GURPs vs FATE

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
chuckdee said:
What are trap feats? I've not heard that term before.
Click to expand...
You've missed on D&D3e? Well, you didn't miss much:grin:!

Trap feats are feats that, when chosen, are distinctly sub-optimal in every possible way to other comparable options for the same character. Example: 2-weapons fighting feat chain vs Power Attack feat chain in D&D3+:shade:.
So, you optimise your concept and play a great weapon user, because your 2-weapons options ARE going to suck:devil:.
 
chuckdee said:
What are trap feats? I've not heard that term before.
Click to expand...
Feats that look cool, but are not prerequisites for later cooler feats and that eventually don't have much value. Thus leading a character off into a dead end. My point to sandbox play and what would my character do though is that in real life there are dead end ways to spend your time.

But yea, for good GAME design, putting traps into the game allows for false system mastery (you need to understand those traps in order to have true system mastery).

But any system that has character options with non-universal mechanical effect is going to have sub-optimal builds. There's no way to make any random set of options equally fun to play. And even if you did, you will find some GM who will upend the equality of fun somehow...
 
chuckdee said:
What are trap feats? I've not heard that term before.
Click to expand...

This came from an essay published online a while back about how, in designing 3rd edition, they looked to elements of game design in Magic: The Gathering and tried to take from it the idea of rewarding players for system mastery. I dont play Magic, but I guess there are "trap cards"; cards that seem like a good idea to include in your deck but as you get to know the system better, you begin to recognize these as deliberately worse choices insofar as how they synchronize with other cards in your deck or something. Apparently this is deliberate to give players a sense of satisfaction as they get a deeper understanding of the rules. And apparntly something similiar was done with Feats, with some Feat hoices delibeartely designed as "bad choices" that a player wouldnt recognize until they developed a deeper "system mastery".
 
robertsconley said:
Which is fundamentally different from just asking the players to described what one does as their character.
Click to expand...
While I get now what Tristan was saying, I don't say this is fundamentally different from having the player describe what they want to do with the character. It's just an 'addition'.

Thoughts?
 
ffilz said:
Feats that look cool, but are not prerequisites for later cooler feats and that eventually don't have much value. Thus leading a character off into a dead end. My point to sandbox play and what would my character do though is that in real life there are dead end ways to spend your time.

But yea, for good GAME design, putting traps into the game allows for false system mastery (you need to understand those traps in order to have true system mastery).

But any system that has character options with non-universal mechanical effect is going to have sub-optimal builds. There's no way to make any random set of options equally fun to play. And even if you did, you will find some GM who will upend the equality of fun somehow...
Click to expand...
Oh! Feat Tax. It was one of the reasons I hated Pathfinder, even though my GM tried to reduce it. It's terrible design, IMO.
 
ffilz said:
Feats that look cool, but are not prerequisites for later cooler feats and that eventually don't have much value. Thus leading a character off into a dead end. My point to sandbox play and what would my character do though is that in real life there are dead end ways to spend your time.

But yea, for good GAME design, putting traps into the game allows for false system mastery (you need to understand those traps in order to have true system mastery).

But any system that has character options with non-universal mechanical effect is going to have sub-optimal builds. There's no way to make any random set of options equally fun to play. And even if you did, you will find some GM who will upend the equality of fun somehow...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not advocating for Optimization, my point was merely the analogy insofar as the designers expect a level of interaction with the system on it's own terms. It doesn't map directly to the point I was making, but I think it's close enough of an example to show the different approach to rules design.
 
TristramEvans said:
"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.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the basic playloop of nearly any RPG? State what your character does, and the GM determines if it happens, if it doesn't happen, or if we roll to see what happens?

Saying that is not true of a game is very different from saying there are different elements of the game that may need to be known to some extent or another, whether they be spells, aspects, feats, or whatever.

Your comparison rang false to me because I can't really think of any RPGs that don't have that core play loop without specific exceptions like Fasco type story games, or perhaps solo RPGing like Ironsworn.

If the argument is that the players of some games never actually have to learn any rules, I don't think it's really all that strong an argument. It could just as easily be applied to any game.
 
hawkeyefan said:
If the argument is that the players of some games never actually have to learn any rules, I don't think it's really all that strong an argument. It could just as easily be applied to any game.
Click to expand...

My argument is that it can't be applied to any game, but it can be applied to some games.
 
TristramEvans said:
My argument is that it can't be applied to any game, but it can be applied to some games.
Click to expand...

So Fate doesn't have that fundamental "What do you do?" element?

