ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: cold_breaker on July 03, 2013, 01:33:42 PM
-
OK, so I've been mulling this over for a bit. There is an old standby that says that if failing a roll wouldn't result in anything, don't call for a roll. I generally interpret it as thus:
1) If the roll has no real relevance to the campaign, don't call for a roll
2) If the PC can't possibly fail or succeed, don't call for a roll
3) (Recently learned) If the player has recently made the roll doing something similar, don't call for a roll. Use the recent result instead.
Now, that said, I wanted advice on how to handle a scene. I was planning on having an NPC introduce himself by essentially showing the groups seer a vision of hope - considering her visions are by nature always graphic, horrible and depressing, this should come as quite a shock. I was considering this as a mental attack that would place an aspect on her for the duration of the story and hopefully suggest a new permanent aspect in the future. I'm considering this as an autotakeout - so I'm thinking I have three options:
A) Big mental attack, enough to one shot her mental stress attack. Give her the option of trying to fight it off, but compel her not to.
B) Massive mental attack. Don't bother letting her roll as per the rules above.
C) Find another mechanical way of modeling this?
I should mention, this is a plot device, not really screwing the players over so much as making sure they pay attention to the badass NPC. If I go with A, the Aspect should probably screw her over a little, so I'm leaning towards that, even if I have to compel her with 2-3 Fate points.
My question is, am I trying to railroad the players doing this? I'm new to this and trying to determine how best to accomplish this. The best I can do at the moment seems to be railroading them into wanting something (since as PCs, the players haven't really given their characters much by way of wants, needs or passions.) My best guess on how to handle this situation is to railroad them into a goal, then let them figure out how best to accomplish that goal (while planning out the obstacles to the most obvious routes to that goal and preparing to improvise when they take a less obvious route.)
-
I'd go with an outright compel rather than going through the mental attack. Even if it turns out to be a good thing for her character, I doubt she'd thank you for taking up one of her very valuable consequence slots.
-
It's always an option for the PC to take a consequence, or not. The aspect would be the taken out result, not a consequence of the attack. I'd prefer her not take any consequences from this, but in option A, that'd be an option for her, rather than being taken out.
-
Things like prayers and Cassandra's Tears place an aspect on the World.
Why don't you just have the seer come see the PC. RP out the scene and place a new aspect on the World. You can use this aspect to drive the story, compel the PC's (as the vision inevitably drives itself to become reality) and it lets the PC's steer the story toward that outcome as well by invoking the aspect. The aspect will last the scenario or until things resolve themselves.
-
This is what compels are for. The PCs get a chance to say no (but you can escalate by offering more fate points). Basically, you bribe them to railroad them a little, but ultimately they have a choice.
Also, I think placing the aspect on the world or campaign, like Taran suggested, is better than forcing one on a player. This keeps control of the character in the player's hands.
-
The idea of "don't roll if failure isn't interesting" does not (only) mean that you shouldn't roll if there is nothing happening if you fail the roll, but also that any roll (or any conflict/contest/challenge) should be a fork in the road, not a bottleneck. If you have a bottleneck and fail the roll to pass it, your story is stuck in front of the bottleneck. If you have a fork in the road, then the story will progress no matter if you succeed or fail, it's just a question of how it will progress.
In your case, the vision is sort of important to the story. If the character doesn't get the vision, nothing is going to happen. So I'd make the vision happen without any roll. What happens after that is important. How will the character react? That's also where you could put a compel, in order to make her react to the vision in a certain way.
If you want to make a roll, you could see how she gets the vision. Maybe the connection is gargled, and she only receives it in bits and pieces that warp the message. Instead of "I come in piece" it becomes "I will devour you and everything that is dearest to you". Now that's an interesting turn of events, because the story progresses, but either the character tries to make friends with the NPC or try to kill him.
Can't post this enough:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108546067488075210468/posts/CpvrfJUz8du
;)
-
I think this is more me wanting Cassandra's tears to not be the only plot device. It's almost artistic taste at this point: I want to use something to compliment the broad strokes of that particular brush. Unfortunately, the PCs are a little on the 2D side so far - partially because the players are still used to D20 style gameplay, and partially perhaps because we haven't had too much time to flesh out personalities yet.
