, all I told my players is that the campaign takes place during the Red Court war.
-
Well, I'm not much into D&D or D20 systems (I do like the Eberron setting, though) and I don't fancy pre-made adventures with every detail prepared and every room having its small map. Improvisation and rich storytelling are GM's best friends, not miniatures being moved on a hex-grid (although it could be fun sometimes). But I'm still a bit uneasy with the declaration and compelling others' aspects system. Up to this day I was used to having the storyline in my hands and as a player letting it in the hands of the GM. This proactive system is ... interesting and definitely worth trying. I'm just not 100 % sure it will suit me and my players. Which is of course a matter of habit and taste.
On a different note (I don't want to start a separate thread for every question I'll ask): What is your experience with the game-time and real-time ratio? I mean does the game-time in your games tend to flow slower or faster than real-time? For example, if I start my campaign in the autumn 2012 I don't want to have the year 2015 in my game after six months of gaming real-time. And vice versa. This is no problem with most settings but with a contemporary campaign it might be. Thanks.
Depends on how you run your game. Do you do a bunch of time skips? Do you start a session by saying, it's now 3 months since you killed that Black Court Vampire? When traveling for days, do players just arrive or do you Role Play it out?
As to your issue with aspects, this is both a narrative focus game, which you seem to have some experience with, and a shared control game. It may seem odd and different, but it's the same thing as you've been doing before. Instead of having to improvise cause your players decide to go into the forest instead of the castle, you now have to improvise because your player has declared that he knows you're main NPC from highschool, or that you're dark mysterious sewer happens to have a recently installed light system. If you're into podcasts, here's (http://www.feartheboot.com/ftb/index.php/archives/2011) an episode that deals with the general idea of letting players define the world and a more traditional GM objecting to it, so basically this conversation. It's something the majority of the people on the cast had been doing since well before aspects or Fate.
My real life game has a bunch of traditional players who are just starting understand the shared component of the fate system. For the first few months, Aspects, Fate Points, and declarations were actually minor things, really only being used in the same way Savage world uses bennies, or D&D uses the GM's best friend +/- 2. I think you'll group will use them more like that, and you'll find it's not much different from the games you're used to. If you really want to start playing with shared narrative control though, get Fiasco, A Gmless game with no form of conflict resolution. Also worth checking out are Dread, Inspectres, and Wushu, which all have GM's but different models of control and conflict resolution.
-
I understand the time passing being in the hands of the GM but still there are catches. Sometimes you will want the PCs to wait for something and time could just jump forward a bit. That's why I am asking about GM experience with this potential problem. In general, slower flow of game-time is no biggie as it's always possible to say that a few days/weeks/months have passed. The opposite would make me worry more. Regarding the episodic vs. series approach I'm not quite sure now. Sometimes it's a combination of both and you can tell only after some portion of gaming.
I want the campaign to take place in Prague, Czechia which is also our hometown. We all know it here and I personally think that both Prague and the whole Central Europe are a very suitable background for a contemporary urban fantasy. But with your home location you also know most of the events and they should be reflected in the campaign somehow. That's why I'am thinking about the importance of pacing. The setting should be fantasy-modified but also as real-feeling as possible.
Edit: Too slow. I'll address Addicted2aa's answer in my next post.
-
Time flows at the speed of plot. It is really highly dependent on the group and what you are playing. In a cats-paws political game, whole month can go by in the roll of the dice, while you can sit an entire evening at one physical conflict that will only have lasted a couple of minutes of in game time.
Look at the novels, they take 3-4 days tops, but playing them would probably take you a couple of sessions, often a week or more between them. Which means that real time will most likely be ahead at any given time. That way you can (also like the novels) just say "Well, it's been three month since you killed that warlock." and be up with real time again. If something significant happened in your city, you can fast forward till that moment or just incorporate it into what happened during those last three month.
Or you make yourself free from the concept of real time and fully embrace the speed of plot. You can then use things that happen right now in your game that is set a few month back. There are a lot of possibilities.
-
well if you're looking for anecdotes, I believe my game runs at about 1 day per 2 sessions, and we tend to play out every day with no time skips. But that's how I have run most of the games I play. I have a flaw of not letting the action slow down, if we're at a point where we could time skip, I blow something up and make the day all that much more exciting. I also run multiple timelines at once. Not contradictory ones, but at one moment we will be playing out june 11, 1993 and the next moment June 1, 1993, and then maybe in a few sessions, play out the events of july 27, 1980. I also split the party alot, so my game's time has to be a bit more fluid that most are used to.
-
Addicted2aa: Both. Maybe not as visibly as "It have been three months since you defeated the evil evil necromancer," but sometimes it's possible and useful to skip some time. PCs need resting and replenishing their resources. The same with travels - sometimes it's better to just say "the journey was a boring one", sometimes it's hillarious to play it out fully. One of my best gaming experiences (both as GM and player) were originally unintentionally played out scenes of no importance to the general storyline (two examples from a very long and funny line: a rather hyperactive PC being "trapped" in a flat with a sleeping girl whom he doesn't want to wake up but still having somehow to spend the terribly long and boring time; a "practical-jokes-are-allowed" Christmas night on a space marine battleship, etc.) So it's difficult to say what my approach really is. I use both.
As for the other part of your answer, thank you for broadening my mind. And I really mean it. It's interesting how appropriately used definitions can explain something. Yes, narrative focus game and shared control game are the phrases that describe it fully. I will certainly listen to the podcast (I hope my English won't fail me). One of the problems in my current situation is that I have never been interested in the "theory" of rolepaying or storytelling. We just developed from hack&slashing teenagers some twenty years ago to people liking narration, in-character interaction and roleplaying experience. With Shadowrun being in 1996 the point of no return I think :-) Thanks for the recommendations, I will give them a look.
Oh, and I actually read one "theoretical" text on RPing many years ago. It was written by Chris Dias and it's still online: here (http://www.serenadawn.com/ADVICE-FOR-GOOD-ROLE-PLAYERS.htm)
Edit: Too slow again :-)
-
Yeah, I'm a bit of a theory nerd. I'm not as bad as they guys at the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php but I still get into it. I look at it from a more practical standpoint, what techniques work and what situations do they work in. For that you have to understand a bit of the difference between types of games.
Like I said, I think fate will work fine for you. You're group will probably just not get into the more narrative powers of Aspects and Declarations. If you do find that the game isn't working for you, Look into Wild Talents. It's a supers game, but it should be more than flexible enough to model the Dresden verse.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out
-
The time scale is always wonky in our games. We play for about 3-4 hours once a week, and in our current game, a day and a half has taken a little more than two months.
