Start by clicking here and catching up, as this is a continuation of a thread I started in the Design Forum asking about game traits, which evolved into a discussion about Destiny as a definable character trait, along with self-focused Pride as its foil.

I'm trying to develop a goal-based mechanic around these concepts, but to do so, first I want to see how they figure into the universal character, so you can identify a Destiny and Pride in everyone.

Plus, I keep getting schooled on gaming concepts that I know but lack the vocabulary knowledge to describe and/or indentify.


Read up, and join in—it's great fun.

Okay, let's talk about Destiny. First question: What kind of Destiny mechanic are we talking about? One that defines Destiny before its fulfillment, during its fulfillment, or after its fulfillment? Examples:

Before: "My destiny is to destroy the cosmos... now I can either succeed or fail at that."
During: "So I'm fighting to avoid temptation? I want to stake a Destiny point on this, to make it a really pivotal moment for my character, however it turns out."
After: "I just killed one of the men who murdered my father, and got a lead on the group he was working with. That's a step in my destiny. So my Destiny has something to do with revenge... maybe."

Heya,

Perhaps someone could list a few games with some solid Destiny/Ascension mechanics. The only one I can kinda think of off the top of my head is Shadows of Yesterday, but I know there are better examples. A list might help Killa out.

Peace,

-Troy

Off the top of my head I know of two general methods for introducing Fate/Destiny/Doom.

The first is to give a mechanical bonus for engaging in conflicts related to one's destiny. In other words, suppose I have the destiny "I wll become king." If I engage in a conflict with the current ruler, or if I'm trying to influence the rebels to join my cause, etc. I would gain a bonus to my dice rolls.

The idea here is that since players gain a bonus, they'll naturally seek out conflicts that are attuned to their destiny, as they will have a better chance at winning those types of conflicts. This requires, however, that the game allows for fate-related action. In other words, the wannabe-king wouldn't be very successful in a standard dungeon crawl, or in trying to save the local farmers from the capitalistic landowners.

Example: The Riddle of Steel and Tensho Bansho (is that spelled right, Andy?)

The second is to grant players the directorial power to introduce elements into the game that are related to said Destiny. Again, if I have the destiny "I will become king," I (as a player) could simply narrate "the current King is fond of long walks by himself through the castle garden... I'm going to try and sneak in kill him during one of those walks" or possibly "there is a rebel group that hates the current king. Many of them are old knights and friends of my father's. I'm going to try to influence them into joining my cause."

The idea here is that players will directly influence the the direction of the game by introducing events that push their destiny.

Examples: The Mountain Witch

Be warned, both of these methods put alot of power in the hands of the players, and fundamentally changes the role of the GM. In both cases, the GM is forced to be responsive to the action of the players.

TonyLB wrote: Okay, let's talk about Destiny. First question: What kind of Destiny mechanic are we talking about? One that defines Destiny before its fulfillment, during its fulfillment, or after its fulfillment? Examples:

Before: "My destiny is to destroy the cosmos... now I can either succeed or fail at that."
During: "So I'm fighting to avoid temptation? I want to stake a Destiny point on this, to make it a really pivotal moment for my character, however it turns out."
After: "I just killed one of the men who murdered my father, and got a lead on the group he was working with. That's a step in my destiny. So my Destiny has something to do with revenge... maybe."

timfire wrote: The first is to give a mechanical bonus for engaging in conflicts related to one's destiny. In other words, suppose I have the destiny "I wll become king." If I engage in a conflict with the current ruler, or if I'm trying to influence the rebels to join my cause, etc. I would gain a bonus to my dice rolls.

killacozzy wrote: Do you really think a player would object to missions/adventures/tasks unrelated to his or her character's destiny?

I'll go a step beyond Timothy. He's polite. I'm... I'm polite too... aren't I polite?

Anyway, if you (a GM) say "Tell me what you want the story to be about," and then give me something other than what I told you, I will be pissed. There had better be a good reason for doing that.

I get it when you have to service other players, and therefore can't hit my high-points. I even get that you have your own agenda, and it can take priority over me too. But if you're just passing time? Just doing missions because you think "doing missions" is what RPG is about? Your only excuse for that would be 'nobody told me what they wanted, so I had to guess.' Once I tell you what I want, you can't claim ignorance any more.