In this case, I'd like to play on the nature of her visions and make the vision a direct result of his actions, but I see what you mean. This should be about a massive compel of her concept, rather than an attack on her stress track. Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a character when I'm supposed to be the GM. I still like basing my actions as being a result of an NPCs actions though...
-
If it helps you: Cassandra's tears isn't the plot device, this specific vision is. The player can use cassandra's tears himself, like Taran said, by putting aspects on the city that represent visions he came up with himself.
-
The idea of "don't roll if failure isn't interesting" does not (only) mean that you shouldn't roll if there is nothing happening if you fail the roll, but also that any roll (or any conflict/contest/challenge) should be a fork in the road, not a bottleneck. If you have a bottleneck and fail the roll to pass it, your story is stuck in front of the bottleneck. If you have a fork in the road, then the story will progress no matter if you succeed or fail, it's just a question of how it will progress.
I agree with this, with an addendum that a bottleneck can be interesting if there's something chasing you to it. Trying to force open a door while ghouls are on your tail, for instance.
In your case, the vision is sort of important to the story. If the character doesn't get the vision, nothing is going to happen. So I'd make the vision happen without any roll. What happens after that is important. How will the character react? That's also where you could put a compel, in order to make her react to the vision in a certain way.
Speaking as a GM who has a character who's a seer, yeah, this is how I do it--I give out visions without a roll, and usually offer a fate point if there's going to be some tangible result to the vision. If the seer has a mental consequence as a result, for example. In one case, the trauma of the vision let her be knocked out and captured, and that was worth a fate point.
If you want to make a roll, you could see how she gets the vision. Maybe the connection is gargled, and she only receives it in bits and pieces that warp the message. Instead of "I come in piece" it becomes "I will devour you and everything that is dearest to you". Now that's an interesting turn of events, because the story progresses, but either the character tries to make friends with the NPC or try to kill him.
Or do it like The Sight--you see the whole vision, but a lore roll determines how much of it you understand.
-
I agree with this, with an addendum that a bottleneck can be interesting if there's something chasing you to it. Trying to force open a door while ghouls are on your tail, for instance.
There's a difference between a bottleneck for the characters ("There is only one exit"), and a bottleneck in the story.
Your example still presents 2 valid options: You escape or you get caught by the ghouls and brought to their master. The bottleneck I am talking about would be if you needed to get into the house first to make something happen, or get the information that there is something important in the house, and you fail the roll to obtain it. Everything comes to a screeching halt.
Also, there is one quote I really liked: "Before there was a riding skill, nobody fell of a horse". ;D
-
If it helps you: Cassandra's tears isn't the plot device, this specific vision is. The player can use cassandra's tears himself, like Taran said, by putting aspects on the city that represent visions he came up with himself.
I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.
-
I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.
The reason Cassandra's Tears doesn't have a cost is because it has a built-in penalty. Never forget that. The player should always have an uphill battle convincing anyone of the character's visions. If the character declares a vision through Cassandra's Tears, that means everyone else should actively disbelieve them. I know, it might be hard with the metagame, but without that penalty the power isn't being used right.
So even if a character declares through a vision something that will work in their favor, they'll still have to work to take advantage of it because nobody will believe them and help them take advantage of it.
-
The reason Cassandra's Tears doesn't have a cost is because it has a built-in penalty. Never forget that. The player should always have an uphill battle convincing anyone of the character's visions. If the character declares a vision through Cassandra's Tears, that means everyone else should actively disbelieve them. I know, it might be hard with the metagame, but without that penalty the power isn't being used right.
So even if a character declares through a vision something that will work in their favor, they'll still have to work to take advantage of it because nobody will believe them and help them take advantage of it.
I'm ok with declarations in a vision to some extent - but players initiating a vision seems like it's pushing it - even with the -2 to get people to believe it. Could be gamed way too easily. For instance:
Good - The GM says 'you have a vision! Billy the NPC will try to backstab you!"
Player - *making a declaration* 'But not until after we get the kid to safety!'
Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'
-
I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.
Well, what the power does is something that any player can do at any time. Everyone at the table can say "Hey, I would like to have X happen at some point." And you can then put that up as an aspect for your game. The only thing that cassandra's tears does, really, is to give this knowledge to the character as well.
Good - The GM says 'you have a vision! Billy the NPC will try to backstab you!"