-
The FP economy is heart of the game and tons of fun if you are looking to play that thing. Do good roleplayers need it? I don't think need is really relevant. As your diceless sessions show, you can roleplay without system if you want. The question is "does it sound like fun to you to look across at a player and say "Taking cover sure sounds smart. But didn't you say you were a "FEARLESS DEFENDER OF THE INNOCENT?" And smile cunningly as you offer up a fate point.
If you just want system to decide success or failure, this is not that.
-
Yes, yes, I have already figured it out, too. And again - if it weren't for the setting, which I really like, I would't probably pick FATE for me. But as I am too lazy to convert everything into Cortex or another similar favourite system of mine I'm ready to give this whole "madness" (I don't really mean it) a try. Plus I'm getting interested in the outcome.
Another question, this time a minor one. Red Court vampires. Ectoplasmic body, right? I know I'm probably a stickler but the actual bat-like vampire should be smaller than his ectoplasmic body to fit in there. But they don't look that way in the rulebook pictures. So are the vamps smaller than average people? Are their ectoplasmic bodies larger than average people? Are they shape-shifting to some extent? And more importatnty: Did your players raise similar questions at any point during the game? What was your answer? "Magic"? (A similar "nitpicking" example from WoD - Camarilla vampires in Europe do their best to convince the world there are no vampires at all ... while in America Sabbat packs happily roam the streets parading their Disciplines for everyone to see. In a world of satellite TV and Internet. Such inconsistencies really killed the gaming mood in our group quickly.) I want my gaming world to be a fantastic and magic one but a consistent and believable one as well.
And last but not least: THANKS for all the information you are willing to share - in previous posts or otherwise. You are really helping me out.
-
There is a section about shapeshifters that shift into bigger or smaller things, I think the same applies here. Basically what they have to do is store part of their original body in the nevernever if their original body is bigger, or create more mass from ectoplasm, if their original body is smaller than the new one. So yeah... Magic. ;D
-
Yeah, I have already come across that section. This raises serious questions about the actual form and location of all that stored matter - that would be a hillarious idea to let the PCs find a huge pile of "temporarily discarded" body parts of every shapeshifting entity in the universe :-D "100 bucks if you ever want to see your right leg again, señor Ortega." :-D
-
Well, I think it is sort of like the dreamscape that can sometimes be created. It will be somewhere in the nevernever where it is extremely hard to find, if it is even really connected to anything. It might even be transformed into ectoplasm or something, so even when you find it, it is a pile of goo.
But yes, there are potential plot hooks in that idea.
-
But yes, there are potential plot hooks in that idea.
Something mighty big must be guarding that place.
-
Might be all the dark matter in the universe the scientists are looking for :-) And the place is pretty self-guarding – in various systems big creatures are able to turn into humans. Dragons, for instance. So: "Seven tons of dragon (m)ass have just appeared directly on your head. Story ends."
Alright this went a bit silly :-)
-
Ok another question, this time a more serious one. As I've mentioned before I want to put my game to Prague. It's a beautiful city with rich history and story background but I'm still thinking about the communists' rule in Czechoslovakia. On one hand I don't like the idea that every important event in human history was triggered by supernatural influence – the commies were (and saddly, still are) a bunch of mortal assholes. On the other hand it's very improbable that supernatural forces wouldn't have tried to use the situation to their own intentions. At least partly. I mean, there is a situation and everybody has to adapt or react to it somehow.
So, communism. I really resent that period of my country's history (I had to spend a good part of my childhood in it and it was plain awful – please, dear Lord, never ever again!) but then again the communists ruled here for 42 years and the changes to the very land and society were substantial. I have to reflect this recent history in my setting somehow. It has just influenced everything too much. So my question is – do you guys can come up with ideas who and how could benefit or be affected by such substantial changes in the fabric of society? I mean the supernaturals, of course. For most of you lucky enough not to have such experience: After 1948 the communists did many wrongs (executions, jail, workcamps, etc.) but the change in property system was most substantial and brutal – they nationalised all production. You were a worker? You were fine. A clerk? Not so shining good but still quite fine. You had a small business? You were a bad guy and they took everything away from you and harassed you and your family. A factory? To jail with you. Etc. So again – what supernatural force could have benefitted from such a concentration of property and production in the hands of state? Who (apart of the pure mortal communistst) might have wanted to take away all land from the hands of farmers and force them into compulsory cooperative state businesses? Because if I want a functional and consistent setting for Central Europe I have to answer such questions somehow. Communism was here and the supernaturals too. Any ideas? (I have some ideas brewing in my head but I'll be happy to hear some of yours. Thanks!)
-
You could take it the white court route, have a house that feeds on greed, and communism was just the well meaning, but horrible attempt to try and correct something within society, that could not be explained but was felt everywhere. Maybe not even greed, but maybe vain, that would make people feel better than anyone else, leading to the wish to make everyone equal. Or something else entirely.
My point is: communism as a human reaction rather than a supernatural action seems far more likely and could bring a slightly positive spin on the history, which might make the whole thing more interesting in the process. After all, involving mortal authorities is the "nuclear weapon" of the supernatural world, as Harry mentioned somewhere.
-
Def vamps. There is just too much in pop culture and in Dresden with them being involved in bureaucracy for them not to have fingers in multiple communism pies. I would say that different courts would have different areas. Not sure about the history of USSR, let alone Prague under the communists, but if there were prisons that political dissidents disappeared too, ran by the reds. Guaranteed food source.
The white court, fear feeding family are in the secret police, showing up at houses at random to search, just to feel the people's fear. Bring them in for questioning to dine for hours on their fear.
Keep the Fairy Courts out of it I would say. It just doesn't seem to fit that type of political environment. Maybe some mythical creatures that live on misery. Perhaps a couple of wizards in the government, pulling a Animal farm, some humans are more equal than others. The ones with magic
-
On the other hand it's very improbable that supernatural forces wouldn't have tried to use the situation to their own intentions. At least partly. I mean, there is a situation and everybody has to adapt or react to it somehow.
I like the idea of emphasizing this - the supernatural predators may not have started it (humans are capable of evil on their own) but they're certainly willing to profit from it. Could run with any of a number of things...red court using prisons like grocery stores, Skavis vamps as low level KGB muscle, Black Council hiding forbidden magic/research among human tragedy & abuse, wyldfae preying on the populace adding a few more disappearances among many, or even black court carrying on a low level resistance against oppression. Sounds like fun!
-
I've had 5 sessions i think now. and lets see the very first session involved a quick combat with some Triad hitters, 4 mortals, went down pretty quick. And then two sessions ago I had a brief run in where our Changeling started a brawl with a couple of white court security vamps, after a few rounds the Wizard convinced Papa Skavis to call them off.
