[FATE]Intrinsic Extras and what I learned of them

[Andrew Norris]

(Again, folks, let us know if discussing the system used is off topic. My thought is if we're only making a few posts about it, it doesn't warrant creating a new thread in RPG Theory.)

Sean, I tend to agree with you. It looks to me as if Extras are ported directly over from Fudge Gifts, and the explanatory text about them is pretty vague. The only experience I have with them in play matches your take on things; they're just a reminder on the character sheet.

The issue there is, again, that this leaves use of the Extra in play as a social contract issue. In my game, one character purchased a houseboat as an Extra. We used it as his "home set", and framed several scenes there, but it was really only color. In another, it was used to denote interest in a particular NPC "Girl Friday". She remained under GM control, and again was used as color to provide dialog during investigation scenes. I wouldn't have played either resource differently if they'd spent no points at all, and just asked for the location or NPC to be present.

[Lord_Steelhand]

This is really key: you cannot resolve this situation from "within the rules" or in any fashion that's in-game whatsoever.

Debating about what Acute Senses "can or cannot do" is fruitless.

Coming up with "teaching-type consequences" in terms of what then happens to the character is fruitless.

With all due respect, I don't know that I agree with the above.

The rules of FATE, as discussed earlier allow the GM to arbeit when the special ability is useful, not the player.  The player expects the GM to use fair play in resolving that, but is advocating for it to be considered useful in every advantageous situation.

Even in a social contract issue, the realism and fairness of the judgement is going to be the primary question.  Even if the player accepts that the problem is Social Contract related (which is not a given), he will expect the judgement executed by the GM to be reasonable, thus the consideration of a realistic adjudication of the special ability has to play some role in the discussion.

So, while do think our initial discussion was missing that Social Contract aspect (and thus the solution that lies there), I do not think adjudication advice is "fruitless" at all.  I wonder how one would resolve the Social Contract issue without discussing the method of judging the effects of the ability.

The only way I can think of is to disallow abilities that put a player in the co-GM seat, and that seems even more heavy-handed than just negotiating with the player to lay down some negatives for sake of fun and play if they will lay down some positives...

[Andrew Cooper]

Judd,

I think what Ron is saying is that given the situation described the source of the problem is a misunderstanding or miscommunication on what is acceptable/unacceptable in playing the game at the Social Contract level.  If this is the case, then everything he said is true.  All those other methods of resolving the situation aren't going to help until the very basic Social Contract issue is resolved.  The system, techniques, rules, etc are all built on the foundation of the Social Contract.  If that isn't nailed down and agreed upon then all the other stuff is going to have problems no matter what you do.

If the issue is NOT a Social Contract one but rather a difference of opinion on what the rules allow / disallow, then discussion of rules and techniques are what is needed.  I don't *think* Ron is debating that but I'll let him respond one way or the other.

[Sean]

Hi Steelhand -

It seems to me that what you're talking about is a social contract discussion.

to use fair play in resolving that

"Fair play" is a term which only makes sense at the social contract level. No game can stipulate what it means to play it 'fairly', though it can give suggestions. And people disagree both on what 'fairness' is in itself and whether particular situations are adjudicated fairly or not.

You really can't use the rules to do this. You can use the rules to point out what the rules are in this game. But with a rule like the Intrinsic Extras rule, where the rule apportions the GM credibility over something about my character, there's really no in-rules solution to the problem of a player who doesn't like the way the GM arbitrates the ability, or who 'works the ref' to try to get it to apply in more situations. Such a player in FATE should certainly be encouraged to take the ability in question as an Aspect instead, I think, because then the issue is resolved right there.

A lot of experienced roleplayers have trouble with this idea because most RPG rules are broken, so to make the games fun we constantly have/had to reinterpret what the rules say to maintain the kinds of credibility assignments we like (or think we like), and players and GMs have had to learn to self-police for 'fairness' etc. to use the rules at all, so they get confused about what stuff is part of the game and what stuff is really outside it. It doesn't have to be this way, and one reason I love the Forge is that a lot of games available here take this burden off you and let you just play the game with your imagination and whatever other desires you bring to it fully in force in play - or, if they're not fully in force, it's because you're concerned about the other people at the table as human beings, not because you're worried about breaking the game.

