GURPs vs FATE

[Trippy]

We both know that's not really how Fate is played.

Invoking Aspects, Rerolls, Compels, Refusing Compels, Activating Stunts, Narrative Editting...there is no skirting around the Fate point economy is a completely different paradigm of play, a different way that players must engage with the rules.

I just really don't think it should be controversial statement to acknowledge that certain games are significant shifts from the traditional set up of play for RPGs, and, depending on the experience of players across the hobby, more extreme shifts are going to require more elaborate explanations. I don't even think this has anythig to do with the Storygame vs Narrative vs Traditional RPG debate, except for those who want to draw a box around one specific group and say "this is the entirety of RPGs". I just think the opposite of that, denying that there are obviously different categories of games, as Trippy does obove, is equally divisive and prevents useful communication.

Well it is a controversial statement because it is simply not true to make out that is an entirely different ‘paradigm’ that marks out Fate as being a different category of game to any other roleplaying game. It has a set of conventions that mark it out as being the Fate system, including its own jargon - but it is still a roleplaying game and is fundamentally played like any other roleplaying game with a GM narrating and refereeing, players having agency over their characters, and dice and statistics being used to determine the outcome of actions. Things like Aspects often simply amount to having a +2 on the dice roll, re-rolls have been used in other RPGs (heck even D&D has Advantages/Disadvantages and Inspiration), Stunts aren’t that dissimilar to maneuvers in Mythras either, and Narrative editing have also been done before too. I’m not saying that Fate is not being original in its ideas as a complete package, but it isn’t a new genre of game that marks it as paradigmatically different to any other RPG.

It is not markedly different in the same way that games like Fiasco or Baron Munchausen are - which are structurally different in design and emphasis, even though you still technically play different roles in them.

And it is not divisive at all to say that - by definition, division only happens is when you divide things. I am doing the opposite and, as per practical experience, this works fine with groups I play with. The only division that occurs is online, where people keep arbitrarily insisting that there are categorical differences between particular roleplaying games and systems, and getting annoyed when others don’t accept them. I don’t even see it as practically useful for communication - because it only lends confusion and prolonged threads of discussion as people argue about definitions and whether or not a particular game is one category or not. D&D players can handle Fate or PbtA games without a bat of an eyelid.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well it is a controversial statement because it is simply not true to make out that is an entirely different ‘paradigm’ that marks out Fate as being a different category of game to any other roleplaying game. It has a set of conventions that mark it out as being the Fate system, including its own jargon - but it is still a roleplaying game and is fundamentally played like any other roleplaying game with a GM narrating and refereeing, players having agency over their characters and dice and statistics being used to determine the outcome of actions.

Those very clearly aren't the qualifiers I was discussing. It's all well and good to say it's like these other games because it has these things in common, but that doesn't counter the distinction I was highlighting regarding the rules structure, which clearly is not a matter of jargon. It's simply a fundamentally different approach to interacting with the gameworld through the rules. When that paradign is changed it's going to need explanation, and acknowledging and identifying those distinctions is what makes the explanation easier and fosters communication.

But I wont argue this further; I assume my point has been made and I'm not likely to covince you personally otherwise.

 

[Mankcam]

Well it is a controversial statement because it is simply not true to make out that is an entirely different ‘paradigm’ that marks out Fate as being a different category of game to any other roleplaying game. It has a set of conventions that mark it out as being the Fate system, including its own jargon - but it is still a roleplaying game and is fundamentally played like any other roleplaying game with a GM narrating and refereeing, players having agency over their characters, and dice and statistics being used to determine the outcome of actions. Things like Aspects often simply amount to having a +2 on the dice roll, re-rolls have been used in other RPGs (heck even D&D has Advantages/Disadvantages and Inspiration), Stunts aren’t that dissimilar to maneuvers in Mythras either, and Narrative editing have also been done before too. I’m not saying that Fate is not being original in its ideas as a complete package, but it isn’t a new genre of game that marks it as paradigmatically different to any other RPG.

It is not markedly different in the same way that games like Fiasco or Baron Munchausen are - which are structurally different in design and emphasis, even though you still technically play different roles in them.

And it is not divisive at all to say that - by definition, division only happens is when you divide things. I am doing the opposite and, as per practical experience, this works fine with groups I play with. The only division that occurs is online, where people keep arbitrarily insisting that there are categorical differences between particular roleplaying games and systems, and getting annoyed when others don’t accept them. I don’t even see it as practically useful for communication - because it only lends confusion and prolonged threads of discussion as people argue about definitions and whether or not a particular game is one category or not. D&D players can handle Fate or PbtA games without a bat of an eyelid.