I admit to being only passing familiar with Fate, and I know that fate Points and Compels and the like come into it. But my understanding is till that the player tells the GM what they want to do, and the GM then abdicates or uses the rules/processes of the game to do so.
 
Wow. I'm kinda glad I missed 3ed edition entirely. The idea of deliberately punishing players who just want a cool-sounding ability strikes me as a really shitty thing to do.
 
chuckdee said:
While I get now what Tristan was saying, I don't say this is fundamentally different from having the player describe what they want to do with the character. It's just an 'addition'.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It all about describing what they want to do the character. What make it different is the point of view the description is made from. One path focuses on the god's eye view of the player using mechanics that doesn't have anything to do with what the character can do in the setting. Another path focuses on what the character can do in the setting and that it. What you can do as the player is defined by what the character can do within the setting.

And it about focus, Fate can be run traditionally and traditional RPGs can have metagame mechanics.
 
TristramEvans said:
What? Sureit does. No one is talking about what the games don't have.
Click to expand...

I'm asking because you said that the idea of a GM saying to a player "tell me what you do and I'll use the rules and tell you when to roll" wouldn't work?

I don't know......it seemed to me that all the games you listed as examples of where that would work and then you proposed how to handle that in Fate. My take was that yes, you can do that in Fate.

However, I am not well versed in Fate, so perhaps my understanding is wrong. Or maybe I'm missing what your point was.

I do know that all the other narrative games i know of would fit that description.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I'm asking because you said that the idea of a GM saying to a player "tell me what you do and I'll use the rules and tell you when to roll" wouldn't work?
Click to expand...

I feel like you haven't read a couple of the posts, because we already just went over this exact question
 
Tulpa Girl said:
Wow. I'm kinda glad I missed 3ed edition entirely. The idea of deliberately punishing players who just want a cool-sounding ability strikes me as a really shitty thing to do.
Click to expand...
3rd ed has good and bad. Trap feats aren't the Two Weapon Fighting chain. That is not always a bad choice. But Toughness is never a good choice. Skill Focus: Concentration is a trap because the Conentration checks to not lose spells when you get hit are fairly trivial. And yet a lot of caster Prestige Classes require it anyway.
 
Toughness is an ok choice for a Wizard with no Con bonus for the first two levels...
 
They fixed Toughness somewhat in other d20 games like Starfinder, where you get extra HP (usually +1) every level instead of a +3 one time bonus.
 
TristramEvans said:
Of course there should be no trap feats. That's why Mearles is an ass.
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah, but the concept of trap feats wasn't his.
TristramEvans said:
This came from an essay published online a while back about how, in designing 3rd edition, they looked to elements of game design in Magic: The Gathering and tried to take from it the idea of rewarding players for system mastery. I dont play Magic, but I guess there are "trap cards"; cards that seem like a good idea to include in your deck but as you get to know the system better, you begin to recognize these as deliberately worse choices insofar as how they synchronize with other cards in your deck or something. Apparently this is deliberate to give players a sense of satisfaction as they get a deeper understanding of the rules. And apparntly something similiar was done with Feats, with some Feat hoices delibeartely designed as "bad choices" that a player wouldnt recognize until they developed a deeper "system mastery".
Click to expand...
That sort of "purposefully bad" card works in a CCG because swapping out a card in your deck is pretty easy; you can learn which things actually aren't very useful and act on your experiences fairly quickly. It sucks that you've had to buy a bad card but at least they tend to be at the more common rarities so it's not a huge deal.

It doesn't work in an RPG with limited advancement choices, like 3.x, because if the player works out a particular choice is a trap and is either rubbish or is actively bad they're stuck with it for the lifetime of their character due to games not allowing respeccing / rebuilding; sure, they can avoid it next time they make a character, but that might be a long time away and requires sacrificing their character's RP aspects to make the change.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I'm asking because you said that the idea of a GM saying to a player "tell me what you do and I'll use the rules and tell you when to roll" wouldn't work?

I don't know......it seemed to me that all the games you listed as examples of where that would work and then you proposed how to handle that in Fate. My take was that yes, you can do that in Fate.

However, I am not well versed in Fate, so perhaps my understanding is wrong. Or maybe I'm missing what your point was.

I do know that all the other narrative games i know of would fit that description.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of Fate, what we've come to the agreement is Yes, And.

Yes, you can do that, i.e. describe what the player wants the character to do. That, however, denies the player of some of the agency they have to leave it at that. So you have to at the very least coach the player through what they should be looking for in order to utilize the system to the fullest.
 
chuckdee said:
From the perspective of Fate, what we've come to the agreement is Yes, And.