Here's a Destiny mechanic I'll throw on the table as an idea generator. I list the bonuses as simple +1, +2...convert to the equivelent in your system as needed.

All characters start with a Destiny at +1.

The player, in conjunction with the GM and other players during group character creation establish what the Destiny is about in a general sense "To become king", "to find the 6 fingered man who killed my father", "To become the greatest swordsman in the land", whatever.

At any point, at any time, for any reason the player (and only the player) can decide that a particular situation is part of their Destiny and lay claim to the bonus (initially +1). Depending on the structure of your game, this could be done per roll, or per scene with the bonus accrueing to all rolls in a scene. The player must be able to describe in a brief narration how this particular event ties to their Destiny.

Each time the player does this he earns 1 Fate. Fate represents the Universe taking notice. You're making waves and the forces of Karma start paying attention to you.

At any point, at any time, for any reason, the GM (or potentially even another player) can take your accumulated Fate and spend it. It should be spend in a manner to make your life more complicated. In otherwords its spent to do "bad stuff" to the character, where "bad stuff" is defined as things that would make the character say "Oh Gods, why me?" but will make the PLAYERS say "Oh yeah...now the shit hits the fan...this is gonna be good".

After spending a certain amount of Fate on a character, that character's Destiny grows to +2...then +3...then +4...etc.

The "Bad Stuff" that comes from having Fate spent against you has a scope that increases as the Destiny increases. At +1 Fate might involve the local priest denouncing you as a sinner in front of the community. At +5 it might involve being put on trial as a heretic by the grand inquistor of the realm...that sort of thing.


What this does is the following:

1) It insures that Destiny is a part of your game. Every time a player chooses to take the bonus it touches on Destiny. Every time a player chooses to forgo the bonus they were thinking about their Destiny. Thus Destiny is always involved in every roll just floating there under the surface even when it isn't being actively called upon.

2) It avoids all issue of predetermination or steps or a path that you've been worried about with other mechanics. In the end, if you record all of the player's narrations when they use their Destiny you'll wind up with a wonderfully convoluted twisting path that mirrors the byzantine structure and cryptic nature of "prophecy".

3) As the player's Destiny increases they will become notably more effective at pursueing elements related to their Destiny than they are at elements that aren't. They'll cross a point where they'll be driving hell bent for leather to achieving that Destiny. Or...they'll take the other route...turn aside from the path before they get to that point and leave their destiny unfilled...which also says something profound about the character (and perhaps the player as well). After all..."If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice..."

4) The GM (or even better, the other players) use Fate to drive the characters on. By using Fate to increasingly complicate the situation you put the players in a position where they'll have trouble extracating their character without falling back on the temptation of that Destiny Bonus...and so we see how being convicted of heresy becomes part of the character's destiny as he's forced to call upon that Destiny to escape and eventually work to topple the church in order to stay alive (helped by his ever increasing Destiny bonus). "And so it came to pass that he who was born under the Shadowed Moon fulfilled the ancient prophecy and brought low the Church of the Crimson Hand; and the land ran red with the blood of the Faithful" Which can come about through play after starting with nothing more than "Destined for Greatness +1".


Thoughts?

Valamir wrote: Here's a Destiny mechanic I'll throw on the table as an idea generator. I list the bonuses as simple +1, +2...convert to the equivelent in your system as needed.

Thoughts?

Very cool Ralph. It's funny, but I came up with a similar idea the other day, but more geared towards the tragic. Same idea, only tied to a tragic endgame (which is loosely defined by the player at the start of play).

So the idea in my version of it is this:

Character starts with a Doom Rank 1 with a Descriptor of something general, like betrayal by loved one, or ignoble death or something. he gets that bonus for things tied to his Doom. Each time he draws on it the Rank increases until it hits 6. This starts the endgame and the bonus becomes a negative at this point. So when the GM or the Player calls for his Doom to come to the forfront of the game, he suffers the negative modifier, which brings about the Doom.