Yeah I tend to agree here, I just tell players new to Fate Core to ask me what they want to do, and I can give them some options on how that can be achieved.

I wouldn't think the bells and whistles in Fate (like Aspects, Stunts, Fate Pts, etc) are really all that different from lots of other rpgs, such as D&D Advantage Dice, Class Features, Mythras Luck Pts, Professions instead of Class/Archetypes, WoD Disciplines, etc.

They are just differences between the rpgs, because they are different rpgs.

I think the biggest jump I had was initially with Mythras by explaining how well you go against the opponent's roll causes a differiential situation which opens up the scope of the amount of options/effects you can do. To an extent this is similar with Conan 2D20, how well you roll generates Momemntum Pts which can be plowed back into that action, or partially saved for other actions.
From memory, I think both Mythras and Conan 2D20 required a bit more explanations to some of my group than Fate Core did.

All these rpgs are different, but it didn't take much explaining to point out where. It didn't mean we mastered them right away, but it was more or less just explanations on how the mechanics worked in a particular game, rather than any major shift in thought paradigm.

The main thing is getting my head around the different jargon used between rpgs- there is a vague lexicon that is used across the hobby which helps, but some games just do their own thing with terminology, and that's where I sometimes struggle to get my head around things as a GM.
Fate Core was a bit of a challenge in this regard, so I can see why some people look at the rules and feel it is dramatically more different than it really is.

 

[robertsconley]

Invoking Aspects, Rerolls, Compels, Refusing Compels, Activating Stunts, Narrative Editting...there is no skirting around the Fate point economy is a completely different paradigm of play, a different way that players must engage with the rules.

Then it would be FUDGE!

 

[Nobby-W]

New D&D player: how does this work?
DM: Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens

New Pendragon player: how does this work?
GM: Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens

New Paranoia player: how does this work?
GM: Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens

New WEG Star Wars player: how does this work?
GM: Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens

New White Wolf player: how does this work?
GM: Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens



New Fate player: how does this work?
(How do you answer this?)

Explaining how aspects work to new players is really FATE's achilles heel. They're a sort of higher-order abstraction, although the way they interact with the game mechanics is fairly straightforward. I think aspects are FATE's key mcguffin, although a part of the problem is that the rules do a poor job of explaining them. I haven't seen any other game that does aspects in quite the way FATE does.

I've come to view FATE as a sort of anti-GURPS, a skinnable meta-system. It is designed to slot in conceits specific to the world in places like aspects, but it does require players to understand how aspects work and how to fit them to their character concept. For the major reason that players have to really understand how aspects work in order to design a character, I don't think it can be usefully characterised as rules-lite, although the game mechanics themselves aren't particularly complex (in spite of the 300-odd page count of the FATE Core rulebook).

There's a brief Howto for aspects I wrote at one point here.

It's still an RPG in that it has a DM and players play characters in an adventure, although I find it a bit more out-there in the thought processes around designing characters and the FATE point economy than (say) Scum and Villainy. My experience is that the second-order ness of aspects makes for a definite conceptual hump to get players over, although if you explain it in terms of the mechanics as above it tends to make a lot more sense than the rulebook.

I was originally going to run the two PbP games with FATE but decided that I didn't want to have to get the players over the hump of understanding how to design aspects. I might run a shorter game with FATE as an intro at some point, though.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Explaining how aspects work to new players is really FATE's achilles heel.

This is honestly one of the biggest hurdles I have anytime I try to delve into a game like this. I don't know why or what it is. But something about the language and concept of 'aspects' (and similar concepts in other games) have always given me a hard time. It takes me forever to grasp them, and then it slips away shortly after I think I have it figured out

 

[Nobby-W]

This is honestly one of the biggest hurdles I have anytime I try to delve into a game like this. I don't know why or what it is. But something about the language and concept of 'aspects' (and similar concepts in other games) have always given me a hard time. It takes me forever to grasp them, and then it slips away shortly after I think I have it figured out

Try it from this approach - understand how they interact with the game mechanics and then design stuff in terms of how you want the character to work. You can start from the effects you want outwards and then work into the aspects themselves (see also stunts). There's a short blurb I wrote at one point linked below.