[Lord_Steelhand]

I think what Ron is saying is that given the situation described the source of the problem is a misunderstanding or miscommunication on what is acceptable/unacceptable in playing the game at the Social Contract level.

I agree.  And I do see that the "arm's race" approach is not going to solve the issue, but I think that some consideration of the realism of the ability has to be present in any discussion of the Social Contract ramifications.

Player contract expectation - the GM will be fair about judging the effects of this ability and make the game fun for me.

GM contract expectation - I expect the player to understand my rulings about his ability, have reasonable expectations of it's use, and help make the game fun for me.

At some point, the water has to be tested about what the ability will mean in play - unless the answer is not to play anymore.

So I think it is fruitless only if that is the only level it is discussed at - which I must admit some shame in jumping to in my above "Give it to him with both barrels to see his raise" approach.

[Andrew Cooper]

[quote="Lord_Steelhand]Player contract expectation - the GM will be fair about judging the effects of this ability and make the game fun for me.

GM contract expectation - I expect the player to understand my rulings about his ability, have reasonable expectations of it's use, and help make the game fun for me.
[/quote]

The key here is how to define "fair" and "reasonable".  These terms differ in meaning from Contract to Contract.  This is where the problem has to be attacked first.  Once this is nailed down, then discussion on the specifics of the rules application can take place.  If the players can't find a common ground on those terms then all the rules discussion in the world isn't going to help.

For example, I've played in many games where the GM had final ruling on anything and could ignore or enforce rules whenever and wherever he pleased for the sake of the "story".  This was the Social Contract's definition of "fair" and "reasonable".  I'm very certain that many people on this forum would not agree to those definitions and no discussion of rules and applications would help in this context.

The current situation probably isn't that extreme but I think there is something that is disconnected on that level and until that level is worked out, all the other discussion is as Ron put it, "fruitless".

[Mike Holmes]

Sean,

but this discussion has convinced me that the whole idea of intrinsic Extras is kind of dumb, in the sense of being an artifact of a kind of play I'm not sure FATE is really all about (but keep in mind I haven't played it, though I've read it fairly carefully).

I've been bitching to Fred and Rob to get rid of Intrinsic Extras (in fact Extras altogether) from day one. They stick out like a sore thumb.

Why can't accute hearing just be a "skill" (I've been asking them to change that term to ability or something, but they're agin it)? Anyhow it's easy enough to play this way...

Mike

[Callan S.]

Even in a social contract issue, the realism and fairness of the judgement is going to be the primary question.  Even if the player accepts that the problem is Social Contract related (which is not a given), he will expect the judgement executed by the GM to be reasonable, thus the consideration of a realistic adjudication of the special ability has to play some role in the discussion.

That's basically the problem though. He will expect it to be a realistic adjudication.

But realism doesn't automatically equal fun. A bit heretical I know, but although realism tastes sweet like suger, a cake that's made entirely from suger is not going to be the best cake ever.

There, that's my confusing post quota filled for the day. :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Lord S wrote,

Even in a social contract issue, the realism and fairness of the judgement is going to be the primary question.

Therein lies the Cosmic Void of gamer-think. Neither of those things mean jack shit to a Social Contract.

Social Contracts concern things like "are we going to continue to play together." And "as we continue to play, is Bob going to have bitching-rights at what a bad GM/player Bill is for the next year." And "does Bill get to make comments about what a crap game system this as we play."

Stuff like that, or rather, stuff like that is kind of the big-scale issue that smaller stuff ("who talks most") is embedded in.

And that's what this whole Acute Hearing thing is about.

Frankly, I'm blaming the FATE boys. The whole notion that something on the sheet has different mechanics (and big mechanics! like scene-framing mechanics!) because it's an "intrinsic feature" as opposed to a "learned skill" or "mutant power" is crap. It's crap the same way having different rules for attributes/skills is crap.