Player - *making a declaration* 'But not until after we get the kid to safety!'
Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'
Honestly, I think the declaration you marked as bad might even be the more interesting one. It is a great plot hook. Are the characters the only ones after the chalice? Damn their luck, somebody else found it before they did and recognized it for what it is. The whole beginning of the adventure then and there. Brilliant.
The "good" declaration is something that I would see in a concession. You have a social challenge where Billy is setting everything up to backstab you, but before he can take you out, you concede for the kid to get to safety before it happens. Doesn't really work as a declaration, I think.
-
Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'
To add onto what Haru said, the proper application of Cassandra's Tears would then have all the rest of the PCs going something along the lines of, "That's just ridiculous, the holy grail isn't going to be in some old lady's garage. We'll keep checking the museums."
With Cassandra's Tears, if a player makes a declaration, the power ensures that the whole world is actively working against him taking advantage of it.
-
With Cassandra's Tears, if a player makes a declaration, the power ensures that the whole world is actively working against him taking advantage of it.
I think this is more my problem with the system then - the scope of which players have control of the story is a bit much for my tastes. I like to keep players declarations within reason - 1 fate point is enough to make small declarations (an object that makes sense being in a location is explicitly there, someone forgot to lock a door, etc.) not huge changes such as might rule out any obstacles I may have planned out for the PCs, such as the item no longer being in the possession of the bad guy, or X character knowing where and what the PCs are after.
-
Cassandra's Tears is difficult to work with as a GM. I have a player with it in my game and it's challenging coming up with visions that the psychic will believe, but that could be misinterpreted badly enough that the other players don't have to work too hard to ignore it.
In any event, the real difficulty is that the players know the vision is true, even if the characters don't believe it. You need your players to be totally on board with handicapping themselves by RPing against what they know to be true.
-
I think this is more my problem with the system then - the scope of which players have control of the story is a bit much for my tastes. I like to keep players declarations within reason - 1 fate point is enough to make small declarations (an object that makes sense being in a location is explicitly there, someone forgot to lock a door, etc.) not huge changes such as might rule out any obstacles I may have planned out for the PCs, such as the item no longer being in the possession of the bad guy, or X character knowing where and what the PCs are after.
Well, that's easy to handle. There's no rule that you have to accept a declaration, even a FP one. In fact, the rules on the subject say
This gives you the ability
to create things in a story that would usually be
under the GM’s purview. Typically, these things
can’t be used to drastically change the plot or
win a scene.Declaring “Doctor Keiser drops dead of
a heart attack” is not only likely to be rejected
by the GM, it wouldn’t even be that much fun
to begin with. Declarations are better suited
to creating convenient coincidences. Does your
character need a lighter (but doesn’t smoke)?
Spend a fate point and you’ve got one! Is there
an interesting scene happening over there that
your character might miss? Spend a fate point to
declare you arrive at a dramatically appropriate
moment!
Your GM has veto power over this use, but
it has one dirty little secret. If you use it to do
something to make the game cooler for everyone,
the GM will usually grant far more leeway than
she will for something boring or, worse, selfish.
As a general rule, you’ll get a lot more lenience
from the GM if you make a declaration that is in
keeping with one or more of your aspects. For
example, the GM will usually balk at letting a
character spend a fate point to have a weapon
after he’s been searched for them. However, if
you can point out that you’re Always Armed
or describe how your Distracting Beauty
kept the guard’s attention on inappropriate
areas, the GM is more likely to give you some
leeway. (This is much like invoking an aspect,
but without a die roll.)
-
I guess that puts me back at where I started - that declared visions, while not specifically against the rules - would probably by and large be vetoed unless they were extremely clever ways of making the story more interesting then I originally planned.
Actually, on another note: it occurs to me that if you don't like the meta of pretending to not believe a prophecy then there's another way you could play the downside - perhaps sometimes the prophecies are randomly symbolic? For instance, if you see a city in flames, that could mean that the city is going to literally burn, or it could mean that the important relic is at a shop in the city called 'in flames' - or that the hot chick you met at the bar last week is in the city. I'd need to think up some ways to keep it so the vision is still somehow useful - but it's a zero refresh power - it's not like the visions always HAVE to be useful after all.
