Fate RPG

[clehrich]

Not being a FUDGEr, I'd like to ask for some clarification here.

The PC has a trait, along the lines of Compassionate.

If the player describes the PC doing something contrary to the trait, then the GM can and often should declare an involuntary invocation.  If the player agrees to be limited by the this invocation, he or she is paid in Fudge points; if the player refuses to be so limited, the PC may take any action regardless of trait, but no Fudge points change hands.

If the player describes the PC doing something strongly aligned with the trait, the player has the option of voluntarily invoking that trait, allowing him or her to use Fudge points to improve successes or success chances.

Have I got that right?

If so:

Willing but "forced" submission to traits gains rewards.
Trait-aligned action gains optional rewards and flexibility.
Deliberate contravention of traits gains nothing, but is not punished.
Unstated submission to traits gains nothing.

While the extreme abusiveness described initially is perhaps outside the ordinary range, it does seem as though what's rewarded here is a bit unbalanced.  I get the part about having the option to be cooler than usual because you are leaning on traits.  Similarly, I certainly see the advantage in not punishing people for having their characters challenge their own moral and psychological limitations.  But why should one be paid for recanting an action contrary to your character's norm?  I don't get the logic here.

[iago]

Not being a FUDGEr, I'd like to ask for some clarification here.

(Well, Aspects are Fate-specific, so it's not just a beinga  Fudger thing.)

The PC has a trait, along the lines of Compassionate.

If the player describes the PC doing something contrary to the trait, then the GM can and often should declare an involuntary invocation.  If the player agrees to be limited by the this invocation, he or she is paid in Fudge points; if the player refuses to be so limited, the PC may take any action regardless of trait, but no Fudge points change hands.

If the player describes the PC doing something strongly aligned with the trait, the player has the option of voluntarily invoking that trait, allowing him or her to use Fudge points to improve successes or success chances.

Have I got that right?

Nope. :)  I'll restate the above text with the corrections bolded:

If the player describes the PC doing something contrary to the trait, then the GM can and often should declare an involuntary invocation.  If the player agrees to be limited by this invocation, he or she is paid in Fudge points equivalent to the levels held in the aspect; if the player refuses to be so limited, the PC may take the action if the player can pay to the GM a number of Fudge points equivalent to the levels held in the aspect.

If the player describes the PC doing something strongly aligned with the trait, the player has the option of voluntarily invoking that trait, allowing him or her to make rerolls of dice to improve successes or success chances provided an "open" checkbox (there's one per level of the aspect) is available to be checked off.

Hope that makes it clearer.

If so:

Willing but "forced" submission to traits gains rewards.
Trait-aligned action gains optional rewards and flexibility.
Deliberate contravention of traits gains nothing, but is not punished.
Unstated submission to traits gains nothing.

I honestly don't see the "I pay out to act contrary to my trait" (the only significant alteration to your stated understanding) as punishment, but under some perspectives it could be, and as such, that's the only item of the above that could be untrue, even with my corrections factored in.

While the extreme abusiveness described initially is perhaps outside the ordinary range, it does seem as though what's rewarded here is a bit unbalanced.  I get the part about having the option to be cooler than usual because you are leaning on traits.  Similarly, I certainly see the advantage in not punishing people for having their characters challenge their own moral and psychological limitations.  But why should one be paid for recanting an action contrary to your character's norm?  I don't get the logic here.

I think I covered this in an earlier post of mine, but I'll try it again: as a GM, looking at a character's list of aspects gives you some predictive power in terms of anticipating their actions in a storyline you're bringing to the table.  On some level, the payout for recanting is a way of saying "thanks for acting as expected" (though, as I've said before, that specific phrase should not be taken as the whole of the statement being made, it's simply a possible element thereof).

Involuntary invocation is also not always a recanting, despite there being something of a focus on that in this thread -- that's a subset of circumstances.  

Involuntary invocation also comes along when the GM may be "inflicting" some consequence upon the character ab initio.  Say you have an aspect called Snitch in a game of thieves; the GM might involuntarily invoke the Snitch aspect to have a guardsman come down hard on the character to find out some information for him "or else," thus complicating the character's life and introducing a new subplot to the story.  The GM pays out fudge points to the player at this point as the aspect has acted as a hook-point for introducing a new element to the story.

And in fact, that's probably a valuable perspective on the use of aspects in this way.  When a player is paying fudge points to the GM, the player is the one introducing an element into the story; when the GM is paying fudge points to a player, it's the GM controlling the element.

Hopefully this makes the logic clearer.

[Rob Donoghue]

If so:

Willing but "forced" submission to traits gains rewards.
Trait-aligned action gains optional rewards and flexibility.
Deliberate contravention of traits gains nothing, but is not punished.
Unstated submission to traits gains nothing.