Keith

I like the idea, Ralph, particularly:

Valamir wrote: 2) It avoids all issue of predetermination or steps or a path that you've been worried about with other mechanics. In the end, if you record all of the player's narrations when they use their Destiny you'll wind up with a wonderfully convoluted twisting path that mirrors the byzantine structure and cryptic nature of "prophecy".

Spur of the moment thoughts:

Neo would be using this destiny bonus to saving Morpheus and getting the hell out of the Matrix alive. After all, he is destined to become "the One". But why didn't be use this bonus before? What could possibly have prevented him from using that bonus to, perhaps, prevent Morpeus from getting captured in the first place?

And what about a character like Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader)? His destiny was to bring balance to the Force. All of the sudden, he started whooping Jedi ass and became the Sith apprentice to Emperor Palpatine. If he was destined to balance the Force, what made him veer off track? If he didn't change course, what made his progression cease? Were there other values or virtues involved?

No substantive comment, except:

Damn, I want to play this game! Somebody hurry up and write it already. I love the idea of mechanics based off temptation.

Especially this bit:

Valamir wrote: .... He forsakes his Destiny to be King forever gaining a one time (for the duration of the current situation) super bonus in order to save his Love....

Valamir wrote: One is to do nothing. Since the player can call on the Destiny whenever they want as long as they narrate how it fits, Anakin's player could simply decide to start using his Destiny to bolster nasty Dark Side vengeance type stuff. At which point the GM starts using Fate Points to censor / ostracise him from the other Jedi, deny him access to Light Force Powers or other such things...thereby Complicating Anakin's life and requiring him to continually turn to that Destiny in a sort of Spiral to the Dark Side effect during which the Destiny just naturally morphs during play. So Anakin's Destiny was to bring balance to the Force...? Whose to say that when wnakin turned that the Light Side wasn't the side that was too powerful...and that turning to the Dark and purging the Light Jedi wasn't exactly the sort of balance that the Destiny meant all along?

Maybe you have the Destiny "Born to be King". At some point the character falls in love and the GM wind up using Fate to have his love abducted. On the verge of being sacrificed to some evil dark god even the Destiny Bonus might not be enough to save his love...so the player decides to trade it in. He forsakes his Destiny to be King forever gaining a one time (for the duration of the current situation) super bonus in order to save his Love. Or, if even that isn't enough...he sells his own soul to the Dark God to get the even bigger super bonus...and thereby betrays his destiny by becoming the man who destroys the Kingdom he was to be king of.

killacozzy wrote: And what about a character like Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader)? His destiny was to bring balance to the Force. All of the sudden, he started whooping Jedi ass and became the Sith apprentice to Emperor Palpatine. If he was destined to balance the Force, what made him veer off track? If he didn't change course, what made his progression cease? Were there other values or virtues involved?

It seems like the resulting Fate points would almost ensure that his Love bites the big one. Perhaps this is good, perhaps this is bad. Guess you shouldn't double that destiny bonus!

But what about multiple destinies? Can characters have more than one destiny, either simultaneously or in succession?

Valamir wrote: Sydney: Thanks, and I know what you mean...as I was writing it I was thinking..."oooh, now I want to write a game like this" Course I'd probably make the Destiny "Bonus" the primary resolution system and scrap any notion of stats and skills and stuff.

pasoliati wrote: Just a very tiny aside, but Anakin fulfills his destiny of bringing balance to the Force. 1000 Jedi vs 2 Sith all the way down to 1 Jedi vs 2 Sith.

killacozzy wrote: If Destiny is designed to drive the character, what would create a love interest or any other goal?... too many "bonuses" for acting with a Destiny/Virtue/Tenet in mind...would almost make any traits besides these beliefs seem worthless....

Some more Brainstorming:

For Fate Costs, I'd start with something like:

Magnitude of what is effected is determined by character's current destiny level. Nature of what is effected costs Fate

2 Fate: Take an object, possession, or piece of property. At low Destiny the character's sword might break in the midst of a battle, or his horse might go lame in the midst of a mission. At a high Destiny, Excalibur itself could be lost or the character's castle stormed and reduced to rubble.

3 Fate: Damage the character's Lifestyle, or position in society. At low Destiny ladies of breeding avoid him because of the blood on his hands. At high destiny he's declared an outlaw and hunted.