-
If the GM can't trust their players, then they should be using a different system. Attempting to deceive your players runs directly contrary to the foundations of the DFrpg ruleset.
-
If the GM can't trust their players, then they should be using a different system. Attempting to deceive your players runs directly contrary to the foundations of the DFrpg ruleset.
And yet, telling all of the details of a story runs directly contradictory to the whole idea of the Dresden Files.
I think you're taking the idea to its bitter extremes unnecessarily. Part of telling a story is leaving out enough details until the end. Even the one shots have red herrings suggested in them. In this case, it's not that I can't trust my players per say, it's more that trusting them would turn a role playing game into a session of improv leading to a foregone conclusion - possibly fun, but not really in the spirit of a RPG. It's more fun if I can add in twists that completely change the players endings: and so far my players seem to agree with me on that front to be honest. During the one shot I ran before running my own game, I had complaints that the players knew the ending about half way through.
I'm not saying the players shouldn't have some control, or even a lot of control of the story, but their is a limit to their power at some point, or else it's just dungeons in dragons in god mode, isn't it?
-
I think you are seriously misunderstanding me.
You don't have to give your players complete control over, or even complete foreknowledge of your plans. Just don't lie to them.
If you want to have visions that are difficult to interpret, have the character roll Lore to interpret the information. Success reveals one or more Aspects related to the subject matter of the vision. Failure indicates that the character cannot make sense of the vision and no Aspects are revealed. Alternatively, allow the player to boost the roll, gaining access to one of the above-mentioned Aspects by also having an Aspect placed on their character representing an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of the vision that will cause problems later (those problems being represented by Compels against that Aspect).
If you actually want the character to come to a mistaken conclusion regarding the vision, simply Compel them from the start, skip the roll, and deceive the character rather than the player.
It's really difficult to maintain a mystery for long in the DFrpg without ignoring the rules, twisting them into knots, or breaking them outright. The system simply isn't suited to it. If that's what you and your players are after, you'd be better off in a different system.
-
I'm not trying to imply I will lie to the characters - just that I will make it that I'm not giving the players metagame knowledge and then trust them to pretend they don't know it. Essentially you're right - the vision I describe will be weird, symbolic, and ultimately fluff so that the person with the vision - if they fail to interpret it - can start claiming rediculous things if they roll low. If they roll high, then they can interpret it correctly and start claiming ridiculous things that are actually true.
The best part of this is it works well with the idea of sliding difficulties - they're never quite sure how well they did. If they roll terribly they might just get a nightmare vision and simply know something important is gonna happen. If they roll badly, they can get a bit of facts that may or may not be misleading. If they roll adequate, they can get the correct meaning, and if they roll excellently they can be absolutely sure of the vision and possibly even place an aspect on the vision for use later - such as knowing just where to stand to avoid getting shot, or getting even more, unnecessary info.
I should mention again, so I don't mislead you. In this situation, I'm not lying to my players, just not telling them exactly how well they succeeded. You'd give vague answers at this point unless they rolled extremely well or extremely badly.
-
You don't have to give your players complete control over, or even complete foreknowledge of your plans. Just don't lie to them.
I kinda have to disagree with this. Partly, admittedly, because one of my players (who will normally throttle me if I so much as allude to a spoiler about anything else), has an infuriating habit of turning to me while we're playing and asking things like, "Oh, is this vampire my long-lost relative?"
I agree with cold_breaker--a big part of the appeal and fun of the Dresden verse is mystery, solving the mystery, and finding out twists toward the end. So I tend to give my players the information that their characters are given. Usually they come to the right conclusion anyway, or close enough--one player tends to come to a conclusion that's a little left of center from what I've intended, but his ideas are usually better than what I've come up with so I just roll with it and incorporate it into the game.
-
I should mention again, so I don't mislead you. In this situation, I'm not lying to my players, just not telling them exactly how well they succeeded. You'd give vague answers at this point unless they rolled extremely well or extremely badly.
Without having at least a decent idea of how well your character succeeded (or how badly they failed) it becomes difficult, at times impossible, to make the necessary metagame decisions upon which this system is based, such as whether or not to invoke an Aspect to boost your roll.
-
Generally I find it's best to let players know what difficulty they need to match to succeed at a dice roll. It keeps the game moving fast and means that agency remains with the players and they can steer the narrative for their characters.