That is literally all the combat that has been in 5 sessions of game. Sure "Monday Night Game Group" is by far the best group ive ever come across and I feel so lucky to have found them. But still the game has been driven by nothing but interpersonal play and politics, and I feel like the fate point system has at the very least not hindered, but more often actively helped it.
-
Thanks to all. Yes, vampires, being quite ubiquitous in the setting, would definitely have had to react. The communist regime tried to destroy the traditional faith - they closed down monasteries and churches, sent clergy to work camps, harassed people who attended Christian services... All this would have come handy for vampires.
(One example: here (http://www.radio.cz/en/section/letter/this-silver-sunday-60th-since-start-of-grotesque-episode-of-communist-period) - this seems like a session scenario but sadly these events were real)
-
An interesting take on it could be that communism was the heavy handed approach to the threat of the supernatural. Coming down hard on the supernatural factions that feel they are above the laws of man, then human corruption set in and it all went horribly wrong.
-
Ok, another question regarding the different approach of this game. Being taken out and concessions. Again, I was used to using common sense when describing outcomes of conflicts - not wanting to kill the PC per se but still judging the situation according to the general conditions. For instance, in Shadowrun, if a PC was stupid/unlucky enough to get taken down in an adverse situation death might have occurred. Like starting a gunfight with multiple opponents in a barren deserted place - after taking some shots the PC could just bleed to death. Such things happen, it's a harsh world. You'd better judge the situation better next time. But DFRPG offers concessions. How am I supposed to use that in really serious and dangerous situations? Let's say the PC starts a fight in a room full of vampires, he sees quickly he's going to lose and so he concedes. What now? The logical outcome of such an event would be having his throat ripped or a bullet to his head. Finito. Bad guys shouldn't be there for fun. How do you handle those potentially hopeless situations? I mean, I don't plan to kill PCs because of bad roll outcomes or whatever but there should be some feeling of reality, too. Dangers are REAL, especially when the PCs act stupid.
So what is your experience with concessions? Thanks!
-
Concession have to pass the groups thought. And in a more traditional gaming group the GM probably has vote's equal to +/- 1 of the group number. So if he offers a concession, and the group(you) don't think it's good enough, ask him to try again. If it becomes clear he can't think of a valid option, continue combat. TO THE DEATH. or you know whatever taken out option the NPC decides on.
Which actually raises a question for me. Traditionally when I've taken players out, I've picked an option that seemed in line with the NPC's goals. Is there anything in RaW suggesting that taken out result be what the NPC wants as opposed to anything interesting the GM can think of? Cause if it's a purely meta decision, I have way more options available to me
-
It also states, in the book, that if the natural conclusion to losing an encounter will be death, then you should tell the player before he decides to start a fight.
That being said, if the player knows that being taken out will result in death, he is MORE likely to use the concession rules.
The concession has to be reasonable, and usually takes place BEFORE the player is out and unconcious or helpless.
A concession could be as simple as running away. But it has to have some negative impact on the player. He loses his best weapon/item/foci, the damsel in distress gets eaten by vamps, the vamps follow him and find out where he lives...
Other concessions could be blown out the window and covered in rubble where the enemy can't find him, so they assume he ran away...There are lots of possibilities for concessions that don't involve the vamps capturing or eating the PC.
EDIT: I find concessions hard to adjudicate on the fly. Players tend to want to get out of a situation without too much penalty. "my character retreats back for the rest of the fight....yay! I got 3 FP's for my consequenses" *heal, heal, heal (Recovery power)* Make them pay for a concession.
-
*forgive any spelling or grammar errors, I'm typing this out on my phone*
Concessions (and being taken out, or stressed out as I call it) are purely a matter of determining who has naration rights.
For instance: when a PC decides to concede they have LOST, plain and simple. However, they get to say how and why they are no longer in the conflict and that is the crucial thing. In a physical conflict the easiest way of narrating this is for them to say "in the confusion of the battle I slip away to safety". In a social or mental things get a little more complex and it's here my players always draw a blank. For social I always suggest a "turn the other cheek" scinario for the PC concession. Something like "I walk/storm/run out of the room, clearly clearly unhappy, with my tail between my legs" or something to that effect. And mental could be "I curl up into a ball on the floor with a glazed expression" If consequences were taken use them for narration ideas.
For NPC's I generally go with the "villan escapes to fight another day" or if they're just mooks "I surrender"
Being taken out, or stressing out as I put it. Means the winner of the conflict gets narration rights. If you want to be brutal, you can have the loser just bleed out while unconscious. But I always find capture WAY more interesting. You cancombo it with the villan conceding to have him get away with the party member that was unconscious. :D
-
Which actually raises a question for me. Traditionally when I've taken players out, I've picked an option that seemed in line with the NPC's goals. Is there anything in RaW suggesting that taken out result be what the NPC wants as opposed to anything interesting the GM can think of? Cause if it's a purely meta decision, I have way more options available to me
That's different from a concession. If you take someone out, you get free reign to make the persons life miserable. If you're GMing a Ghoul, and that ghoul takes out a player, there's a good chance that player is going to be eaten for breakfast...
EDIT: Yes, there is something in RAW. I'll find it...
PG. 206, last paragraph
"As a rule of thumb, when death is on the line,
announce it in advance, preferably at the start of
the conflict—e.g., “This guy’s playing for keeps.
If he can kill you, he will. You can see it in his
eyes.” or “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.
You killed my father. Prepare to die.” That way
everyone has plenty of time to see utter defeat
coming and can keep an itchy finger on the
concession trigger."
From that paragraph, you can assume an NPC's motives will dictate the outcome of Take Out. If a thug hired to steal something from a PC takes that PC out, he may call 911 before he runs away with goods, or try to prevent the character from dying - he doesn't want to go to jail for murder!
@EDrac: I agree
-
I'll try to go down the list, here, but I don't have a lot of time to write this post...
The effects of a Take-Out or Concession are at the whims of the respective controlling player (or GM), not necessarily bound to the goals of the character.
For the white-room vampire scenario, a reasonable concession result might include being captured, bound, and imprisoned to be offered as a sacrifice, 'recruit', or other form of 'gift' to some superior who was not present in the conflict. This allows the PC to survive the immediate danger, but be placed in an extremely precarious position for the near future.
A comparable taken-out result might include forcibly 'turning' the PC, changing some of their permanent aspects and mandating that they begin spending their Refresh to add the appropriate transitionary template at the next reasonable opportunity (or potentially adding it immediately and accruing some Debt until such time as they can buy it properly).
Just remember that Concessions and Taken-Out results are (and must be) Bad Things (TM). If it doesn't hurt, then you're not doing it right.
That's about the depth I have time to go into for now. I'll check back later today to see if there's more I can help with.
