Hi all. As Ron has indicated that he would like this forum to also be a “Let’s discuss this game” forum, I’ll bite. Let’s discuss a variant of the Fudge RPG called Fate. You can download it from the following address: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FateRPG/files/fate.pdf

I think the neatest thing about Fate is the Aspect idea. In the Item Collecting thread we discussed, among other things, how Captain America using a gun in certain situations would violate fundamental precepts of his existences as a heroic character. I think Aspects are one possible way to model this. (Captain America’s shield as an Aspect is, I think, easy to see)

Involuntary invocations of Aspects are a neat metagame mechanic. Basically, whenever an Aspect is involuntarily invoked (e.g., a GM says “You’re too much of a Weakling” to lift that heavy rock”), the player can do one of two things: spend Fudge points equal to the level of his Aspect to overcome the invocation, or; accept the terms of the invocation and receive a number of Fudge points equal to his Aspect.

I guess the only thing I need to resolve about Aspects is what happens if you somehow manage to lose one, or get one changed. I’m also a little shaky on what to do when a problem player takes an Aspect (say, “Compassionate”) and intentionally places his character in a situation that would invoke the Aspect (like, torturing someone for no real end), all to get Fudge points. The concensus on the FateRPG Yahoogroup was that 1) if a character has an Aspect, unless there’s a good reason for violating it he wouldn’t consciously go against it, and 2) if there is no sense of dramatic risk in the situation, you don’t get Fudge points for it. But I would like to hear what the rest of you weigh in on this.

I get a Narrativist vibe from the game, especially from the designer’s notes. I guess I would have liked the designers to explicitly mention Fate’s dramatic bias in the Introduction, but it’s no big deal to me.

Although I don’t feel that they really hammered the point home as well as they could have, the intent of the designers was to have a very “abstract” damage system. For example, a “Hurt” result is one which lasts until the problem is addressed. It doesn’t actually have to be a physical wound or a flat “-1” penalty - a character’s backpack strap could get in the way, a character could be disarmed, or the character might suffer some positional disadvantage. I really like this style of damage, since it can be applied to the contested Tactics skill of two generals leading armies, among other things.

There are a few typos and places in the rules that I feel could have been explained better, but all in all I think Fate is a very cool RPG.

Jon

Well, it seems that idea tanked :) . Is no one interested in discussing this game, or are people just digesting the rules? I hope I didn't come across as some frothing fanboy and turn people off to the game. :)

I remain most interested on hearing what others think of the Aspect system. In particular, I'm still a little shaky on what could be a loophole in the rules. I'll describe the problem with the most general terminology I can use, so that the rest of you don't need to read the entire set of rules.

Basically, a player defines some aspect or quality of his character. This aspect can be voluntarily or involuntarily invoked. Voluntary invocation is done by the player, typically giving the character several benefits such as rerolling the dice.

Involuntary invocation is done by the GM, and it limits what a character can do. The player has a choice - he can either accept the terms of this aspect and receive a metagame "award" (that is, Fudge points), or he can spend metagame "points" (the same Fudge points) to overcome his aspect. As the magnitude of the aspect increases, it costs more points to overcome it.

Fudge points in this game can be used for many things, such as giving bonuses to the dice roll or effecting minor changes in the setting. So, in many ways a player will want to buy at least one "negative" aspect as a means for getting metagame "gimmies".

The "problem" I see is when a player takes an aspect and purposefully places his character in a situation where the aspect is involuntarily invoked. The most blatant example would be a character with a Compassionate aspect going around and torturing people. The GM *should* invoke the aspect. Because the player didn't voluntarily invoke his aspect, he should get the option of paying to overcome it or accepting the ramifications of it and getting a metagame reward. However, the player, surreptiously or not, had every intention of accruing the metagame reward.

I've heard of similar problems with disadvantages in GURPS. For example, an adventuring party has a choice between traveling a long and dangerous overland route or via a speedy sea route in order to reach their destination. However, there is a member of the party with the "Hydrophobia" disadvantage. While the character would probably choose the overland route, the player may decide to choose sea route, since he will have more opportunities to invoke his disadvantage and gain a metagame reward.

The only difference between these two situations is that in Fate, instead of getting "paid" for taking a negative aspect (as in GURPS), the player has to pay for the negative aspect. But I think it's an interesting "problem" in many games, not just Fate.

Jon

Jon,

I am still digesting the rules a bit. I do prefer the use of aspects (keywords, cliches) over abilities in my games. I also like the idea of Fudge dice (though I have never played with them in an actual game.)

I do wonder about some of the alterations to Fudge. Especially having an "average" ability level which is a very questionable concept. I am sure there was a reasoning behind this (probably just needing more rungs). But I would prefer just to start all skills at Poor and work from there.

Thanks,
Mark J.

I'm also still digesting the rules. I'm very fond of Fudge in general and gamed with it almost exclusively for about a year.

Mark, as you mentioned, one of the most frequent alterations to FUDGE is the rank ladder, mostly to add ranks to the high end (otherwise Legendary actions get performed with remarkable regularity.)

I love fudge dice. Everytime I read a diced system I try to think of a way I could use them instead...alas its not always a good solution. Its an irrational love I think.

cheers,

Trevis

LordX wrote: I do wonder about some of the alterations to Fudge. Especially having an "average" ability level which is a very questionable concept. I am sure there was a reasoning behind this (probably just needing more rungs). But I would prefer just to start all skills at Poor and work from there.

I don't actually think the numbers with the traits are that important, and that always seems to get confused in fudge because people take the negative numbers as a rating when its not. The core mechanic for fudge is only to roll the dice and move up and down the scale as appropriate given the positives or negatives generated by the Dice. Its a psyche out. Usually when I have people create fudge characters, I only work with the words.