This idea has marred many games, like FUDGE. HeroQuest, on the other hand, has demonstrated wonderfully that calling anything on the sheet an "ability" and treating each and every ability exactly the same works without a problem. (And certain tendencies in HeroQuest to try to fiddle with this, like "concentrating magic," demonstrate how poisonous such fiddling can become.)

"Crap," "marring." Strong words, eh? Opinions, judgments, "Ron's preference?" No. I chose these words because this game design pitfall always has the same effect. It had that effect in 1975, it had it in 1985, and it had it in 1995. This decade, why don't we grab a clue.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

And I thought I was being vitriolic by using the word bitching.

Note that I woudn't be concerned if I didn't like FATE so much.

Ron's point about "scene framing" power is well taken. If you ask Fred and Rob, I'll bet that an "intrinsic extra" isn't supposed to have that sort of power, it's just supposed to "do what it does." The standard example is nightvision - it allows you to see at night. But in terms of resolution, that means "Doesn't have to roll hearing checks to note people in the dark" and the like. It has to be an "advantage" of some sort, or people wouldn't spend their slots on them. Somebody adjudicates these things. In this case, the player is trying to take control using "realism and fairness" as his arguments to gain control of elements that I don't think the rule intends him to control.

But the rules don't tell you how to adjudicate these things. I think they assume a more or less sim GM who will just take over adjudicating what they mean in terms of what contests are called, and how scenes are framed as general powers assigned to the GM. And that a strong one will be able to enforce their will despite player appeals to "realism and fairness."

There are always an infinite number of adjudications that are actually realistic and fair. Assuming a GM who's selecting one, in this case, the player is merely disagreeing to gain control.

Again, however, has this problem actually surfaced? You talk about how it might surface, but not that it has, and not that the player seems to be having trouble accepting your adjudication. So, all this said, is there a real problem in this particular case? Or just a fear of what the ambiguities might cause?

If it's just a fear, alter the rules til your comfortable. Simply saying that it's your final call as GM might be enough. Or you can go more radical, and simply rate all abilities as skills. Either should fix your fear. Or simply trust your player who, at least til now, hasn't seemed to have broken the implicit social contract clauses in question.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike nailed it - this is Actual Play we're discussing, after all.

You've already alluded to disagreement between you and the other guy. Was this a disagreement about stuff that happened during play? Or about what might happen during play?

Best,
Ron

[loki's wrangling]

As Mike and Ron have said, it's a potential problem and not a manifest one yet. The player doesn't hesitate to tell me he loves my sessions(*feels warm and fuzzy inside*) and if he wishes he could be just a bit more cooler in-game, that's a common player hope and not a dysfunction on either of our parts.

It's just that I've been kicking myself so hard because I think both of us would have been better served if he'd just taken the skill rank and hiked up his Alertness skill instead, because the extra seems just a bit too mundane and clearly within the bounds of an existing skill. I still wish the player had listened to me(hey, GM's fondest wish and all) when I asked him to take the skill rank back, but I couldn't make him since I'd okayed his choice at the time. I'll just have to make the best of things, and everyone offered such excellent suggestions. :)

[Ron Edwards]

OK! So this is still a good situation.

Tell us about the actual sessions, then. What happens? Who says what? Who likes what? And so on.

Best,
Ron

[Lord_Steelhand]

Therein lies the Cosmic Void of gamer-think. Neither of those things mean jack shit to a Social Contract.

Maybe I am just totally misunderstanding what elements are captured under Social Contract.  Suggested refrences to help clear the concept up, guys?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Judd,

From The Provisional Glossary,[/url]

All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and expectations. All role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract.

It's one of the few Key Terms of the Glossary, which should all be understood in full before even beginning to talk about (e.g.) "what is Narrativism" or "is this Fortune," or whatever.

Because it's so important, getting into it here is off-topic. If you'd like head over to the GNS forum, where it's easiest to ask me questions about the terms and ideas like Social Contract in my essays.

Let's carry on with the FATE discussion, if anyone wants.

Best,
Ron

edited to fix some stupid typing