What is worldbuilding for?

Imaro · Jun 18, 2018

AbdulAlhazred said:
Its not a snark! It may be an amusing analogy, but nothing about it is snarky. I didn't label it 'kitbashing', the statement was made that you could just kitbash 5e and it would whatever you wanted, so why are you complaining? Then you came back with this statement you're now claiming was the original point, but that wasn't how I interpreted the discussion at all! The genesis of this was the question about why people weren't just using 5e. We answered it.

Actually... I think you're mistaken about the original point and how this line of conversation began...

AbdulAlhazred said:
So lets reset and answer the question AGAIN! We aren't using 5e because your milquetoast 5e version of compelling aspects is not even close to providing the kind of experience that you would get with FATE. Its that simple. I don't know how else to put it. The mechanics of 5e do not support what the mechanics of FATE support. Yes, 5e has some minor bolt-on that can do 10% of what FATE's core mechanics are. That may be fine for some people.

Can you give specifics as to what the mechanics for Aspects are in FATE are and what it is they provide 5e can't with Inspiration and Bonds/Flaws/Ideals. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm also not sure I agree with you.

AbdulAlhazred said:
Our position is, afaik, that doing something FATE-like in 5e as it stands now, that would require a LOT of changes. Nobody is disputing that Inspiration exists, just that the whole structure of 5e is not really designed to support that sort of thing, and thus it wouldn't satisfy most people's needs for that type of game. This isn't a criticism of 5e either, its simply reality, it wasn't made to be that sort of game. Nobody is going to dispute your conclusion, D&D is D&D and it does D&D well. Likewise FATE is FATE and does FATE well. That's what I meant when I said you changed the terms of the discussion. We have now come full circle!

I think your position is understood... it's just that some of us are interested in digging into the What and Why of this but it seems incredibly hard to do since no concrete examples are being laid out. For example what do Aspects mechanically offer that Inspiration and the Bond/Flaw/Ideal system don't? I've stated from a mechanical perspective how I see the two and why I think they are similar but I've yet to see that done from the other perspective... that's what i'm interested in hearing.

Aldarc · Jun 18, 2018

Imaro said:
This is an interesting assertion seeing as mechanically, at it's core, FATE is a pretty generic system based around skills (D&D has these) that are rolled against a GM set difficulty that must be beat for success... and stunts (D&D has a similar mechanic in feats). Outside of this we have Aspects, which as much as it seems to be ruffling some feathers are at their most basic level character descriptors (around beliefs, relationships, problems, etc.) which D&D 5e also contains in the form of Ideals, Bonds, Flaws etc. that the player or GM can draw on for roleplay in order to get a bonus fo some type to a roll (Compel in FATE/Inspiration in 5e).

And house cats can be ridden like horses because they too are mammals with tails that walk around on all fours. I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly shallow reading of Fate's mechanics, which anyone "moderately familiar with FATE" should know. There is a lot more to Aspects, Fate points, and the mechanics of Fate than this.

Ok well I'm moderately familiar with FATE and I'm not seeing how 5e can't approximate (note I didn't and have never claimed it could replicate in exacting detail) the same experience FATE does with Aspects using the Inspiration mechanics and the descriptors in the game for those players at the table who are interested in this type of play.

We definitely had this debate already, and I definitely disagreed then with your assertion just as I do now. You have done little to show that it could reasonably approximate the experience in Fate. The 5E Bonds system is a stinking piece of garbage slapped haphazardly onto 5E. You take it away from 5E, and not a single player or GM would shed a single tear, much less notice its absence. It's vestigial. If you push the Inspiration mechanic and it would still be such a pale echo. The Inspiration System may have been some of WotC's laziest writing for the entirety of 5E.

Tony Vargas said:
Not nearly so much as you might think from the unavoidable fact that the GM chooses the system and may thus choose to change it as much as he likes. In the 90s, RPGs were thier settings - we still blythly refer to the Storyteller system as 'WoD,' for instance, and 2e was heavily focused on setting.