-
The effects of a Take-Out or Concession are at the whims of the respective controlling player (or GM), not necessarily bound to the goals of the character.
See this is the bit I'm wondering about. Lets say we're fighting in a hale storm in the arctic, PC X has magguffin Y and Big Bad Guy Evil Dude, BBGED, want's the magguffin back and also to eat PC's brain. BBGED wins with an evocation attack of pure force on PC X. If GM decides without taking BBGED's motives into effect, I'm going to knock PC X unconscious with a hale stone, have the force blast knock him back onto a piece of ice over a cave, ice breaks and he goes tumbling down into the dark, where a tribe of yeti's find him and Magguffin Y.
If I take BBGED's motives into play, he at least gets Maggufin Y, and maybe snacks a bit on PC X's brain a bit, the level depending on how cool the table is with character death.
I've always gone with the latter, and in general try to play as close to RaW as I can. This other option opens up alot of room for and will probably adopt it even if not RaW, but would prefer if it was.
-
The yetis are RaW-available.
From the sidebar, "Dictating Outcomes":
"the player of the attacker that takes
out an opponent gets to decide the manner
in which his victim loses"
-
GM counts as player?
-
GM counts as player?
Dunno RAW, but thje GM is engaging the rules of the game to facilitate an outcome simmilarly to a player are they not?
IMO GM's play the game just like the players, they are simply allowed more narratice rights in general.
-
Uh, guys, what exactly is RaW?
Very interesting discussion otherwise. I'm opting either for "concessions should hurt substantially" or for not using them at all. I understand them as an element that allows for PCs to escape potentially lethal situations and create cinematic events but I'd rather go with believable story and consistence. This concession concept reminds me of the old Deus-Ex-Machina business in ancient theatre plays... In short: If the player can come up with something creative, believable and hurting his character at the same time, ok I'm in. Otherwise it's the winning party's decision.
-
Rules as Written. Short hand for not including house rules.
I agree. Concessions should be the PC or NPC doesn't get what they want and should make sense in the story. When my NPC's concede, it's usually running away(I tried to have one beg for his life, but the PC's just executed him), and I ask if the player will pursue. If the players pursue, I don't count it as a concession, if they don't, then I do. When my players concede, I listen, if it makes sense, I'll agree, if it doesn't I say no, then ask the other players if I'm being to harsh.
Concede shouldn't be a get away free button, unless the opposing party is content to let them run.
-
Uh, guys, what exactly is RaW?
Very interesting discussion otherwise. I'm opting either for "concessions should hurt substantially" or for not using them at all. I understand them as an element that allows for PCs to escape potentially lethal situations and create cinematic events but I'd rather go with believable story and consistence. This concession concept reminds me of the old Deus-Ex-Machina business in ancient theatre plays... In short: If the player can come up with something creative, believable and hurting his character at the same time, ok I'm in. Otherwise it's the winning party's decision.
You always have to be smart with concessions. Those mooks the BBEG hired may think twice on if it's worth dying for the pay they got when the PC's respond with overwhelming force. I've always read the concession rules as taking the character into account. If the PC's try to ambush an arms dealer amd are then counter ambushed, conceding and surrendering should always be a viable option. You see it all the time in movies and books. Dresden Files is at it's core a pulp inspired game.
-
Maybe I'm uneasy with concessions being a built-in system/metagaming concept. An option in the rulebook. Of course that street thugs won't fight to the death. They will try to flee at some point or they will surrender: "Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!" But this is purely role-playing interaction, not a built-in system rule. And vice versa - if the PC offers to surrender the NPCs have to react somehow. But having such a meta fail-safe in the rules, well, I don't like it very much. With pulp atmosphere it's the matter of taste I'd say. Use it too much and to some players/GMs the game may appear ubelievable or outright stupid.
-
But see it is an option, cause you never have to take it. All it does is allow you to ask have some control when you are going out. I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose this fight, well, here's an interesting way to lose it. The vampire pushes me off the roof, grabs the little girl I was protecting and disapears into his helicopter. But I caught a flag pole on the way down and am left hanging there as the helicopter speeds away.
Again it comes back to that shared narrative control thing. Despite the title of the first book, it's not Your Story. It's OUR story, the entire table. If you don't want to share control, I agree, it's a shitty rule. But if you do, It's a great rule.
-
A concession never has to be "the PCs offer to surrender." It just means the player decides how things end instead of the person taking him out. It doesn't have to be anything the characters discuss at all.
The difference between a Taken Out and a Concession could be as miniscule as:
Taken Out: Badness McVillain sends a wave of power at the PC, knocking him out the window, killing him. Badness McVillain sneers, picks up the MacGuffin, and leaves.
Concession: Badness McVillain sens a wave of power at the PC, knocking him out the window. He thinks the PC is dead, but he's arrogant enough not to check. He picks up the MacGuffin and leaves. Twenty minutes later, the PC wakes up with a killer headache.
-
Maybe I'm uneasy with concessions being a built-in system/metagaming concept. An option in the rulebook. Of course that street thugs won't fight to the death. They will try to flee at some point or they will surrender: "Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!" But this is purely role-playing interaction, not a built-in system rule. And vice versa - if the PC offers to surrender the NPCs have to react somehow. But having such a meta fail-safe in the rules, well, I don't like it very much. With pulp atmosphere it's the matter of taste I'd say. Use it too much and to some players/GMs the game may appear ubelievable or outright stupid.
It seems to me (and this is all my perception and opinion, please do not take it as fact) that the intention of the game and maybe the game designers was to have there be no time in a game where mechanics are not being engaged. Roleplaying doesn't stop when dice come out or mechanics are engaged. Unlike most traditional games where the phrase "it was a great session, we never rolled the dice!" Can be true, Dresden aims to mechanize those times where other games simply have no mechanics to cover. The overwhelming focus of a traditional game is combat, and social stuff is relegated to a handfull of skills that usually aren't more complex than a single diece roll.
My opinion has always been if you never engage the mechanics in a game session, why bother? You're just inproving at that point (unless you're playing fiasco where improv IS the mechanic).
Metagaming is also a thing in Dresden as I see it. You're all creating a story as the writers, directors and actors. Sometimes you zoom in and inhabit the character's shoes, sometimes you pull back and manipulate things on a meta level. The GM is more a head director, having some veto power, but otherwise the flow of Narritive Control is fluid.
Now, that may not be you're playstyle, and that's totally ok, and you can run it anyway you see fit. But RaW the mechanics seem to encourage the GM to let go a little.
-
"Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!"
This is probably better as a flavor of a taken out result. A concession happens before that. It is an OOC discussion about what is going to happen. In a case like the above, a concession could be something like the GM saying "you know guys, I'd kind of like to keep those guys around for a bit, so they will drop a clue for you when they run, but they will get away or you will let them run. Deal?"