Games that intimidate the hell out of you

You and @Baulderstone bring up an interesting phenomenon, the Millenial’s complete ignorance of times other than their own. Playing Boot Hill even as a grade-schooler I wouldn’t have thought the Sheriff’s office had a telephone. It seems like they don’t even teach American History anymore, let...

www.rpgpub.com

 

[robertsconley]

Of all the things in Fate, aspects seems to me be the most straightforward. A bundle of attribute (dictionary definition) that describe a place, person, object, or concept within the setting of the campaign. If it is applicable then you can invoke it, pay a fate point, and gain a +2 bonus. If it complicate matters then you can compel it, accepted you gain a fate point and roleplay it out.

Personally in my take, I just ditch the Fate Point part and retain the aspect as a umbrella term to above GURPS or Hero System big old list of advantages, quirks, and disadvantage. If it helps it helps, if it complicates, it complicates keeping everything as much as possible in-game not worry about some fiddly meta-game mechanic that forces you to track a number. If I developed it further I would have had a bunch of setting and genre stuff described in mechanics linked together by various aspects that described their place in the genre or setting.

What I like about the idea behind aspects is you describe things just how they are in the setting (or genre). If they are nothing but benefits then that how it is. If it is mostly complications then that OK. But most are like how thing in life, a mixed bag of benefits and complications. Sure as a member of the Order of Thoth you get to learn and use the Shield of Magic to render yourself to any arcane spell that effects you directly like a charm or a polymorph. But one complication is that you are now part of an order with a hierarchy, social norms, and a code.

I like GURPS but I get tired of having to categorizing things especially when situation become nuanced. Fate style aspects seem to fit the bill. However the metagame mechanics of fate point wrapped around them obscures their benefit.

Finally what good are aspects if you don't have something like Fate Points associated with them. Simply they are a structure around which to organize the roleplaying and mechanical details of your setting. A light structure to be sure but still something to fall back on to organize things.

 

[TristramEvans]

Of all the things in Fate, aspects seems to me be the most straightforward. A bundle of attribute (dictionary definition) that describe a place, person, object, or concept within the setting of the campaign. If it is applicable then you can invoke it, pay a fate point, and gain a +2 bonus. If it complicate matters then you can compel it, accepted you gain a fate point and roleplay it out.

Personally in my take, I just ditch the Fate Point part and retain the aspect as a umbrella term to above GURPS or Hero System big old list of advantages, quirks, and disadvantage. If it helps it helps,

lol, you're pretty much describing Fate 2nd edition.

It's third edition that went off the rails with the Fate point economy.

 

[AsenRG]

lol, you're pretty much describing Fate 2nd edition.

It's third edition that went off the rails with the Fate point economy.

OSR Fate?

 

[ffilz]

Of all the things in Fate, aspects seems to me be the most straightforward. A bundle of attribute (dictionary definition) that describe a place, person, object, or concept within the setting of the campaign. If it is applicable then you can invoke it, pay a fate point, and gain a +2 bonus. If it complicate matters then you can compel it, accepted you gain a fate point and roleplay it out.

Personally in my take, I just ditch the Fate Point part and retain the aspect as a umbrella term to above GURPS or Hero System big old list of advantages, quirks, and disadvantage. If it helps it helps, if it complicates, it complicates keeping everything as much as possible in-game not worry about some fiddly meta-game mechanic that forces you to track a number. If I developed it further I would have had a bunch of setting and genre stuff described in mechanics linked together by various aspects that described their place in the genre or setting.

What I like about the idea behind aspects is you describe things just how they are in the setting (or genre). If they are nothing but benefits then that how it is. If it is mostly complications then that OK. But most are like how thing in life, a mixed bag of benefits and complications. Sure as a member of the Order of Thoth you get to learn and use the Shield of Magic to render yourself to any arcane spell that effects you directly like a charm or a polymorph. But one complication is that you are now part of an order with a hierarchy, social norms, and a code.

I like GURPS but I get tired of having to categorizing things especially when situation become nuanced. Fate style aspects seem to fit the bill. However the metagame mechanics of fate point wrapped around them obscures their benefit.

Finally what good are aspects if you don't have something like Fate Points associated with them. Simply they are a structure around which to organize the roleplaying and mechanical details of your setting. A light structure to be sure but still something to fall back on to organize things.

I love this take in the idea. And of course it totally meshes with your ideas on sandboxes...