Maybe not, but it's still more then you think. And screw gaming in the '90s, Tony, we are talking about games now.

Until 5e, the D&D of the WotC era was very much the underlying system, the RAW. The community was dismissive of house rules, and System Matery dominated.

GMs can always overwrite the system, even the zietgeist, of the game they're nominally running, of course, but in 1e, and, very intentionally, 5e's DM Empowerment, they are expected, arguably even required to do so.

I don't know what to say apart from "Are you familiar with modern game design?" What I have described regarding GM empowerment is far more common than you think, and this is hardly D&D only or D&D primary. Most of the indie games that have been thrown around have a heavy GM fiat component: Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Cypher System, etc.

Tony Vargas · Jun 18, 2018

Aldarc said:
I don't know what to say apart from "Are you familiar with modern game design?"

Modern? I thought we were talking about D&D?

Most of the indie games that have been thrown around have a heavy GM fiat component: Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Cypher System, etc.

Fair 'nuff. BitD & Fate seem to give a lot of latitude to players, as well, though.

Aldarc · Jun 18, 2018

Imaro said:
Can you give specifics as to what the mechanics for Aspects are in FATE are and what it is they provide 5e can't with Inspiration and Bonds/Flaws/Ideals. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm also not sure I agree with you.

For example what do Aspects mechanically offer that Inspiration and the Bond/Flaw/Ideal system don't? I've stated from a mechanical perspective how I see the two and why I think they are similar but I've yet to see that done from the other perspective... that's what i'm interested in hearing.

Looking at what Evil Hat wrote,...

In Fate, aspects do two major things: they tell you what’s important about the game, and they help you decide when to use the mechanics.

Aspects in Fate are your character. They are your race, class, specialization, subclass, background, bonds/flaws/ideals, etc. They are kinda your everything. They are whatever you deem most important about your character. Aspects are unquestionably more flexible and offer the players greater latitude of freedom than D&D 5E classes/races. Aspects are also always true, and they grant narrative permissions. These narrative permissions could be anything, including flight. They also are meant to alert the GM to what the player wants their character to experience, because Aspects that do not receive regular play, especially Troubles, can ruin the Fate point economy of the game.

Aspects and Fate points are intricately tied together. Three out of the four uses of Fate points pertain to your character Aspects: invoke an aspect, refuse a Compel of your Trouble, and declaring a story detail. (The fourth is for powering stunts.) And you earn Fate points primarily by having your Aspects invoked against you and accepting a Compel.

When you spend a Fate point to invoke one of your character aspects, you can do one of four things:
* Take a +2 to the result after you roll.
* Reroll all your dice.
* Pass a +2 benefit to another player/character's roll (if reasonable)
* Add a +2 to passive opposition that makes things more difficult for others
You can even invoke multiple aspects, if you have the Fate points and the aspects are relevant, such that you can get multiple stacking bonuses.

But here is the kicker, I have been describing thus far Aspects as they pertain to your character, but the truth is that in Fate, aspects are everywhere in the scene. This may be a situation aspect "Rotting Rope Ladder" or "Flames Ablaze." Organizations can have aspects. Buildings can have aspects. Your vehicles can have aspects. So the very nature of Aspects in Fate extends beyond simply the character but also into the world. The player can also Create an Advantage by attempting to create an aspect in-play: e.g., "Blinded by Pocketsand!" or "Have a Nice Trip!" You are often discovering new aspects, attempting to get boost and free invokes, and spending fate points.

So Aspects and Fate points are cohesive and ingrained in the system. This is a totality of the game experience that D&D 5E can't really touch.

Tony Vargas said:
Fair 'nuff. BitD & Fate seem to give a lot of latitude to players, as well, though.

They do. There is a lot of GM fiat, but also a lot of player consent and input. A lot of indie games have shifted the social contract around so there is more equality between the GM and players while still promoting "GM empowerment." Fate has a mechanical checks-and-balance system. But a lot of GM rulings are dictated by "fiction first" and then selecting most appropriate mechanics for the situation.