It is like something that Jim wrote on his lifejournal about writing scenes in a novel. Once you have a scene lined out, you ask "do the protagonists reach their goal?". There are two basic outcomes, of course: yes and no. Which he deems to be rather bland. He says he prefers "yes, but" and "no, and" solutions. I see concessions mostly as a "yes, but" solution here. "You rescue the princess, but the dragon gets away." "You can get to a piece of paper with some vital information, but the rest of the office is lost to the flames." Things that will somehow keep things moving.
A "no, and" could be those circumstances, where the character barely gets away with his life, and to be that lucky, he takes a hit somewhere else. His equipment breaks, the villain gets something that will make him more powerful, the character will look like a killer to someone, things like that.
-
Addicted2aa: I agree, it comes to that narrative vs. shared control approach again. (At least I understand the basics already :-) I'm just saying, I don't want the concessions to be a cheap get-away failsafe based on the rules. Plus, I find them to be difficult to justify in some situations. That's why I'm asking for game experience with this rule. Believe me, I'm not a control-obsessed PC killer - there have been few victims of my GM-ing over past twenty years of gaming. I just don't want the story to become lame because of lack of real danger and I'm a bit afraid of it as these concepts are totally new to me.
Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).
Edrac: I think that you got it right. Especially in the last paragraph.That's why I'm posting questions here and ask for opinions. I have to balance my and my group's habits against this new approach somehow. Locating the sweetspot it is.
-
Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).
Then, as GM, put your foot down and don't let that happen. A concession is supposed to be a significant setback, and as GM it's your job to make sure it is.
-
Addicted2aa: I'm just saying, I don't want the concessions to be a cheap get-away failsafe based on the rules. Plus, I find them to be difficult to justify in some situations. That's why I'm asking for game experience with this rule. Believe me, I'm not a control-obsessed PC killer - there have been few victims of my GM-ing over past twenty years of gaming. I just don't want the story to become lame because of lack of real danger and I'm a bit afraid of it as these concepts are totally new to me.
Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).
This was exactly my view when I started playing this. The RPG system I played the most before this was D&D. Losing a battle usually involved one or more dead PC's and a whole lot of sitting around before the combat got resolved. At higher levels, the dead PC was more of an inconvenience because of raise dead, wish, ressurection etc...The plot/adventure mattered more.
The root of the issue here is the PC's want to win the conflict. HOW they lose is irrelevant. What's the difference if the PC's are dead or if the PC's are sitting, tied up in a burning building while the Master Mind cackles and escapes? Both situations are severe losses to the PC's. The Players are going to feel that - they'll know they got their asses handed to them.
The difference is the former involves everyone rolling new characters and the whole campaign getting a re-boot, while the latter involves an interesting advance in the plot and an excellent way to start the next session, as they try to escape a burning building.
-
"you know guys, I'd kind of like to keep those guys around for a bit, so they will drop a clue for you when they run, but they will get away or you will let them run. Deal?"
This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.
-
This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.
The best pieces of advice I can give if you're going to go for it and try the system out are as follows:
Start the players at the LOWEST power level. While being a full wizard is cool and all, for a first time game the less complex a character is mechanically the better they'll grasp the system.
Try it RaW (or as close as possible) for a few sessions (I recomend 4 to 6) before you go fiddling with houserules, give it a chance.
Let your players know ahead of time and introduce stuff gradually. Aspects and the dice mechanics first, then manuvers and blocks as actions, then consequences, then concession. But be sure to tell them "hey there are some rules I will introduce later that may be applicable before I introduce them, don't freak out."
Make the firse campaign shorter and use it as a trial run. If ya'll like it gear up for a longer game. If not then maybe it's not the right game for your table.
-
This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.
Personally, I would never break the 4th wall that badly. It can be done, and done well, but it's not necessary. When I discuss things on the meta-level(which is required in this game) I never hint at "my plot" or what the NPC's are doing, or what I want. I ask questions. Would this work for you? Can you think of a different solution? Are you sure that what you want to do? Do you have any other options here?
Usually not that vague or general, but hopefully you get the idea. I keep the meta focused on them, just instead of addressing the character, I address the player.
As to you're worry about Concessions as a fail safe, well, I've rarely had my players conceded, instead fighting to extreme consequences and being taken out far more often. When they do concede, I make sure it's not cheap, and when I concede, I give them the same opportunity. From what I understand of your group, your players will be looking to you to tell them whether a concession is good enough, as opposed to the table. And that's probably a good thing for your play style. Don't go easy on them when they concede. If the offer is good enough. Say no. Ask for another offer, especially since they are going to get FP anyway for losing. Losing isn't that bad a thing in this system, so they are already covered for not getting what they want. Make sure the concession is still a true loss.
-
Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.
Edrac + Addicted2aa: Thanks, guys, your latest posts are very helpful to me. Yes, this is the way which would probably work for me. And it's not impossible that the game will gradually evolve towards a more cooperative approach over time. But I really have to start it easy.
-
Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.
Yeah. We never pulled punches as DM's - the dice dictated the outcome. We never tried to kill players, but sometimes the dice weren't going our way and a 20 got rolled at the wrong time. There was a stretch for a while when we couldn't get our characters past 5th level. It makes victory that much sweeter when you know what's on the line...but it's also very harsh.
-
Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.
Edrac + Addicted2aa: Thanks, guys, your latest posts are very helpful to me. Yes, this is the way which would probably work for me. And it's not impossible that the game will gradually evolve towards a more cooperative approach over time. But I really have to start it easy.
If you also are in the type of group that does one shots from time to time, look at Fiasco and Inspectres. Both games take the shared narrative control alot farther. Great for one sessions jaunts to really flex creative muscle, try new things, and see what it can do for you.
I think you'll find some parts of FATE and some attitudes of the newer Indie Story Games are really worth adopting, even if the whole system doesn't end up working for your group.
Yeah. We never pulled punches as DM's - the dice dictated the outcome. We never tried to kill players, but sometimes the dice weren't going our way and a 20 got rolled at the wrong time. There was a stretch for a while when we couldn't get our characters past 5th level. It makes victory that much sweeter when you know what's on the line...but it's also very harsh.
If I play D&D again, I want it to be like this. Old School Gygax style. Anything and everything will kill you. Roll 3d6 straight down. no stat swaping.