Trevis

LordX wrote: I do wonder about some of the alterations to Fudge. Especially having an "average" ability level which is a very questionable concept. I am sure there was a reasoning behind this (probably just needing more rungs). But I would prefer just to start all skills at Poor and work from there.

Samachadreal wrote: I don't actually think the numbers with the traits are that important, and that always seems to get confused in fudge because people take the negative numbers as a rating when its not. The core mechanic for fudge is only to roll the dice and move up and down the scale as appropriate given the positives or negatives generated by the Dice. Its a psyche out. Usually when I have people create fudge characters, I only work with the words.

To get back to the original question about the Aspect mechanic, I see two points either of which solve any potential problems, and together sound very advantageous for the right players.

First, the rule does say that the GM invokes these things in the case where there is a potantial reward. And as somebody pointed out, the invocation should only be for dramatic reasons. So, if the player is doing something that violates the nature of his Aspect for simple Gamist reasons, it seems to me that the GM is under no compunction to give out a reward.

Which in turn means that the player is incentivized to go against his Aspects only in dramatic situations. From a Narrativist POV, this is pure genius. As Ron is fond of pointing out, only in Sim games are disads and such designed to limit character action. In Narrativist games, something like an Aspect is meant to be challenged. They are a context for the character, not a definition. As such, the torture scene could be very powerful, a statement about how the character was going against his usual nature. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it sounds like the designers know exactly what they were doing. Given that they named them Aspects and not Disadvantages, I'm almost sure they did.

I'd not seen this mechanic before, but I'd say it sounds like the only one I've seen that drives FUDGE from Sim to Nar. Which corresonds with the feeling that you had, right Zaal?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Which in turn means that the player is incentivized to go against his Aspects only in dramatic situations. From a Narrativist POV, this is pure genius. As Ron is fond of pointing out, only in Sim games are disads and such designed to limit character action. In Narrativist games, something like an Aspect is meant to be challenged. They are a context for the character, not a definition. As such, the torture scene could be very powerful, a statement about how the character was going against his usual nature. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it sounds like the designers know exactly what they were doing. Given that they named them Aspects and not Disadvantages, I'm almost sure they did.

I'd not seen this mechanic before, but I'd say it sounds like the only one I've seen that drives FUDGE from Sim to Nar. Which corresonds with the feeling that you had, right Zaal?

Mike Holmes wrote: First, the rule does say that the GM invokes these things in the case where there is a potantial reward. And as somebody pointed out, the invocation should only be for dramatic reasons...

I'd not seen this mechanic before, but I'd say it sounds like the only one I've seen that drives FUDGE from Sim to Nar. Which corresonds with the feeling that you had, right Zaal?

No problem.

I wish someone would come along and corroborate (or challenge) my observations, however.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: No problem.

I wish someone would come along and corroborate (or challenge) my observations, however.

Mike

zaal wrote: Involuntary invocations of Aspects are a neat metagame mechanic. Basically, whenever an Aspect is involuntarily invoked (e.g., a GM says “You’re too much of a Weakling” to lift that heavy rock”), the player can do one of two things: spend Fudge points equal to the level of his Aspect to overcome the invocation, or; accept the terms of the invocation and receive a number of Fudge points equal to his Aspect.

zaal wrote: What happens if you somehow manage to lose one, or get one changed. I’m also a little shaky on what to do when a problem player takes an Aspect (say, “Compassionate”) and intentionally places his character in a situation that would invoke the Aspect (like, torturing someone for no real end), all to get Fudge points.

zaal wrote: Well, it seems that idea tanked :) .

zaal wrote: Voluntary invocation is done by the player, typically giving the character several benefits such as re-rolling the dice.

iago wrote: In general, characters will tend to act in accordance with their aspects, and to some extent, the GM can rely on that, and take some predictive steps to generate story based on such things. I am a fan both of a certain measure of player empowerment with regards to the story, and the idea that the GM provides an overall guiding vision.

Aspects can act as a conduit for managing both concepts in relation to one another, codifying those moments where characters act against type and -- assuming the player pays (in Fudge points, the coin of the meta realm) to go against type -- allowing the significance of going against type to stand out in sharper relief. Or, if the player chooses to back off from going against type, the GM gives that player a reward (in the same coin) saying, in effect, "Thank you for acting as anticipated" (though that statement should not be given too much weight; the reasons for the reward may be many).

Mike Holmes wrote: I'd not seen this mechanic before...

...I wish someone would come along and corroborate (or challenge) my observations, however.

Le Joueur wrote:

iago wrote: In general, characters will tend to act in accordance with their aspects, and to some extent, the GM can rely on that, and take some predictive steps to generate story based on such things. I am a fan both of a certain measure of player empowerment with regards to the story, and the idea that the GM provides an overall guiding vision.

Aspects can act as a conduit for managing both concepts in relation to one another, codifying those moments where characters act against type and -- assuming the player pays (in Fudge points, the coin of the meta realm) to go against type -- allowing the significance of going against type to stand out in sharper relief. Or, if the player chooses to back off from going against type, the GM gives that player a reward (in the same coin) saying, in effect, "Thank you for acting as anticipated" (though that statement should not be given too much weight; the reasons for the reward may be many).

This was exactly the intention with the Sine Qua Non Persona Development Technique in Scattershot (when played into Narrativist modes); does it work well this way in Fudge?

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.

clehrich wrote: 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 wrote:

clehrich wrote:

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.

Le Joueur wrote:

zaal wrote: Well, it seems that idea tanked :) .

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

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!

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.

Our pleasure!

iago wrote: 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.

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