Yes, you can do that, i.e. describe what the player wants the character to do. That, however, denies the player of some of the agency they have to leave it at that. So you have to at the very least coach the player through what they should be looking for in order to utilize the system to the fullest.
Click to expand...

Right, okay. I can see that. I don't know if that's not true to some extent about any game, but perhaps it's more a matter of degree?
 
hawkeyefan said:
Right, okay. I can see that. I don't know if that's not true to some extent about any game, but perhaps it's more a matter of degree?
Click to expand...
That's what I'm getting, but it is undeniably more so for Fate than some other games, so it's splitting hairs at that point.
 
For those who are interested in the Timmy Card article I believe this is the original text of the Ivory Tower Game Design post:

When we designed 3rd Edition D&D, people around Wizards of the Coast joked about the "lessons" we could learn from Magic: The Gathering, like making the rulebooks -- or the rules themselves -- collectible. ("Darn, I got another Cleave, I'm still looking for the ultra-rare Great Cleave.")

But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic. For example, Magic uses templating to great effect, and now D&D does too. (To be clear, in this instance, I don't mean templates like "half-dragon," so much as I mean the templating categories such as "fire spells" and "cold-using creatures," then setting up rules for how they interact, so that ever contradictory rules for those things don't arise again, as they did in previous editions.)

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about.

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).
Ivory Tower Game Design requires a two-step process on the part of the reader. You read the rule, and then you think about how it fits in with the rest of the game. There's a moment of understanding, and then a moment of comprehension. That's not a terrible thing, but neither is just providing the reader with both steps, at least some of the time.

While there's something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there's just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach. Perhaps that's what the upcoming D&D for Dummies book will be. I hope so.
Click to expand...
 
Yep. It wasn't so much traps as in absolutely bad choices, it was only traps in the sense that some things were intended to be much useful than others in most cases, but other choices became situationally useful. Which is actually not especially radical and is hardly unsual in rpg system design.

(And as he says hardly unusual in D&D - spells have always worked that way)

Problem was that people leaped to the conclusion that this meant that every bit of poor design in 3e was somehow intentional (and specifically Monte Cook's fault for some reason).

(And also it somehow became a 3e/4e edition war thing - which shows how little it was understood - as 4e was also full of such design).
 
Last edited:
CRKrueger said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you think you are proving with this statement, bluntly. We can all quote the names of different RPG designers, and then suggest their innovations are significant to the overall art of a creating a roleplaying game. Where does Jonathon Tweet or Greg Stafford fit in as ‘special' designers, for example? There is nothing of interest in this as an argument beyond an expression of indignation really.
 
CRKrueger said:
In fact, after the Terrible Twenties are over and the Gaming Wars have subsided, every game, all games, will be 2d20.
Click to expand...

I pass the referee 2 dark symmetry points for 2 extra d20s and get 3 success, then I play a chronicle point to force the gm to play out a sex scene with a razide.
 
AsenRG said:
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:thumbsup:.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is. If you have limited experience of playing RPGs - basically if you have just played D&D before - and you choose between playing GURPS or Fate, I suspect many gamers will find the Fate system easier to pick up. There is less of it, for a start, and character generation is a more intuitive process as opposed to book referencing over specific calculations or points balancing for particular Traits.

However, the point is that any given player doesn’t literally need to approach Fate with a mindset that they doing something completely and categorically different to what they have previously experienced with D&D. I know, from playing in these games alongside people with all kinds of different experiences in games, that it isn’t the case.
 
Last edited:
Trippy said:
I don’t think there is. If you have limited experience of playing RPGs - basically if you have just played D&D before - and you choose between playing GURPS or Fate, I suspect many gamers will find the Fate system easier to pick up. .
Click to expand...


I....can't agree with that at all.
 
I've always found new players take to GURPS quite easily and people who've played D&D before find it quite hard. I don't have any experience with FATE but a more abstract approach may transfer to D&D experience more easily. I'm not sure. I always find the problem with D&D to GURPS is more about expectations than rules. "What do you mean using All Out Attack got me killed? More attacks are always better!"
 
GURPs is so...simple though. Like insanely simple.

Roll 3D6, and compare total to under Skill or Attribute. That's 99.9% of the game.

The only thing complex about it is just the sheer number of toolkit and chargen options. And that's all GM-facing.
 