-
uhg
that'll show me for responding too quickly without checking whether the the conversation has progressed
-
I consider Concessions a means to drive it home that characters dying (PC's and major NPC's) is a very big deal and shouldn't be taken lightly. Concessions gives you an actual mechanic to get around accidental deaths when their doesn't seem to be any other choice but to kill the character. This can be a godsend for GM's, there are several threads that talk about how major villain npc's that the GM planned to use for the next several months of play got utterly stomped dead by the players in 2 rounds of combat. Concessions give you an out when the players are about to throw months of planning down the drain.
On the player side, it gives you some flexibility in your encounters. Nothing is less fun than figuring out halfway through a fight that you grossly overpowered your mooks and your players are getting torn apart. Also other than mild consequences, they stick around for a long time causing problems for the players. Without concessions you're basically fighting until one side has taken every possible consequence. This could absolutely cripple your entire group of players for several sessions, severe and moderate consequences stick around for quite awhile, making it that much harder for players to soak up damage they take in the future. Without Concessions you could easily find all your players failing even the mildest of challenges in the long run.
EDIT: Forgot to add, Concessions also let you plan deaths in your campaign. You can set up some very dramatic moments, if/when I do decided if I want to off a PC, I'll likely ask the player ahead of time and let them in on it. I think It's fun to have little secrets with some of the players that the rest of the group doesn't know about.
-
JDK002: I have already come to terms with this rule and I am going to start it the way we discussed earlier in this thread but just a bunch of thoughts: I agree that PCs are able to wreak havoc and destroy all GM's plans. We all probably know it and have lived through it personally. On the other hand I wouldn't tell my players "Well, Mr. Villain has just conceded so let's say it happened so and so." We aren't used to such meta conversation so if I really wanted to save the villain I would just change the path of planned events without ever mentioning a concession. And I would have done it before I even knew about the concession rule – in fact I have already done it a few times. The story mustn't be more important than the PCs but if the PCs are going to tear it apart completely the GM is there for saving the fun for all. In my opinion the GM is fully entitled to cheat on behalf of the players' fun.
As for the second paragraph: Again, I, as a GM, am entitled to modify the scene and even my rolls as the scene needs. So if the thugs designed as a minor hindrance came out killing the party off, let's just weaken them a bit, worsen their rolls, make them less able. If they, on the other hand, are ridiculously weak, ok, let there be, for instance, a sniper on the roof. The PCs have to take cover and possibly a more indirect route to their goals. Nothing is more variable in my combat than the opposition. In my opinion improvisation is one of the biggest powers of the GM and should be applied constantly for creating tension and fun. And of course the players shouldn't know about it :-)
That said, this applies to my table and others may favour different approaches.
-
Concessions should be a negotiation, not an arbitrary decision by any one individual. They also don't need to be accepted.
In my experience, NPC concessions were accepted by the players when a) it's the only way to get what they want (such as information) or b) continuing the conflict has significant risk to the PCs as well as the NPC.
If the NPC doesn't have anything to offer and is facing almost certain take out with little chance of taking one or more PCs out there's simply no reason to negotiate.
-
If the player concedes in a room full of RC vamps and you can't think of anything other than killing the PC, I recommend roleplaying more creative vampires ;)
-
In a game designed to create player fun, rather than simulate reality or present challenges with objective neutrality, the GM shouldn't find themselves in a position where cheating is necessary to achieve player fun.
The game has lots of options available for a creative GM. NPC too powerful? Look fir a way to Self compel and take a fate point for later.
-
I consider Concessions a means to drive it home that characters dying (PC's and major NPC's) is a very big deal and shouldn't be taken lightly. Concessions gives you an actual mechanic to get around accidental deaths when their doesn't seem to be any other choice but to kill the character. This can be a godsend for GM's, there are several threads that talk about how major villain npc's that the GM planned to use for the next several months of play got utterly stomped dead by the players in 2 rounds of combat. Concessions give you an out when the players are about to throw months of planning down the drain.
On the player side, it gives you some flexibility in your encounters. Nothing is less fun than figuring out halfway through a fight that you grossly overpowered your mooks and your players are getting torn apart. Also other than mild consequences, they stick around for a long time causing problems for the players. Without concessions you're basically fighting until one side has taken every possible consequence. This could absolutely cripple your entire group of players for several sessions, severe and moderate consequences stick around for quite awhile, making it that much harder for players to soak up damage they take in the future. Without Concessions you could easily find all your players failing even the mildest of challenges in the long run.
EDIT: Forgot to add, Concessions also let you plan deaths in your campaign. You can set up some very dramatic moments, if/when I do decided if I want to off a PC, I'll likely ask the player ahead of time and let them in on it. I think It's fun to have little secrets with some of the players that the rest of the group doesn't know about.
This, this and almost this only.
I've had GMs in Dresden in Fate who are just running it like Shadowrun or D&D. Which is like driving a Racecar off road. Possible but not adviced. The basics are the same Wheel (Dice) Engine (Mechanics) and Pcs (wheels) but how they are laid out and what they do are totally different.
I mean this with no malice, but if you've been running Shadowrun or "Classic" or "Traditional" RPGs, Fate/Dresden may need you to take a step back and learn how to drive again.
Instead of dealing with "Chaotic Good" and whatever the heck that means (I still can't get a straight answer out of DnD players, I've been told everything from Batman , Superman, Spiderman, Punisher, and Jesus T Christ (no joke))) you get simpler and more versatile things like "Trouble: No One calls me chicken" or "Red Court Infected", that get your player in trouble.
Trouble is fun.
Safe is boring
And THIS!
Dear god, I love you guys
JDK002: I have already come to terms with this rule and I am going to start it the way we discussed earlier in this thread but just a bunch of thoughts: I agree that PCs are able to wreak havoc and destroy all GM's plans. We all probably know it and have lived through it personally. On the other hand I wouldn't tell my players "Well, Mr. Villain has just conceded so let's say it happened so and so." We aren't used to such meta conversation so if I really wanted to save the villain I would just change the path of planned events without ever mentioning a concession. And I would have done it before I even knew about the concession rule – in fact I have already done it a few times. The story mustn't be more important than the PCs but if the PCs are going to tear it apart completely the GM is there for saving the fun for all. In my opinion the GM is fully entitled to cheat on behalf of the players' fun.
Or you need to role with the flow and be more creative
As for the second paragraph: Again, I, as a GM, am entitled to modify the scene and even my rolls as the scene needs. Then why even role? Spend Fate points, thats why they are there So if the thugs designed as a minor hindrance came out killing the party off, let's just weaken them a bit, worsen their rolls, make them less able. If they, on the other hand, are ridiculously weak, ok, let there be, for instance, a sniper on the roof. The PCs have to take cover and possibly a more indirect route to their goals. Nothing is more variable in my combat than the opposition. In my opinion improvisation is one of the biggest powers of the GM and should be applied constantly for creating tension and fun. And of course the players shouldn't know about it :-)
That said, this applies to my table and others may favour different approaches.