For the same reason, when I invoke or compel an NPC's aspects, I let the players know what those aspects are.
-
Without having at least a decent idea of how well your character succeeded (or how badly they failed) it becomes difficult, at times impossible, to make the necessary metagame decisions upon which this system is based, such as whether or not to invoke an Aspect to boost your roll.
Ah, now you're getting into a whole different can of worms - should you tell your players how well they need to roll for a success! This is something that the designers of the FATE system have implied strongly, but never actually given a definitive answer.
My answer to this is usually yes - within reason. If a player is trying for an outcome they explicitly know - such as lifting an object, shooting a target, or overcoming an enemies armor - I will gladly tell them. Heck, I'll volunteer the info. If a target is a little hazier - those rolls where the player is fishing for info from the GM (like looking up info at the library, or searching the scene of a crime) then the goals are a little more vague. Again, this is a discretion call - if they want a particular fact from a research roll - say a famous figures birth date, I may give a set target, but not if they cant tell me exactly what they want to know. I'm not going to tell them that there is a reward for hitting a 3, two rewards for hitting a 7, and a ton of stuff for hitting a 10 - they might have a vague idea how thorough they were (e.g. they know what the dice roll was) but that's it.
Many people want to hear that the answer to this is clearly yes, but in the fate system, just like in real life, the answer is not always as clear cut as yes or no.
-
Just an aside, it's always helpful to see other GMs asking and dealing with questions/issues that I myself have with/because of my players from time to time. ;D
-
If a player is trying for an outcome they explicitly know - such as lifting an object, shooting a target, or overcoming an enemies armor
That's not the player trying for an outcome, that's the character. Except that the character doesn't know what Aspects or Fate Points, or 'Tags' are in the first place, and so doesn't need to know how many would need to be involved in order for them to succeed at their task.
If a target is a little hazier - those rolls where the player is fishing for info from the GM (like looking up info at the library, or searching the scene of a crime) then the goals are a little more vague. Again, this is a discretion call - if they want a particular fact from a research roll - say a famous figures birth date, I may give a set target, but not if they cant tell me exactly what they want to know. I'm not going to tell them that there is a reward for hitting a 3, two rewards for hitting a 7, and a ton of stuff for hitting a 10 - they might have a vague idea how thorough they were (e.g. they know what the dice roll was) but that's it.
In doing so, you deny the players the ability to play their characters effectively, evocatively, and often, satisfyingly.
Without such information, they cannot make the necessary decisions as to whether or not they should spend resources that do not exist in the game-world, but nevertheless affect it.
The character is doing research. The player is spending FPs (or not, depending on whether or not the they deem it worth their while).
-
I've found that this is really hard to do right. Fate sort of encourages you to share a lot more than other games do. You get a vision, you know what it is about, but your character interprets it the wrong way and goes on a wild goose chase. All fun and games.
Though sadly, most players are not wired that way. They know what the vision is saying, they are going to pursue it if their character knows it or not. Even if they are compelled to follow the wrong interpretation, they will find the shortest way out of it. It's one shape of Player Paranoia, I believe.
Now I'm not propagating telling players everything. There is value in secrecy. But when there are dice involved, a player should know the stakes. If you don't want to let them know, call it a plot device and leave the dice out of it.
-
Haru: great points. I believe that it is important to the integrity of the story that players don't try and game it - there must be a seperation between what the player knows and what the character knows. What ways have you found in FATE/DFRPG to break players of that behavior?
-
I'll let you know as soon as I find out. :D
Honestly, I believe it requires players with a certain mindset. That mindset can be cultivated to a degree, but often it has to be done against years of negative reinforcement from other games ("you didn't say you look for traps in the 23rd room, so you are dead now."). I can't say I'm completely free of this myself, but I'm working on it. To the point that I am no longer compatible with some of the rules of the older games. In one game I'm in, I just do my thing and the GM figures out how I'm supposed to roll. Next step: introduce them to Fate.
-
Haha...interesting. I think a lot of that comes down to a failure to communicate. That is something that I feel FATE/DFRPG tries to encourage a little more.
-
To the point that I am no longer compatible with some of the rules of the older games. In one game I'm in, I just do my thing and the GM figures out how I'm supposed to roll. Next step: introduce them to Fate.