4 Fate: Threaten the safety of persons close to the character or damage the character's relationships. The GM must provide an opportunity to save / restore the situation. The character's children are kidnapped, his wife believes him dead and is now betrothed to another, his best friend believes he killed his brother. At low Destiny the threat is easily dealt with (for now) at high Destiny its a campaign in itself.

5 Fate: Kill a person or persons the character knows character or irrevocably change the character's relationships. The character returns home to find his home burned (2 Fate) family butchered (5 Fate) and himself sold into slavery (3 Fate) ala Gladiator. At low Destiny the person is a casual acquaintance. At high Destiny the person is a close loved one or important patron.

As it was coming along, my mechanic involved three core stats—Body, Mind, Spirit—each given an appropriate value based on the character concept. Then, the players were given x amount of points to define traits, which basically gave bonuses to the three stats. Under Spirit is where I was mentally categorizing Destiny and its suitable bonus. I imagined that any beliefs or virtues could become their own traits/bonuses. The way I'm leaning now is that any number of traits can combine to augment the roll, which allows for Destiny and whatnot to influence the outcome.

But I just can't see the belief in something being the only determining factor in a conflict....

Or maybe the Destiny is the primary trait, with skills/talents/knowledges as modifiers to that main Destiny trait?

Actually, it might be interesting to allow characters to explore two different paths: building ever-higher levels of Destiny, with all the risks that entails (e.g. Anakin and Luke Skywalker); or building up personal prowess while struggling to steer clear of fate's clutches, which would be a relatively low-risk, low-reward strategy (e.g. Han Solo).

EDIT to add: So you get a Premise along the lines of "freedom or destiny?"

What about the overall result of Destiny?

I imagine that once a character fulfills that Destiny, he is finished with his story and becomes a Legend. Therefore, once a player completes this story and his character is a Legend, that character is now unplayable and the player creates a new character if the game is still to be played. This makes fulfillment of Destiny the end goal of the player/character.

Well these destiny approaches have a number of problems, IMO.

First, as above, surely the culmination of the Destony is also the culmination of the character in play. Thus, fulfilling the destiny will tend to be deferred, often indefinitely.

Second, inasmuch as the Destiny is important and meaningful, this then must be a story about the bringing about of that destiny. Thus, the action of pursuing the Destiony becomes all of plot. And worse, one plot for each character with a Destiny.

So, it seems to me, either such a game has to be 100%, relentlessly, about the pursuit and fulfillment of those destinies, or the destinies become impediments to be ignored, or a sort of affectation the character carries about with them, but which is essentially trivial.

Its not clear to me what you want the destinies to do - to coordinate play, or to assert a metaphysical fact about your world.

contracycle wrote: Well these destiny approaches have a number of problems, IMO.

First, as above, surely the culmination of the Destony is also the culmination of the character in play. Thus, fulfilling the destiny will tend to be deferred, often indefinitely.

Second, inasmuch as the Destiny is important and meaningful, this then must be a story about the bringing about of that destiny. Thus, the action of pursuing the Destiony becomes all of plot. And worse, one plot for each character with a Destiny.

I think this destiny trait represents what someone perceives their purpose to be, both as a reflection of outside opinion and as an independent goal. While I might think my destiny is "to give a great creation unto the world", the next guy's might be "to find contentment in my surroundings". For myself, I might think my progress towards this "destiny" is minimal. I'll be able to gauge this progress as I see the pieces falling into place. For that other guy, he'll have his own perceptions on how to meter his success.

In either case, the importance of the goal is subjective. While the other guy works night and day to meet someone special, make enough money to buy a house, and balance this "future" with his present needs, someone like me devotes his time to destiny when he gets the chance. I know I'll eventually meet this goal, but it may happen in ways I can't forsee.

Destiny drives us, but doesn't necessarily have to be the driving force. Personally, I have other beliefs and tenets that I must abide by in order to be true to myself. Destiny only has importance so far as it's allowed.

DESTINY:
It's an overarching plot device, yes.
It's the über-story.
It's that tale of Mulder striving to prove the existence of UFOs.
It's the series arch.