If the player concedes in a room full of RC vamps and you can't think of anything other than killing the PC, I recommend roleplaying more creative vampires ;)
-
I mean this with no malice, but if you've been running Shadowrun or "Classic" or "Traditional" RPGs, Fate/Dresden may need you to take a step back and learn how to drive again.
Which is why I'm here in the first place :-) But there is also some power of habit and even taste, both on my side and on side of my players. We have been gaming together for twenty years already. There is a Czech proverb: "An old dog won't learn any new tricks." Well, I think we will learn them but the change has to be gradual and I'll have to find a compromise between "new ways of gaming" and "old ways of having fun".
As for alignments and such things we have been ignoring these for a long time. The PC has to have detailed background information and that defines some of his motivations. The difference from DFRPG is we have been doing this on a different level - just as pure roleplaying and decision of the player. Not as a game mechanics which could be invoked or compelled.
-
I'd suggest picking up a Fate core book then.
Really, you as the GM are just their as a referee. The main p,OT and story should come from city creation (which IS a group thing) and character creation (which should be done as a group)
There's this whole concept of kickers and bangs,
Kickers are the back story.
bangs are the complications that follow it.
Example
Kicker: Harry's Mom had an affair with a White Court Vampire
bang: that vampire Harrys been working with, turns out to be his half brother
Try and use those as "plot points" during character and city creation.
Oh this is where the Giant was buried, his brothers in town for the funeral.
You're PC used to be in a Vampire Biker Gang, well the rest of them rode into town
A lot of older games are pregen adventures or are the GMs failed novel ( I got stuck in a game where the GM used the plot of his failed novel and tried to make our characters do what our secrect novel counterparts would do. So far as making players take powers they didn't want and rail reading us through his masterpiece )
So the "story" you have to tell is not as important as what the players are doing. If I kill your big bad guy in the 1st session, you should just deal with it and move on. You shouldn't cheat dice rolls because you can't Handel him losing story wise
-
I've already downloaded the core rules but I'm still busy reading DFRPG between necessary excursions to real life (work, for instance :-) I'm not that quick.
Besides that I think that there's some misunderstanding between us, based on this imperfect medium of a webforum – if we were to meet and/or even game together we would find common ground very quickly I think. I agree with most of what you have said, especially with that "failed novel" concept. This is exactly what happens when the story becomes more important than the PCs. Maybe it doesn't seem so from my previous posts but I'm really not that kind of GM. Or I hope at least :-) You presented the kicker/bang concept – but that's exactly what I'm doing, believe me. If you know Shadowrun, there (at least in the 2nd edition) were those 20 questions every player had to answer about his character. We have been using these (plus an at least page long text on the character's background) for many many years. In many systems and settings. And of course that I, as a GM, make use of this information extensively. Nothing hooks a PC into a story better than incorporating elements from his background. No story is better than a story based either on previous game events or facts important to the PC. Preferably both.
On the other hand I see no problem with using pregen adventures or my own story ideas, either. A good GM, I am convinced, should be able to weave ideas from a pregen adventure with loose ends of PCs' background information to create fun for the whole table. There are many approaches, and again, I'm for using them, combining them. There's nothing bad in pushing the game sometimes in one or another direction, if it is done sparingly and in a discreet and unobtrusive way (now I had to consult my dictionary for expressions, so I hope I chose the right words).
As for the Big Bad Guy example from your last paragraph – I think, it again depends on how and how often the GM does this. There are extremes and there are decent and fun-friendly ways. If the PCs are going to kill BBG, you have to react in any case – either modify (read: cheat) the story now and let him escape (thus creating a kicker) only to harass the PCs later (bang) or let the action take its course now, with BBG possibly dying (kicker), and letting BBG's henchmen harass the PCs later (bang). This is an example but I hope you undestand me. There's nothing about any competition between the GM and the players or about making the "failed novel" be more important than the PCs, really. It can be done both ways and both ways may provide good fun if done properly. This is, at least, my experience, both as a GM and a player.
There are really some issues with FATE I'm trying to solve here but they are on a different level, I think. The first one is blurring the line between "narrator" and "stars". We have already addressed that in previous posts and I'm starting to be curious how this change will work out for us. And the other are some meta elements or meta GM-player conversations in those parts of the game that have been solved in our group on the level of role-playing and in-character interaction. Again, I'm not saying that it's bad per se. It's just very different from what we are used to and I'm a bit worried what impact this will have on people (including me) who have already done it in a different way for years.
Please, don't take this post amiss. Your insights are very appreciated, thanks a lot! I'm just trying to clarify the situation and my point of view.
-
I think I understand where you are comming from. When I used to play games I was mostly there for the "smash and grab" feel of it. I didnt care much for story but I developed my character and such as you have described. Only recently have I started to branch out and play games that are more story focused and require more narative thought on my part as the PC. I find it is a good thing to try out and I would love for you to let us know how it goes for you.
It may take a little while for you and your group to get used to the concept, but until then you can run it the same way you are used to running games. Its only recently that the group that I play with have started to understand the rules better and have taken narative control a little bit. But even with this our GM still has final say over what happens.
-
Based on what you have been saying on this thread, my one biggest suggestion is this: you keep talking about the way you and your players are "used to playing", so my advice is to ignore all of that. Accept that this will be something very different and let your players know that ahead of time. Forget the way you've been playing and take it as a new experience.
Once you and your players get used to the core system of the game, then start pulling on past experiences as inspiration to enhance the game for both you and your players.
As for the meta-interaction between players and GM, you can mostly keep this in game if you want. All you really need to do is announce Concession, then continue to roleplay. Just let players know before you start your game is that what happens in your "Concession phases" must stand. This should work fairly well since you said you have played with your group for years, so you should have a good idea of what they would accept as a good Concession and vice-versa.
I honestly feel you're just over thinking the whole situtation instead of just rolling with it.
-
I honestly feel you're just over thinking the whole situtation instead of just rolling with it.
Heh, you have just assessed one of my core aspects :-) Yeah, I may be thinking too much. On the other hand this conversation helped me to sort things out quite a lot. So it was really useful for me.
Lavecki121: I think we are on the same page. And I will definitely relate my experience.
-
Okay read this
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?122138-Actual-Play-Sorcerer-Intrigue-in-Mu-s-Bed-%28Paula-and-Rob%29
In your example, the villain running away to fight another day, wouldnt be a kicker or boom.