This. It actually bothers me now that I can't introduce Aspects when they would add to a scene in some other system.
-
That's not the player trying for an outcome, that's the character. Except that the character doesn't know what Aspects or Fate Points, or 'Tags' are in the first place, and so doesn't need to know how many would need to be involved in order for them to succeed at their task.
In doing so, you deny the players the ability to play their characters effectively, evocatively, and often, satisfyingly.
Without such information, they cannot make the necessary decisions as to whether or not they should spend resources that do not exist in the game-world, but nevertheless affect it.
The character is doing research. The player is spending FPs (or not, depending on whether or not the they deem it worth their while).
I disagree. All your doing by telling them explicitly what you're going to give them for certain rolls is turning FATE into a video game. This isn't fallout, where you see three options and if you have a high enough bluff skill you can chose that one, otherwise you chose one of the other two options. In the spirit of Dresden especially, my view of it is the players have to do the best they can with the information they've got, and hope they aren't too far off the mark.
Again, I'm not advocating not telling your players the targets - quite the opposite. By and large you should be telling them - especially if they ask. But if they don't even know IF there is a target? I'm not going to tell them, no.
An example. My players characters walk into a building that they are not sure the fleeing suspect went through - they immediately begin searching for clues that the bad dude came through here. He did by chance, but he covered his tracks well, using some magic talent that the group does not know he has yet. I'll ask for a roll - if the group asks, I'll give them an estimate difficulty - normally it might take a 3 in survival to spot something like that on the average mugger. They roll a 4 and move on, but a 5 or a 6 might have revealed signs of his passing and, possibly, that the tracks were covered magically.
Now why did I do that? Well, firstly, because as a story teller, I think it'd be more interesting if the players (not just their characters) didn't know that the bad guy went that way - but do want to give them a fighting chance of succeeding, even at this early juncture. I also would like them to think outside the box - catch the bad guy with cleverness and guile or else they will simply be outsmarted by the bad guys who make a point to rule out the more obvious ways of defeating them. The bad guy cant exactly out smart them if I just tell them that he's raised the difficulty, can he?
Now, this might not be everyones take on it - but I don't think it ruins anyone's fun to withhold meta game info just because of the fate point system. So I stand by my statement - if they don't know that there IS a target to hit, there's no reason to tell them.
-
In one game I'm in, I just do my thing and the GM figures out how I'm supposed to roll. Next step: introduce them to Fate.
In d&d, I introduced declarations using skill rolls. It worked to an extent. The mechanics are already there for props: high ground gives a +1, flanking a +2 etc..
As they got higher level, the declarations got wilder and more epic. Sometimes it works and sometimes it's a bit weird but it added a certain level of neat.
-
All your doing by telling them explicitly what you're going to give them for certain rolls is turning FATE into a video game.
I think we need a new variant of Godwin's Law for RPG discussions.
Because I've seen this video game comparison a whole lot of times, and it never really makes sense.
-
I think FATE requires that everyone at the table keep a different mindset to mos traditional games. You're playing for the story, good and bad, not to win. So as much as the GM must be able to trust the players to not abuse information, the players must be able to trust that the GM will play fair with events in return.
-
I think we need a new variant of Godwin's Law for RPG discussions.
Because I've seen this video game comparison a whole lot of times, and it never really makes sense.
Hehe. Sorry. Personally I cant help comparing this to playing Warcraft as a kid and using cheat codes - sure, it was fun for a bit... but it was a whole lot more fun when you had to actually work to achieve something, and there was a very real chance of screwing it up. Not sure if it makes sense to you, but to me its a worst case scenario. I think I used Fallout because it's more similar and shows how quickly people game the system even when playing by the rules.
-
No, that doesn't make sense to me.
How does knowing which number you need prevent you from having to work to achieve something?
-
I'm with Sanctaphrax on this. Knowing what I have to do to achieve my goals makes me want to work harder, because I know how to distribute my resources.
-
I disagree. All your doing by telling them explicitly what you're going to give them for certain rolls is turning FATE into a video game.
Explicitly not so.
In Fate, you roll when there is something interesting in the outcome, good or bad. You establish what you want to do and what's going to happen if you fail. After that, you go through with the roll or the conflict, and you know what you are fighting for or against.