I honestly don't see the "I pay out to act contrary to my trait" (the only significant alteration to your stated understanding) as punishment, but under some perspectives it could be, and as such, that's the only item of the above that could be untrue, even with my corrections factored in.

Oddly, I glommed onto a different one, #4.  Unstated submission to traits gains nothing at the time.  The GM is expected to take into consideration that a character "played to type" and award fudge points at the end of the session (or beginning of the next) to represent that.  Otherwise, the system ends up penalizing players for playing their character well without prompting.  Under ideal circumstances, every time someone goes against their nature (i.e. pays to overcome an aspect) it should coincide with something dramatic in play.  Reality doesn't always conform, but that's pretty much the goal.

For those who prefer to use the descriptors, it's ultimately using a bit of gamist behavior (measurable rewards and penalties) to fuel more narrativist behavior, at least in theory.  While this ultimately makes for a more narrativist game, there is another element of aspects that makes the system friendly beyond just narrativists.

See, aspects can be nearly _anything_.  They were designed to replace advantages and disadvantages, but they also replace statistics, allies, resources or pretty much anything else that goes on a character sheet.  As such, a more tactically oriented gamer can easily take simple, positive aspects (like strong or tough) and be mechanically balanced with other characters.

By the same token, an actor shoudl be able to find what they need, though it's a bit harder for me to pin down what that is so I leave that to someoen with a better understanding of the model.

At some point I;m going to actually finish my "Secret Language of CHaracter Sheets Essay" since it sums up, in the abstract,  one of the major virtues of aspects.  They have great value for th eplayers in setting things up however they like, but at the same time, they provide a bullet point list for the GM of what's important to the character, and in turn, to the player.  It's simple as hell to look down the side of a Fate character sheet and get a sense of exactly what sort of things the GM can use to personalize her game.

I've drifted a bit off the topic of the response, but I hope it clarified things bit.

-Rob D.

[zaal]

Well, it seems that idea tanked :) .

Well, I was a little intimidated by the title.  ;P

LOL!  I'm thinking I was a little too impatient - I should have waited two or so weeks for a response, like woodelf did in the Four Colors al Fresco thread.  I didn't even write Fate and I was hungry for a response  :)  .

Thanks a lot for your comments, Fang.  

Jon

[iago]

Just wanted to hop in and say thanks to all who took a look at this thread and commented on the "indie rpgs" perspective on the Fate system.  It's done a great job of getting us thinking about where to take the game from here, and as such, has been terribly useful.  More perspectives are always good!

[xenopulse]

Well, this seems to be the appropriate place to post, even though this means bringing back the thread from the dead :)

I am in awe.

The aspects system of FATE strikes me as pure genius. As someone who has longed for a maximum of flexibility in character creation along with a simplification in mechanics, this system is amazing. It provides background, depth, individuality, and hooks all in one. I haven't played it, but after reading the rulebook, the pure potential of aspects boggles my mind.

Thank you for sharing.

[iago]

Our pleasure!

[Deacon Blues]

If the player describes the PC doing something strongly aligned with the trait, the player has the option of voluntarily invoking that trait, allowing him or her to make rerolls of dice to improve successes or success chances provided an "open" checkbox (there's one per level of the aspect) is available to be checked off.

Speaking only for myself (I'm not the one who raised the objection), it makes things worlds clearer for me.

I've played in a lot of 7th Sea campaigns of late, including one that just ended a week ago.  In that one, I think it'd been a year - 12 calendar months - since the GM had had to invoke someone's Hubris involuntarily.  He never had to say, "You're Arrogant.  Spend a Drama Die or do X."  (Well, he never put it that bluntly; you know what I mean)  We just played our characters to the hilt and had fun with it.

In my first read of the FATE rules, I was worried that playing your character to the hilt didn't have any rewards to it.  "So the GM can pay you for playing to type ... and you have to pay not to.  But what if you just want to be Arrogant all the time?"

Thank you for reminding me - playing strongly to Aspect means you can invoke the Aspect, which provides sizable benefits in terms of manipulating the dice.  That's a relief.

* * *

In other news, I really like FATE.  :)

I've been tinkering with a conversion for a homebrewed campaign setting of mine that streamlines the Challenge system a great deal (I don't like the complexity of designing the ladder-boxes), turns the dramatic Character vs. Character contests into duels similar to Bringing Down the Pain in TSoY, and allows players to roll different numbers of dFs for added passion or added focus.

I love Aspects.  I love FUDGE.  I love what I've seen.  :)

[iago]

Rock on, DB. Glad to hear the clarification helped!