 

[chuckdee]

We both know that's not really how Fate is played.

Invoking Aspects, Rerolls, Compels, Refusing Compels, Activating Stunts, Narrative Editting...there is no skirting around the Fate point economy is a completely different paradigm of play, a different way that players must engage with the rules.

I just really don't think it should be controversial statement to acknowledge that certain games are significant shifts from the traditional set up of play for RPGs, and, depending on the experience of players across the hobby, more extreme shifts are going to require more elaborate explanations. I don't even think this has anythig to do with the Storygame vs Narrative vs Traditional RPG debate, except for those who want to draw a box around one specific group and say "this is the entirety of RPGs". I just think the opposite of that, denying that there are obviously different categories of games, as Trippy does obove, is equally divisive and prevents useful communication.

Actually, no I don't.

I told the person to tell me what they wanted to do. I helped them see what would apply, and rolled. Sure you can be more efficient with the other rules, but they learned that stuff in play when they were ready. And they had fun. So yes, you can do it that way. And they engaged in the economy as I offered compels and told them what they were when it was appropriate. You don't have to know everything up front- that's a real misconception.

 

[TristramEvans]

(sigh) when/how you explain it to them was definitely not my point

 

[chuckdee]

(sigh) when/how you explain it to them was definitely not my point

But it's a part of the equation. As far as what they needed to know in order to play- the only thing they needed was to tell me what they wanted to do, and I told them when to roll. I explained to them what the roll was, but that was all they needed to do- which satisfied what you asked, no?

 

[TristramEvans]

But it's a part of the equation. As far as what they needed to know in order to play- the only thing they needed was to tell me what they wanted to do, and I told them when to roll. I explained to them what the roll was, but that was all they needed to do- which satisfied what you asked, no?

No, it was not the point of my question.

It doesn't matter, though.

 

[chuckdee]

No, it was not the point of my question.

It doesn't matter, though.

Sorry- apparently I misunderstood. Apologies if my answer was trite.

I thought you were saying that Fate was a totally different type of game in that there was a complex bit to absorb for a newbie when you first sat down to play, and there was no way around it. I'd just gone through this with someone that was totally new to gaming (I guess not just, but it fits), so thought that perspective was warranted.

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

If I have the definition correct - I like both!

 

[AsenRG]

(sigh) when/how you explain it to them was definitely not my point

Yeah, I know. Your point is that even if you spread it over a longer time and smaller bites, you still have to explain more concepts to help someone grok Fate, right?
Conversely, going from D&D to Traveller needs a lot less explaining.

 

[Trippy]

Yeah, I know. Your point is that even if you spread it over a longer time and smaller bites, you still have to explain more concepts to help someone grok Fate, right?
Conversely, going from D&D to Traveller needs a lot less explaining.

Try telling that to a D&D player who doesn’t understand that a game doesn’t require an Experience and Level system.

 

[CRKrueger]

Try telling that to a D&D player who doesn’t understand that a game doesn’t require an Experience and Level system.

Yes, yes, there’s no such thing as a Narrative RPG. There’s no different ways of looking at Roleplaying. On practically every contentious topic, the exact same people line up on different sides for no apparent reason, it’s all coincidence. Vince Baker, Cam Banks, etc. didn’t do anything special at all, their games are just yet more Physics Engine types of systems. System Doesn’t Matter. In fact, after the Terrible Twenties are over and the Gaming Wars have subsided, every game, all games, will be 2d20. Even Poker. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. This isn’t the thread you’re looking for.

 

[CRKrueger]

Sorry- apparently I misunderstood. Apologies if my answer was trite.

I thought you were saying that Fate was a totally different type of game in that there was a complex bit to absorb for a newbie when you first sat down to play, and there was no way around it. I'd just gone through this with someone that was totally new to gaming (I guess not just, but it fits), so thought that perspective was warranted.

Yeah, you took a completely different type of Roleplaying game, and held back most of what made that game unique in order to get them past RPG, before you really sprung Narrative RPG on them. In other words, you proved TristramEvans point perfectly.

 

[chuckdee]

Yeah, you took a completely different type of Roleplaying game, and held back most of what made that game unique in order to get them past RPG, before you really sprung Narrative RPG on them. In other words, you proved TristramEvans point perfectly.

That is not what I did. As I said they told me what they wanted, and I helped them through the process of making the roll. i.e. I want to cast blah effect- Ok, you have X aspect you can tag and Y thing you can do in order to shape this - roll the dice. Sort of like in a standard game, you might say I want to cast this- Ok these are the modifiers and such.