Tony Vargas · Jun 19, 2018

Aldarc said:
They do. There is a lot of GM fiat, but also a lot of player consent and input. A lot of indie games have shifted the social contract around so there is more equality between the GM and players while still promoting "GM empowerment."

Call me cynical (it's unnecessary, we all know I am, but go ahead if you feel like it), but D&D-style DM Empowerment is not about just empowering the DM, but also assiduously avoiding 'player entitlement' (ie, empowering players) as a polar opposite. It's a pendulum thing. 3.x/PF/4e were very player-empowering (albeit in different ways), and 5e has been a reaction to that, a return to the game's roots.

Fate has a mechanical checks-and-balance system. But a lot of GM rulings are dictated by "fiction first" and then selecting most appropriate mechanics for the situation.

Maybe 6e will have a synthesis of Player & DM empowerment like that? Or maybe, (if I'm being uncharacteristically less-cynical) 5e will even grow into it...

Manbearcat · Jun 19, 2018

@Aldarc and @Tony Vargas

Just read the last page or so right quick (anymore my reading of EnWorld is extremely sporadic, quick, and bouncing around) and I just wanted to add something to clarify your discussion.

I'm not a big fan of the term "fiat" to describe GMing in games like BitD, DW, etc. When we deploy the term "fiat" with respect to GMing in RPGs, we're typically talking about a game that affords a GM basically (or nearly) a full mandate, extraordinary latitude to make decisions about the mechanics and the fiction under the auspices of some very zoomed-out agenda like "whatever (the GM thinks) provides the most fun/tells the best story." So these decisions can either be somewhat arbitrary (under scrutiny) or feel arbitrary in the moment.

Contrast this with games like the aforementioned BitD and DW where GMing is extremely (transparent and explicit) principle-and-premise-constrained. GMs who enjoy the former latitude will often struggle under the enforced discipline and directives of the latter (until they either toggle their mental framework or get used to it). As such, I don't think "fiat" is a particularly good descriptor here. I think people who aren't familiar with these games (and what running them is like) will be confused and unable to distinguish the significant difference because they associate the word "fiat" with a very particular GMing paradigm.

So I don't use that term when I describe what you're doing when running those games. I think even using the language "principled and disciplined fiat" is fraught because folks are still going to focus on the word "fiat" and let that guide their understanding. I typically just describe it with terms like "principles" and "discipline" and depict those constraints.

Anyway, carry on!

Imaro · Jun 19, 2018

Aldarc said:
And house cats can be ridden like horses because they too are mammals with tails that walk around on all fours. I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly shallow reading of Fate's mechanics, which anyone "moderately familiar with FATE" should know. There is a lot more to Aspects, Fate points, and the mechanics of Fate than this.

I actually gave a summary of the rules in the thread... and no, there really isn't much more to it. Again cite some mechanics not descriptions or advice but what the actual mechanics are... what do Aspects and FATE points allow you to do mechanically? They give you bonuses to rolls just like inspiration does. You receive them for roleplaying your character... just like inspiration. And as for aspects in scenes.... it's no different than terrain, hazards, etc. in D&D (Yes the mechanical implementation is different because they are different games... but they serve the same purpose). At it's core FATE is a pretty traditional game with... wait for it... Aspects/FATE points tacked on.

In fact I'd go so far as to say if you removed FATE points and aspects from the game you would still have a perfectly playable albeit highly generic system called FUDGE. It is literally, exactly what you accuse D&D 5e of being... a pre-existing system with narrative elements slapped on it.

Aldarc said:
We definitely had this debate already, and I definitely disagreed then with your assertion just as I do now. You have done little to show that it could reasonably approximate the experience in Fate. The 5E Bonds system is a stinking piece of garbage slapped haphazardly onto 5E. You take it away from 5E, and not a single player or GM would shed a single tear, much less notice its absence. It's vestigial. If you push the Inspiration mechanic and it would still be such a pale echo. The Inspiration System may have been some of WotC's laziest writing for the entirety of 5E.