But then again, there's other importances that cannot be ignored. Even though I may feel I'm destined to become a great creator, I still play video games for fun, I still spend time with my girlfriend, and I still want to make money and be comfortable. If I'm on my way to the printer with my game text—destiny nearly fulfilled—and I see notice my car is on fire, am I going to ignore it and run to the printer anyway? No, I'm going to deal with my damn car because it's a safety hazard and because it has value to me. Or had value. Before it caught fire. Damn car.

VALUES:
They're distractions to the main tale, yes.
They're the individual stories.
They're the cases that Mulder takes because although they're unrelated to the UFOs, there's still something to prove.
They're the episodes.


I like the idea of flexibility. One-shots could involve plots that only concern the DESTINY. Campaigns could concern themselves with all sorts of conflicts, eventually leading to that series finale.... Heh, the more I think about it, the more the stucture resembles a TV series or comic book serial. Does that clear up my intentions in the slightest amount?


I dunno if this is compatible with typical RPG format. I know that most games have a major impending "disaster" to work with/towards/against, but to have individually customed destinies? And to offer a mechanic that rewards following such beliefs?

I'm still working on it, and I do appreciate the ideas generated by this thread.

Well, my general thrust was to illustrate that Destiny is a really slippery fish in an interactive medium. There are several ways of, lets say, phrasing what destiny means, and there are some problems inhertent to the finality of the concept.

I think there are two main functional strands: destiny as a kinda general character direction, as an expression of the characters views, or destiny as a structural device for coordinating the players.

I think the former actually has a fair amount of precedent. WOD has the personality archetypes that award XP for sticking to the general thrust of the characters agenda, and encouraging long term consistency. Fates Worse Than Death has a more refined system depedong on more specific moral values held by the character.

As a coordinating principle, much less work has been done, mainly IMO because of the habit of sticking to linear time. This is the angle I was trying to tackle with my Tension proposeals; that the game itself be posessed of a destiny, in a sense rather looser than a railroaded plot. One might say the aim is to establish a framework so that, if you have no idea what to do, you can always do whatever works toward the destiny in the confidence it will not wreck the direction and point of the game.

timfire wrote:

Valamir wrote: Sydney: Thanks, and I know what you mean...as I was writing it I was thinking..."oooh, now I want to write a game like this" Course I'd probably make the Destiny "Bonus" the primary resolution system and scrap any notion of stats and skills and stuff.

Totally. I think such a system would overpower the rest of the game anyway.

I just skimmed the thread, so sorry if someone already pointed this out. FATE has a pretty decent destiny mechanic which seems similar to what y'all are discussing, especially if you allow invoking aspects to count as using author stance.

See, what I'm unsure about is how to assign "Fate".

The Destiny trait is a trait all characters possess.... now, if "Fate" is acquired every time Destiny is called upon, quite a sum would accumulate. I almost want Fate to act as the "Dark Side of the Force" when large enough, but I'm reluctant to give the GM the power to spend Fate points against a character. I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a system similar to those presented, minus the power it gives the GM.

My current thought is that each time Destiny is called upon, the character receives a number of Fate points equal to Destiny (Destiny +1 causes 1 point, while +4 earns 4 Fate points). Perhaps, every few uses would earn the Fate points, but in any case, using Destiny brings Fate points to the character. If this number ever reaches 11 (or whatever amount), the final fate is enacted (that "endgame" of doom), but the player can "buy off" Fate points with negative traits for their character. For example, 5 points could become a "Broken Arm (-5)" trait, and anything involving this broken arm would incur the penalty. The group (GM and players) would have to agree on the trait, and if desired, the player could maybe even give a positive bonus to an enemy (but all traits purchased would have to be fairly devistating to the player). This discourages the GM from becoming the opposition of the players (which doesn't mean his characters cannot be opposition), and allows the game to evolve as more of a group endeavor, favoring the player's vision for his or her character.

I'm leaning heavily towards having the GM only act as the player of NPCs and "keeper" of the setting and such (isn't it obvious... LOL).

Any potential flaws?

Not a flaw, but let me challenge a preconception for a moment just to give you more food for thought.

Why do you want to segregate the gamemaster and go out of your way to make him MORE different than any other person at the table.

If you start with the assumption that all of the people sitting around the table are intelligent, creative, thoughtful human beings equally dedicated to giving their full effort to making the game fun for themselves and their fellows...then you should be able to pursue less differentiation between GM and players rather than more.