But of course that was pretty much implied in my and other arguments, so you were just ignoring it to make a point. But you knew that already

 

[robertsconley]

I thought you were saying that Fate was a totally different type of game in that there was a complex bit to absorb for a newbie when you first sat down to play, and there was no way around it. I'd just gone through this with someone that was totally new to gaming (I guess not just, but it fits), so thought that perspective was warranted.

It nothing to do with complexity, how easy it is to learn or understand. But how the mechanics are used by the players and referee in context of a campaign. Using Fate Points and the Fate Point Economy is a decision of the player as a player within the campaign. While making a skill check, roleplaying with an NPCs are all decision of the player as their character. Both affect the character but done from completely different view points. And this element doesn't change if it simple or complex.

 

[CRKrueger]

That is not what I did. As I said they told me what they wanted, and I helped them through the process of making the roll. i.e. I want to cast blah effect- Ok, you have X aspect you can tag and Y thing you can do in order to shape this - roll the dice. Sort of like in a standard game, you might say I want to cast this- Ok these are the modifiers and such.

But of course that was pretty much implied in my and other arguments, so you were just ignoring it to make a point. But you knew that already

Yay, bad faith accusation in the Mod+ Thread from a Usual Suspect, what a shock.

When you said...”but they learned that stuff in play when they were ready. And they had fun.”...is where it comes across that they just might not be engaging in the full Fate economy, and they’re getting a rather introductory version of all the Narrativium in play.

 

[AsenRG]

Try telling that to a D&D player who doesn’t understand that a game doesn’t require an Experience and Level system.

Been doing that for close to or a bit over two decades now, depends on how I count them. What's your point again?

Oh, and BTW, at one point I was explaining that "a game doesn't require experience-and-level system" using Fate. Before that, I've been using GURPS, ORE, MRQ2, RQ6, Mythras, LotW, Cepheus Engine and quite a few others...that also don't require experience to go "up a level".
Bottom line, I can definitely confirm that you still have to explain how the experience system is different, whether you're using FATE or GURPS. Except I can also confirm that there's way more to explain when it comes to Fate.
Chargen has no classes and levels either way.
Combat is opposed rolls in both.
"Being hit hurts" (GURPS) vs "Being hit might give you Consequences".
Advantages vs Aspects and Stunts in chargen.
But there's no analogue to Fate Points in GURPS - you either have the advantage, or not. IF you have it, it works, if not, it doesn't.
And hence, no Compels. Because why do you need a mechanic to restore a resource you're not using?

So yeah, I stand by my words that there's less concepts to explain in GURPS vs Fate. There might be more rules, but the conceptual framework is much closer.

 

[chuckdee]

Yay, bad faith in the Mod+ Thread from a Usual Suspect, what a shock.

When you said...”but they learned that stuff in play when they were ready. And they had fun.”...is where it comes across that they just might not be engaging in the full Fate economy, and they’re getting a rather introductory version of all the Narrativium in play.

Yes, I'd say bad faith in a Mod+ thread from a Usual Suspect being you. When you point a finger, be sure to point two back to you.

When they're ready means as we play. Do you tell someone about falling damage before they fall? Or about leveling up before they do? Or about what the particulars are of every ruie for every combat situation before it happens? No, you ask them what they want to do, explain what you're helping them do, and let them roll.

Bad faith indeed. And talking about Usual Suspects- I don't even post much in these. So again we go with memory. I don't know who you're conflating me with, or what beef you have with me, but this is the third time you've done this.

 

[robertsconley]

Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens.

(And I say this just having done this with a new player)

What being lost here is that "Just tell me what you want to do" is about describing what you do as your character within the setting. "I pick up a book", "Take a swing at an orc". "Duck behind the couch and fire my gun.", "Sweet talk the bartender into telling me about John Baker" and so on. Player doing specific thing as their characters described naturally. Then on the flip side the referee takes that verbal description and tell what dice rolls the players needs.

That is not what I did. As I said they told me what they wanted, and I helped them through the process of making the roll. i.e. I want to cast blah effect- Ok, you have X aspect you can tag and Y thing you can do in order to shape this - roll the dice. Sort of like in a standard game, you might say I want to cast this- Ok these are the modifiers and such.