The Villain eating it would be a kicker, the boom would be He dies and the wards be maintains on his "Evil Zoo" go down wrecking havoc on the city. Or the Villain dies, and HIS boss comes into town looking for him
Also
Shadowrun ≠ Dresden or Fate
You say you in Shadowrun you have your characters fill out a questionnaire, thats great. Whats better is the Aspect system Dresden has. Because "Question: Where are you from? Answer: Texas" isnt as awesome as Aspect "Dont Mess with Texas"
I'm sure you're a fine GM, but I think you need to watch some examples of Dresden, or listen to some Real Play Podcasts.
I don't know if it's possible but drop in or play in another Dresden game with a Fate Experienced GM
I've already downloaded the core rules but I'm still busy reading DFRPG between necessary excursions to real life (work, for instance :-) I'm not that quick.
Besides that I think that there's some misunderstanding between us, based on this imperfect medium of a webforum – if we were to meet and/or even game together we would find common ground very quickly I think. I agree with most of what you have said, especially with that "failed novel" concept. This is exactly what happens when the story becomes more important than the PCs. Maybe it doesn't seem so from my previous posts but I'm really not that kind of GM. Or I hope at least :-) You presented the kicker/bang concept – but that's exactly what I'm doing, believe me. If you know Shadowrun, there (at least in the 2nd edition) were those 20 questions every player had to answer about his character. We have been using these (plus an at least page long text on the character's background) for many many years. In many systems and settings. And of course that I, as a GM, make use of this information extensively. Nothing hooks a PC into a story better than incorporating elements from his background. No story is better than a story based either on previous game events or facts important to the PC. Preferably both.
On the other hand I see no problem with using pregen adventures or my own story ideas, either. A good GM, I am convinced, should be able to weave ideas from a pregen adventure with loose ends of PCs' background information to create fun for the whole table. There are many approaches, and again, I'm for using them, combining them. There's nothing bad in pushing the game sometimes in one or another direction, if it is done sparingly and in a discreet and unobtrusive way (now I had to consult my dictionary for expressions, so I hope I chose the right words).
As for the Big Bad Guy example from your last paragraph – I think, it again depends on how and how often the GM does this. There are extremes and there are decent and fun-friendly ways. If the PCs are going to kill BBG, you have to react in any case – either modify (read: cheat) the story now and let him escape (thus creating a kicker) only to harass the PCs later (bang) or let the action take its course now, with BBG possibly dying (kicker), and letting BBG's henchmen harass the PCs later (bang). This is an example but I hope you undestand me. There's nothing about any competition between the GM and the players or about making the "failed novel" be more important than the PCs, really. It can be done both ways and both ways may provide good fun if done properly. This is, at least, my experience, both as a GM and a player.
There are really some issues with FATE I'm trying to solve here but they are on a different level, I think. The first one is blurring the line between "narrator" and "stars". We have already addressed that in previous posts and I'm starting to be curious how this change will work out for us. And the other are some meta elements or meta GM-player conversations in those parts of the game that have been solved in our group on the level of role-playing and in-character interaction. Again, I'm not saying that it's bad per se. It's just very different from what we are used to and I'm a bit worried what impact this will have on people (including me) who have already done it in a different way for years.
Please, don't take this post amiss. Your insights are very appreciated, thanks a lot! I'm just trying to clarify the situation and my point of view.
-
Here's an example of the difference between Shadowrun and FATE.
In Shadowrun you might draw a map of the target, complete with strong points and weak spots. If the characters study the map they might notice that building Y blocks the line of sight from guard post G - finding the weak point that the GM inserted into the security plans.
In FATE, as the characters study the map (or approach the building) one of them can Declare that he finds a weak point right. That is, he finds a flaw in the system that didn't exist until he introduced it to play.
Going from one to the other can require a mind shift from both GM and players. Sometimes it can be harder for the players to accept that they are supposed to make declarations and assessments than for the GM to allow the players to add to the setting.
Richard
-
Here's an example of the difference between Shadowrun and FATE.
In Shadowrun you might draw a map of the target, complete with strong points and weak spots. If the characters study the map they might notice that building Y blocks the line of sight from guard post G - finding the weak point that the GM inserted into the security plans.
In FATE, as the characters study the map (or approach the building) one of them can Declare that he finds a weak point right. That is, he finds a flaw in the system that didn't exist until he introduced it to play.
Going from one to the other can require a mind shift from both GM and players. Sometimes it can be harder for the players to accept that they are supposed to make declarations and assessments than for the GM to allow the players to add to the setting.
Richard
This
-
I think some of the previous posts have summed it up very nicely. Thanks for them.
-
Hi, I'll revive this topic as my main question channel. So, we've finally started playing. The city creation phase was a bit different from what the core book describes because my players took it just for brainstorming and kept coming up with ideas. That was ok, I concentrated on the next few steps. And last week we entered the actual playing.
I have two questions now:
1) Enchanted items: One of the characters has an enchanted revolver that grants him a bonus when active. If he kills a human being with this item when it's active, is he breaking the First Law?
2) Another character is a werewolf. I'm a bit puzzled by the Catch. His Catch grants him a +3 discount on Toughness/Recovery abilities. Does that mean that he can buy Supernatural Toughness at a cost of -1? Or is the werewolf stuck with the Inhuman level of it, whatever the discount would be?
Thanks a lot!
-
1. Up to you...though the way the Warden's Sword works implies it won't give Lawbreaker, since that's what they do and they are explicitly used so as not to get Lawbreaker.
2. Again, up to you (since the character's already off the official template...which is fine). Mechanically, there's certainly no reason he couldn't or shouldn't get Supernatural Toughness if that's what he wants.
A typical solution if that seems over the top is getting both Inhuman Toughness and Inhuman Recovery for a total of -1 since The Catch applies to both. That gives a good selection of powers (and full value on The Catch) without anything too overpowering on its own.
-
1) As stated above it's debatable, thus up to the GM. If it were my game and the express enchantment of the gun was to kill things, yes I would likely call Lawbreaker if he killed a human, BUT only if the player used the enchantment effect on the target.
Even if I didn't want to slap them with lawbreaker, their would still be hell to pay from a role playing standpoint. Even if it was by mundain means.
The real important thing is to avoid lawbreaker arguements with players. The easiest way to do that is to condition your players to avoid killing humans as all costs haha.
-
The real important thing is to avoid lawbreaker arguements with players.
I agree with this.
The easiest way to do that is to condition your players to avoid killing humans as all costs haha.
I could not disagree with this more. The easiest way to avoid this is to make explicit what rules you are using. What degree of killing humans is acceptable should vary based on the nature of the game, and should be perfectly acceptable in most under combat conditions if you wish to mimic the source material.
-
Ok, thanks for your insights. I went with the turned-on enchanted item being magical and possibly law breaking. The player uses his gun turned off and is very happy when the inhuman nature of the opponent allows him to turn in on. Everyone is happy :-)