That this is true is witnessed by a number of games that have no seperate GM or which parsel out the GM's job in non traditional ways and which are very successfully and produce highly enjoyable play.

Sooo...why would you be willing to give great power to the players (choosing when and why to call upon destiny) but turn around and be afraid of giving great power to the GM. I heartily encourage you to embrace the idea that the GM is nothing MORE and nothing LESS than another player at the table. There is no reason to elevate the GM to godhood and there is no reason to shackle the GM with chains. Trust them to be good players also.

The system I outlined above was predicated on the idea that the players VOLUNTARILY give the GM the power to use Fate by choosing to engage Destiny. Any player who doesn't want to do that, has only to avoid engaging Destiny and thus the GM has no Fate to use. If the players WANT the GM to have that power...why fear it?

GM using his power against the CHARACTER is GOOD. GM using his power against the PLAYER is bad. Trust your players to know the difference.

Now I'm not saying my system is the end all be all, but I submit that perhaps you need to think long and hard about why you're worried about giving power to the GM.

Well, I guess it's moreso giving the GM sole interpretive power that I worry about....

If the GM gets to interpret singlehandedly what the consequences of inacting Destiny are, what would keep the GM from steering play entirely by use of hefty penalties?

I mean, the way I see it, the player chooses when and what to buy in terms of a penalty.... or the group decides as a whole, which would include the GM. The timing of this penalty and the nature don't have to be crippling, but simply suitable and harmful. A group concensus would only be necessary if a fighter tried to enact a magic penalty, which wouldn't really be any kind of penalty at all.

If the GM gets that power, he could choose to cripple a fighter with a horrible physical penalty right before he enters the final duel of his Destiny, simply because the GM wants the Villain to win, because the GM is supposed to act for the NPCs.

Truthfully, I'm trying to figure out how to make story elements into traits ("Villain caputured his daughter [-4]") without giving an opportunity to argue that such a trait would motivate rather than cripple. I want Destiny to create a penalty for overuse (representing arrogance leading to Doom), and this penalty would cost experience currency to remove.

I dunno, lots of ways I can go, but I'm still searching.

If the GM gets that power, he could choose to cripple a fighter with a horrible physical penalty right before he enters the final duel of his Destiny, simply because the GM wants the Villain to win, because the GM is supposed to act for the NPCs.

I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story. I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

I dunno.

If not for worries about how the game would play, I'd altogether scrap rules in favor of descriptions and cooperative play. But the fact is that rules exist within these games to give a system of conflict resolution. And even if conflicts within the game are solved, there's still diverging views on the story itself, which is why most games seem to give the GM omnipotence. Unfoftunately, that power does no good without omniscience as well.... but that's another topic altogether.


I actually doubt this system myself mostly because it punishes the character on a 1:1 ratio every time Destiny is called upon.... and I'm beginning to lose sight of what Fate even represented.... I guess I only wanted to prevent someone from calling on Fate every roll—abuse of the bonus. But since this is placing limits on players, you think it should be scrapped?

Originally, I wanted a Pride to interfere with Destiny much in the way that the Dark Side blocked the Light Side [of the Force]. But the only way I could even conceive of enacting such a rule would be to know character intentions and whether or not they're selfish.... it's too vague and wish-washy, I would think. Not enough concrete system, too much interpretation and room for argument.

But I could always be horribly wrong.

Heya,

killacozzy wrote: I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story. I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

killacozzy wrote: I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story. I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

If not for worries about how the game would play, I'd altogether scrap rules in favor of descriptions and cooperative play. But the fact is that rules exist within these games to give a system of conflict resolution. And even if conflicts within the game are solved, there's still diverging views on the story itself, which is why most games seem to give the GM omnipotence. Unfoftunately, that power does no good without omniscience as well.... but that's another topic altogether.

I actually doubt this system myself mostly because it punishes the character on a 1:1 ratio every time Destiny is called upon.... and I'm beginning to lose sight of what Fate even represented.... I guess I only wanted to prevent someone from calling on Fate every roll—abuse of the bonus. But since this is placing limits on players, you think it should be scrapped?