But of course that was pretty much implied in my and other arguments, so you were just ignoring it to make a point. But you knew that already

Invoking Aspects, Rerolls, Compels, Refusing Compels, Activating Stunts, Narrative Editing, these mechanics allow the players (and the referee) to influence the game beyond what they can do as their characters. Which is fine and can be easily taught but also beyond just tell me what you want to do as your character and I will tell you want to do.

However if you make those decisions for them, when to Invoke an Aspect, When to accept a Compel, creating Story Details, then "Just tell me what you want to do....." works as advertised. Because from the player's point of view it no different than what happens with the referee using GURPS or D&D. But it not really taking advantage of Fate when the referee does that. The current edition of Fate is very much designed as a two-way street not only in-game but out-of-game as well.

And teaching or coaching them on that two-way street is different than just simply saying "Tell me what you want to do...."

 

[chuckdee]

So yeah, I stand by my words that there's less concepts to explain in GURPS vs Fate. There might be more rules, but the conceptual framework is much closer

I don't disagree there, but I guess the point that I was making (and I think that Trippy is making) is that it doesn't have to be an info dump at the start.

 

[chuckdee]

And teaching or coaching them on that two-way street is different than just simply saying "Tell me what you want to do...."

Depending on your definition, I could agree with that statement- but in practice, it works just about the same. They tell me what they want to do, I coach them through it and they roll. It's still a conversation at the point, right? So not much difference in practice.

 

[CRKrueger]

Yes, I'd say bad faith in a Mod+ thread from a Usual Suspect being you. When you point a finger, be sure to point two back to you.

When they're ready means as we play. Do you tell someone about falling damage before they fall? Or about leveling up before they do? Or about what the particulars are of every ruie for every combat situation before it happens? No, you ask them what they want to do, explain what you're helping them do, and let them roll.

Bad faith indeed. And talking about Usual Suspects- I don't even post much in these. So again we go with memory. I don't know who you're conflating me with, or what beef you have with me, but this is the third time you've done this.

Aspects, Compels and all the rest can potentially come up in every roll, from the first roll. If it’s not, you’re specifically NOT telling the player all the possible ways to leverage Fate’s narrative engine to affect the outcome of play. You’re specifically playing a cut-down version of the game by your own description.

How is that not proving TristramEvans point exactly?

In a pretty crunchy Physics Engine game like GURPS, everything is tied to the actions of the character and is simply how the world works, every time. There is no choosing whether or not to spend points to make modifiers actually affect things, there is no evaluating the meta effect of Compels on your pool. Nothing that makes Fate the game it is, exists in GURPS, Traveller, etc. etc.

Meta concerns that the character does not share is never going to be as simple as “tell me what you want to do”, not without severely restricting metaplay. It’s a whole, separate level of play that other RPGs do not have,

Claiming otherwise is ludicrous on it’s face.

 

[robertsconley]

Depending on your definition, I could agree with that statement- but in practice, it works just about the same. They tell me what they want to do, I coach them through it and they roll. It's still a conversation at the point, right? So not much difference in practice.

The same could be said of Panzerblitz or Chess or playing a boffer LARP. All three require teaching different things to accomplish different goals. However the process of coaching and teaching is similar. What TristramEvans, CRKrueger, and myself are talking about is what being taught. Which is fundamentally different from just asking the players to described what one does as their character.

If you not coaching on them on the Fate Point Economy, then you are playing a different FUDGE based RPG.

 

[CRKrueger]

Yes, I'd say bad faith in a Mod+ thread from a Usual Suspect being you. When you point a finger, be sure to point two back to you.

When they're ready means as we play. Do you tell someone about falling damage before they fall? Or about leveling up before they do? Or about what the particulars are of every ruie for every combat situation before it happens? No, you ask them what they want to do, explain what you're helping them do, and let them roll.

Bad faith indeed. And talking about Usual Suspects- I don't even post much in these. So again we go with memory. I don't know who you're conflating me with, or what beef you have with me, but this is the third time you've done this.

Oh, btw, I meant Bad Faith Accusation, sorry about that. You claiming I already knew what you were doing, etc. If I were claiming you were arguing in bad faith, I would be simply doing what I was calling you out for. Was a little confused by your reply, now it makes sense. I changed the post.

 

[tenbones]

Try telling that to a D&D player who doesn’t understand that a game doesn’t require an Experience and Level system.

This is definitely an issue for a lot of players these days, given the fact that the vast majority of players come into the hobby via D&D. It was always an issue, that I felt gave those folks that came in from other games an "advantage" in assimilating other game systems.