That is to say "You get out alive" and "You will be taken prisoner" are examples of success vs. failure. You do not have to tell them that, if they are taken prisoner, they will be sacrificed to a demon, that can be a reveal in setting a later scene.
An example. My players characters walk into a building that they are not sure the fleeing suspect went through - they immediately begin searching for clues that the bad dude came through here. He did by chance, but he covered his tracks well, using some magic talent that the group does not know he has yet. I'll ask for a roll - if the group asks, I'll give them an estimate difficulty - normally it might take a 3 in survival to spot something like that on the average mugger. They roll a 4 and move on, but a 5 or a 6 might have revealed signs of his passing and, possibly, that the tracks were covered magically.
Now why did I do that? Well, firstly, because as a story teller, I think it'd be more interesting if the players (not just their characters) didn't know that the bad guy went that way - but do want to give them a fighting chance of succeeding, even at this early juncture. I also would like them to think outside the box - catch the bad guy with cleverness and guile or else they will simply be outsmarted by the bad guys who make a point to rule out the more obvious ways of defeating them. The bad guy cant exactly out smart them if I just tell them that he's raised the difficulty, can he?
This is a perfect example. What has been gained by not letting them know anything? They are fresh out of clues to follow and are now treading in place.
Instead, make it interesting. If the players fail their check, the suspect is leading them into a trap instead of simply running away. There you have an interesting turn of events.
On a side note, why are they going into the building if they aren't sure if the suspect went in there? This tends to reinforce the "I look for traps" behaviour I was talking about earlier. This, to me, seems far more video gamey than telling the players what's going on. Though I don't like the comparison here either.
Now, this might not be everyones take on it - but I don't think it ruins anyone's fun to withhold meta game info just because of the fate point system. So I stand by my statement - if they don't know that there IS a target to hit, there's no reason to tell them.
If there is no target, there is no scene. Especially with something like a chase, there are great ways you can go. Make it a contest between the fleeing suspect and the players. His magic can come into play there as well, of course, but the players know they are following someone, so let them roll against each other, not just try to hit a number or hit a wall. You can still describe things like "the players are not sure if the suspect went through here", but that is part of a bigger action, and not a bottleneck.
-
All of what Haru said.
In FATE, every bit of the game should be fun, whether the characters succeed or fail. Even failure should progress the plot, and the players should never be left waiting for the GM to provide a hint about what to do next.
-
I really like the Fate Core way of approaching rolling. You want to know this piece of information? Here's the Overcome difficulty. You want to gather information to get the upper hand? Roll to create an advantage, here's the difficulty. If you succeed by enough, you get boosts and other goodies.
Now, I don't always tell my players the difficulty. Specifically when rolling Lore, I'll ask for a roll and pass out a sticky note with the information on it (so they can decide to share it with other players). I like an element of mystery in my games, and my players are okay with it. My group is paranoid, but they're also very interested in telling a good story. As long as the "something bad" which will happen if not played optimally doesn't result in direct harm to the character (instead, it results in a complication of the story), they'll go along with it.
-
I sometimes don't give a target number if time is a factor. I'll say it's a Lore extended test. Each roll is one day and then let them spend the time...it adds tension if they don't know they'll succeed on time
Other times you need to give them a target number. "the target is 5 and the time is one day". So now, if they get a 7, they can use those two spare shifts to reduce how much time it took to find the info. I think that's important.
-
I sometimes don't give a target number if time is a factor. I'll say it's a Lore extended test. Each roll is one day and then let them spend the time...it adds tension if they don't know they'll succeed on time
It adds tension to the game, though, by robbing it (or other factors) from the story.
-
I don't know, this has given me a lot to think about. I'm still not convinced that its always in the best interest of gameplay to always tell players all this matagame info - even if you can trust the players not to metagame, people make honest mistakes. I lean towards getting a package of sticky notes aswell to be honest.
On the other hand, I admit it might not be good for the system, so perhaps I need to find a different way of keeping my stories interesting. Perhaps I'll try giving them as much metagame info as possible and just mix together 2 plots to see if the story develops organically - e.g. if they catch bad guy #1 really quickly and easily, bad guy #2 will screw them over because they didn't stop to kill him earlier.
Either way, it's a lot to think about.
