[FATE and Ehdrigohr] Relevance and function

[Ron Edwards]

Callan, you shouldn't juxtapose Participationism, which is a set of Techniques, with a Creative Agenda. It so happens that this set of Techniques undercuts the agency necessary for any Agenda to fire on all cylinders, which is one of the reasons I think Participationism is a bit broken from the get-go.

In fact, almost all the posts since my last one are a little puzzling to me, because they seem framed as disagreements, whereas what I see is consistent confirmation of my comments about Participationism. For instance, Dungeon World doesn't aim at tricky ethical conflicts, that's true, but my point is that it's not Step On Up, not that it's not Story Now.

But it's a complex topic and I don't really think we need a big GNS yipyap unless someone really calls for it, and maybe not even then. I'd rather talk about Ehdrigohr.

Oh! And also Diaspora. Can anyone help me both with how it is FATE and how it deviates?

[Dan Maruschak]

I played a little Diaspora, although it was a while ago and the GM was a little loose-y goose-y with the rules. From what I recall the character creation was very similar to other Fate games, and it was pretty similar to other Fate games when the normal-skill system resolution and Fate economy was active, but when something more involved was happening you'd switch to more explicit mini-games, so there's a different subsystem for individual combat, squad-level combat, spaceship combat, etc. The mini-games tended to be more explicit and procedural than a normal Fate conflict, e.g. you can spend a Fate point to "compel" another character's aspect to the effect of skipping their turn in combat rather than something that's more freeform/negotiated (outside the mini-games you'd do compels like normal Fate, as I recall). The different mini-games tended to incorporate similar mechanics so they felt sort of cohesive but each had their own flavor, too (e.g. the social mechanic had zones, like tactical combat but slightly different). It obviously had a Traveler influence. My character was a bitter ex-navy spaceship pilot trying to make his way as a freighter captain, and I remember being unsure how well that would mesh with an abstracted Resources mechanic, but we didn't play long enough (or perhaps faithfully enough) for me to really see those subsystems in action.

[Callan S.]

Hi Ron,

I guess I'm working off the Erik Weissengruber comment you quoted. "I can't do Story Now with Compels." - perhaps it's more like "I can't do anything on full cylinders with compels"?

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks Dan.

Callan, that's one of those things I keep tilting my head back-and-forth about, at least where FATE's concerned. In reading and musing over Ehdrigohr right now, I find myself saying, "I guess that'll work OK," and then other times, "Oh my God I would find that infuriating, or at least certainly not what I could reliably do." Specifically, whether I would remember to invoke an Aspect or assign it or deny it or do anything with Aspects using compels, as it seems like a note-taking and negotiation process running parallel to playing the way I ordinarily do.

I am also unsure whether I'm talking about principles of design-and-play, or my own preferences about techniques in the moment.

More generally, I'm beginning to wish that we'd talked about Participationism relative to any-and-all Creative Agenda rather than get so hung up on Narrativism, back then ... but that's not a conversation for now, I think.

[Callan S.]

Yeh, I guess it's a question of what are the aspect mechanics aimed towards - at something different than they are in fate? Are there some examples of the text saying where they'd be used?

[Frank T]

Hi Ron!

When you get good design (i.e. no Murk) toward railroaded play ... which I fully admit can result in functional Participationism ... it seemed to us to be "way over or even back there" somewhere. That's why we keep referencing the early-mid 90s when talking about it. It seems odd to me that the whole point of the design is to play GM-driven story in such a way that no one gets pissed off enough to do a table-flip.

Haha, nice one. I appreciate a good jibe, the internet is too boring with everybody being so very understanding of each other.

One thing about the Forge of course was that they never truly believed in Simulationism from the get-go. Even with constructive denial and the green platform analogy and everything, yes sure, intellectually you were coming around. You can dissect the phenomenon like the behavioral scientist you are. Others have tried the same thing with much less success (point in case, Vinent's "a paladin just wouldn't do that" article, which was painful for me to read). I actually prefer a little jibe, like I give to my friends who still play Pathfinder, to that kind of impassionate, intellectualized credit. Like someone who really hates seafood complimenting you on your tuna tartar and shrimps, but even though they try hard, they honestly do, they cannot keep the disgust out of their voice, and face.

However! Believe it or not, back in the 90s there were highly functional groups playing functional games, Sim games, Story Before games, Participationist games, and having a blast. (I know you don't dispute this. You are like a gay man looking at a nude woman and telling his straight friend, "sure, I believe you when you say you find that arousing", but he is limp as a dead fish all the same.) No one is to blame for that, but it is why the Forge has never really been the right place to discuss these games. Still it was the only place where productive discourse happened on the internet, so we discussed it there anyway, and with some progress, too.

The success of FATE, perceived or real (nice Blog by Harald, by the way), must be attributed to the significant number of groups and players who had developed a highly functional, rewarding playstyle in the 90s, and found in FATE a system that is, at its core, anything you want it to be (resolution wise). Of course that is murky design and no, I don't like it all that much myself, thank you very much (I've got to show you my Danger Zone some time). But! The difference between FATE and the games of the 90s was that FATE would bend without breaking. It was game for anything, and a group that had, via social contract / human interaction / non-explicit reward system, already established a strong Creative Agenda (usually Sim / Story Before), it was an huge improvement from the systems they had used before to play the same way (like Earthdawn, Fading Suns, Call of Cthulhu and of course the World of Darkness), and  via  Aspects/Compels, it had a "say it out loud" feature that helped communicate about what you actually did, and wanted, at the table. See also Erik's and Jesse's comments.

Obviously, this means that sometimes when one guy goes, "Oh, I love FATE", and another goes, "Wow, I love FATE too, let's play", they might be in for a bad surprise. That is at the reason for the dismissiveness among the Forge-socialized designers towards FATE and its ilk. You can probably boil down the whole notion of a good design, according to the Forge, to this very concept. When one guy goes, "Oh, I love Sorcerer", and another goes, "Wow, I love Sorcerer too, let's play", the idea is that there should be no bad surprises. This is the very core of the Forge's self-image and drive. If you understand that, you understand why FATE never really had a chance at the Forge.

- Frank

P.S.: Even the term "Story Before" is dismissive, you realize (not that I mind). It sounds like someone had made up a story beforehand and everybody was just going through the motions, which is closer to "Sim by habit" than to the actual, functional version. The functional version is vivid, dynamic, collaborative storytelling, with the only difference to the Narrativist sister being that you accept a lot of things for granted instead of challenging them.

[Christoph]

Hi Frank

This is meant as side-note to your message. If I'm not mistaken, the French indie crowd has started down a path of interesting non-90s sim games, of which there are two APs here: Prosopopée and La Saveur du Ciel. If you've got the time, check them out (and we could continue the conversation on one of those two threads).