It's a minor quibble, but enough of one that I find even in discussion on forums that people have to shift gears to realign their assumptions of what "Experience and Levels" actually might mean in another system. It's a very common thing for me to have to explain with new players coming into my MSH or Savage Worlds games (both of which abstract those concepts very differently in terms of mechanics).

 

[AsenRG]

I don't disagree there, but I guess the point that I was making (and I think that Trippy is making) is that it doesn't have to be an info dump at the start.

I agree it doesn't have to. And you can use he same approach to GURPS, I've done so.
But this has nothing to do with the argument TristramEvans was making.

 

[TristramEvans]

Jesus Christ, everyone apparently had to tag me in their posts this time around.

I'll be honest, I just haven't had the energy/drive to follow up on my argument once I made it. School has been incredibly mentally draining the last week or so, and I'm suffering from some serious burnout/exhaustion. Maybe I could have then prevented this current spat otherwise, as CRK might not have felt the need to argue in my place, and maybe I could have clarified what I was talking about rather than it being about the method in which a rules system is taught.

I should be handing out threadbans right now. I'd prefer to give you guys the chance to work things out on your own. But rather than be the bouncing ball in the debate as to what my point really was, this is it:

"Just tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you when you need to roll the dice and what happens" isn't just an explanation for new players, it's the same way the same game can be played 40 years later (give or take a few editions of non-TSR D&D). The player can effectively play D&D without ever learning a rule in their lifetime, and it doesn't affect their Agency in the game, it doesn't interfere with them making optimal or meaningful choices.

In order to make a meaningful choice and understand the ramifications of that choice in Fate or Smallville or Marvel Heroic, the player needs to understand how the rule system interacts in those games. Just as in 3rrd edition, a player needed to suddenly understand the Feat system and acquire a degree of system mastery,or fall victim to "trap Feats". Choice in the game is intertwined and inextractable from system knowledge.

Again, that is not a value judgement, I see it purely as a matter of preference, but I think it's vital to understand that distinction in order to allow players to make choices that matter during the game.

 

[ffilz]

In order to make a meaningful choice and understand the ramifications of that choice in Fate or Smallville or Marvel Heroic, the player needs to understand how the rule system interacts in those games. Just as in 3rrd edition, a player needed to suddenly understand the Feat system and acquire a degree of system mastery,or fall victim to "trap Feats". Choice in the game is intertwined and inextractable from system knowledge.

Actually, in "tell me what you want to accomplish" style, there should be no trap feats because the GM will pick feats for the character. And actually, in a pure sandbox RPG play way, sub-optimal choices are fine. Player should be choosing as the character, not as the player who has system mastery...

Of course most of us who play RPGs do enjoy some level of playing the game and the system mastery, so we will make choices that make for more fun game play or prove our mastery of the system.

 

[TristramEvans]

Actually, in "tell me what you want to accomplish" style, there should be no trap feats because the GM will pick feats for the character. And actually, in a pure sandbox RPG play way, sub-optimal choices are fine. Player should be choosing as the character, not as the player who has system mastery...

Of course there should be no trap feats. That's why Monte Cook is an ass.

 

[chuckdee]

In order to make a meaningful choice and understand the ramifications of that choice in Fate or Smallville or Marvel Heroic, the player needs to understand how the rule system interacts in those games. Just as in 3rrd edition, a player needed to suddenly understand the Feat system and acquire a degree of system mastery,or fall victim to "trap Feats". Choice in the game is intertwined and inextractable from system knowledge.

Again, that is not a value judgement, I see it purely as a matter of preference, but I think it's vital to understand that distinction in order to allow players to make choices that matter during the game.

Ah, ok- my fault. I missed this dimension of the statement you were making. Totally on me for that, and I get it.

 

[chuckdee]

trap feats

What are trap feats? I've not heard that term before.

 

[chuckdee]

Oh, btw, I meant Bad Faith Accusation, sorry about that. You claiming I already knew what you were doing, etc. If I were claiming you were arguing in bad faith, I would be simply doing what I was calling you out for. Was a little confused by your reply, now it makes sense. I changed the post.

Cool- apologies- I thought it was clear earlier in the thread, and the condescending manner in which it was stated (especially the Usual Suspects) ticked me off. Though past that- the Usual Suspects line still does tick me off and that wasn't addressed. But whatever.