-
I sometimes don't give a target number if time is a factor. I'll say it's a Lore extended test. Each roll is one day and then let them spend the time...it adds tension if they don't know they'll succeed on time
Other times you need to give them a target number. "the target is 5 and the time is one day". So now, if they get a 7, they can use those two spare shifts to reduce how much time it took to find the info. I think that's important.
It adds tension to the game, though, by robbing it (or other factors) from the story.
I just ran across this and thought it might be pertinent: Under scholarship, YS pg 142
One important note: because the GM is not
always obligated to reveal the difficulty of a given
roll, you may not know how much you failed it
by, which means you don’t know how long you’ll
need to research.
Pretty much exactly what I said.
-
Yep, as good as the DFrpg is, there are still some stupid statements in YS.
That philosophy runs directly counter to the very core foundations of the system, and is incompatible with its primary mechanic (the FP economy).
-
I think if I wanted the characters to have false information, I either wouldn't call for a roll at all, or I'd use a compel.
-
Just finished my next session and tried giving out targets for everything. Essentially, I learned a few things.
Firstly, my players spent fate points, whereas before they were mainly hoarding them. This was primarily a combat session (which I learned a few other things about running that are off topic) but I think this was an improvement.
Secondly, in some cases, my players complained that I told them the targets. Now, this was in extreme cases where their target to beat was an 11 (legitimately, there were a group of off screen mages working together to free the BBEG of the fight) - essentially the block was on the level of compel and I think my players would have preferred if I blurred the line and didn't tell them whether it was a compel or just a really wicked number.
I think what this tells me is that every group is different - and not every group enjoys having access to ALL the meta. It's my opinion that you have to find a balance between the two - not telling your players all the meta info does hamstring the system somewhat, but telling them all the info can take away some of the entertainment. Fate is a role playing game, not a chess game. I think - and this is going to be difficult for me - that the trick to telling when not to tell your players the target is to remember that it's not a tool for manipulating them.
-
The difference between a Compel and a high-strength block can only ever be crystal-clear. Compels are negotiated, and as such, cannot be proposed, accepted, or otherwise implemented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening.
-
Tedronai: I think you're getting too hung up on being a rules lawyer in a system that's by it's nature meant to be flexible :)
In this case, the lesson learned is that, if something needs to happen story wise, you CAN handle it by coming up with a good mechanical reason, or you can just add an aspect to the scene instead and compel it. So, in this case, I could come up with an 11 shift magical block that someone has added to the combat from off screen - or I could just say that the block is an aspect that compels the player to do what the block was intended to do anyways. Either way, they will have to pay fp to overcome it (possibly several!) but in the compel scenario you hand wave the actual math and possibly grant the player a fatepoint as a reward for going along with it - or possibly more than one.
Either way, I'd give the players a basic idea of what happened (a magical shield) and they could roll lore to figure out more clues (there are spellcasters nearby!) The GM has narrative power to say how an aspect can be compelled, and even if you wish to up the Ante on a compel.
I think this is what people have been trying to tell me, I only really understood now. You just have to remember that aspects can be on anything, and as a GM, if there isn't one that fits your needs story wise, you can add them on the fly.
-
The difference between a Compel and a high-strength block can only ever be crystal-clear. Compels are negotiated, and as such, cannot be proposed, accepted, or otherwise implemented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening.
To directly respond to this: anything mechanical cannot be proposed, accepted or otherwise implimented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening either. The only difference between doing something by mechanically engineering it, and doing something by simply saying there's an aspect on the scene or enemy that the players have not yet assessed for whatever reason and simply compelling that aspect - is that the second scenario grants a Fatepoint to whoever it is compelled against.
-
The only difference [...] is that the second scenario grants a Fatepoint to whoever it is compelled against.
This is factually incorrect.
Compels also are negotiated and can be refused. A block is not negotiated and cannot be refused.
-
This is factually incorrect.
Compels also are negotiated and can be refused. A block is not negotiated and cannot be refused.
Yeah, but you're splitting hairs. As a GM, you can always increase the compel - and refusing costs fate points. For a block, the players can always use fate points to overcome the block - although they need relevant aspects. So yes, using Fate points you can 'overcome' a powerful block, the same way you can 'overcome' a compel.
In the end, you get more or less the same result, it's just the mechanics are simplier for the GM if you go the compel route.