The complexity of GURPS can layer on pretty fast though. Threes are automatic critical successes, fours are conditional critical successes but are automatic successes. Anything up to six is a critical success as long as it's 10 less than the chance of success. 17 is an automatic failure and 18 is an automatic critical failure. There's the rule of 16 for resistance rolls, and the rule of 20 for skill defaults and so forth and those are just aspects of the core, roll 3d6 under skill. There's also that pesky skill cost chart that stops at least 90% of players dead in their tracks. There's damage multipliers before and after armour, not to mention damage break points like crippling extremities at 1/3 HP and limbs at 1/2. Knock down and stun at 1/2 HP. Roll to stay conscious under 0HP an roll to avoid death at each multiple of HP after 0. You have to work out the swing and thrust damage for weapons and they often have different reaches. For the most part things are fairly structurally consistent but every advantage and disadvantage has its own set of rules and these too are core to what is GURPS.

It's a bit like saying D&D is just roll 1d20 + Stat Bonus + Skill Bonus over target number.
 
TristramEvans said:
GURPs is so...simple though. Like insanely simple.

Roll 3D6, and compare total to under Skill or Attribute. That's 99.9% of the game.

The only thing complex about it is just the sheer number of toolkit and chargen options. And that's all GM-facing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is not the whole of the game is it? GURPS is spending hours pouring over a catalogue of traits and then carefully balancing out a limited number of points from a pool, and then calculating a bunch of other traits from that or choosing a template full of TLAs. GURPS is three different types of rolls, including reaction rolls, rolling low (aside from damage and reaction rolls), table referencing, trait specific rules, tactical options and a whole bunch of modifiers. GURPS is plenty complex for a player shifting from D&D for the first time. Don’t even start me on Champions.

The idea that simply because Fate introduces Aspects and a Fate point economy it is somehow an overreach of comprehension compared to learning other games is just not a reality for plenty of gamers out there and, regardless, it is still not a reason to categorize it as an entirely new type of game or experience.
 
David Johansen said:
The complexity of GURPS can layer on pretty fast though. Threes are automatic critical successes, fours are conditional critical successes but are automatic successes. Anything up to six is a critical success as long as it's 10 less than the chance of success. 17 is an automatic failure and 18 is an automatic critical failure. There's the rule of 16 for resistance rolls, and the rule of 20 for skill defaults and so forth and those are just aspects of the core, roll 3d6 under skill. There's also that pesky skill cost chart that stops at least 90% of players dead in their tracks. There's damage multipliers before and after armour, not to mention damage break points like crippling extremities at 1/3 HP and limbs at 1/2. Knock down and stun at 1/2 HP. Roll to stay conscious under 0HP an roll to avoid death at each multiple of HP after 0. You have to work out the swing and thrust damage for weapons and they often have different reaches. For the most part things are fairly structurally consistent but every advantage and disadvantage has its own set of rules and these too are core to what is GURPS.
Click to expand...

but, aside from maybe some Avantage/Disadvantage subsystems (that a GM will curate to fit their specific game), all of that complexity is GM-facing. A player doesn't need to know or understand it. And because GURPs is so dogmatically realworld emulationist, there's no divide between the player making a choice that would be "correct" or optimal in real life and the results of the system (which is actually the main reason GURPs sucks at Supers as a genre).
 
Trippy said:
Yes, but that is not the whole of the game is it? GURPS is spending hours pouring over a catalogue of traits and then carefully balancing out a limited number of points from a pool, and then calculating a bunch of other traits from that or choosing a template full of TLAs. GURPS is three different types of rolls, including reaction rolls, rolling low, table referencing, tactical options and a whole bunch of modifiers. GURPS is plenty complex for a player shifting from D&D for the first time. Don’t even start me on Champions.
Click to expand...

Character creation isnt part of the game, and no game of any sense is going to include an entire catalogue of advantages/disadvantages, the GM is going to pick out the few that are appropriate to the game itself. The three different types of rolls all work the same, ust one is made by the player, one by the GM, and one the result is compared to a chart. And the GM is going to handle the modifiers to a roll.

A player can learn all of that stuff, but there's no necessity in any way in order for them to play the game and make meaningful choices.
 
TristramEvans said:
all of that complexity is GM-facing.
Click to expand...
But, so what? This whole notion of 'player facing’ being some sort of rules overreach that declassifies a game as being a ‘Traditional RPG’ is totally arbitrary. It's no more complex an innovation than points spend at character generation is, or diceless play is, or personality traits, or having a universal table to apply. These are all just different conventions from different RPGs that different participants can grok or not. But it doesn’t mean they are completely unrelated types of game all of a sudden.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top