Uhm ok... let's just say it serves me and my group well enough... so I guess one man's garbage is another man treasure. Honestly when we reach the point where you argument boils down to a rant of "it's garbage"... we probably have reached a point where actual discussion and analysis isn't going to happen so I'll gladly step away from this particular tangent for now. FATE serves you well and D&D 5e does the same for me. Deuces!!

Tony Vargas · Jun 19, 2018

Manbearcat said:
I think even using the language "principled and disciplined fiat" is fraught because folks are still going to focus on the word "fiat" and let that guide their understanding

Plus, qualifying it that way implies that it would otherwise be unprincipled & undisciplined.

How about 'judgement' rather than 'fiat.'

pemerton · Jun 19, 2018

I GMed a session of Classic Traveller a bit over a week ago.

The action included:

* An untethered space walk to force open an external hatch into a ship's engineering section - in mechanical terms, this tested Vacc-Suit and Mechanical skill;

* Coordinating two assault teams within the spaceship, one coming upthrough the engineering section and the other through the main elevator - in mechanical terms, this tested Communications, Tactics, and Leadership;

* Assaulting a base using an ATV driven out of a starship hold - in mechanical terms, this tested Wheeled Vehicle skill, plus various weapon attacks, Engineering skill to modulate power to the ship's weaponry and Gunnery to use said weaponry to blow up the base;

* Rescuing data from a computer system as the base blew up - this tested Computer skill.

That's just the events, before we get to anything like "feel". I don't see how D&D, or a D&D variant, could even approximate to that. Skills are not a big enough part of PC build or action resolution. And then there is the bundling of abilities in terms of classes - the PC who made the Computer check is also a big bruiser with a two-handed sword and INT 2. Traveller PC generation allows for those sorts of combos; D&D's class-based system not so much.

Even thinking about recent Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy sessions, they're not replicable by D&D. For instance, D&D has no analogue to mental and emotional stress, and so no system that fits with the standard action economy and resolution procedures for persuading an opponent in the course of a fight that they are bested, and hence should do the PCs' bidding. (4e comes closest with some example skill challenges and options with psychic damage in modules like Heathen or Cairn of the Winter King, but still falls well short of Cortex+ Heroic.)

It's bizarre to me that this is even a discussion.

Manbearcat · Jun 19, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
Plus, qualifying it that way implies that it would otherwise be unprincipled & undisciplined.

I don't agree. Consider the following analogy (those work).

You have a baseball pitcher and a coach.

In one instance, the coach simply says to the pitcher "get those guys out the best you can."

In another instance, the coach says to the pitcher all of the following:

1) "Pitch count kid. You've got 100 pitches and absolutely no more, so pound the strike zone, get ahead in the count, and pitch to contact when you can. Don't get seduced by the Strikeout and waste a bunch of pitches if you're up in the count. Remember, you've got a lot of guys behind you that can field it with the best of them. Let them work."

2) "Don't show them your Changeup the first time through the order; just Fastball > Slider. Second time through the order you can lead with the Changeup."

3) "Their 3-hole hitter is a lefty who can't deal with fastballs in around his hands. But he mashes, so know if you get behind that kid and we've got runners in scoring position with first base open, you're spending 4 of your 100 max pitch count to put him on 1st base (Intentional Walk)."

4) "Top of the order are all first-ball, Fastball hitters, so don't get careless with fat 4 seamers (typical Fastballs) in the middle of the strike zone with any of those guys."

5) "We've got <so-and-so> available for 4 innings today, so if you don't show command in the first few innings, I'm gonna get you out of there so we have you for <game 2 days later>."

The first guy can't be "unprincipled and/or undisciplined" because he has no constraining guidance.

The second guy can due to the constraining guidance.

How about 'judgement' rather than 'fiat.'

"Judgement" carries even less information than "fiat" I'm afraid. Principles and discipline are fundamental components of the sort of indie games that were being discussed. You have principles that guide and constrain and you need to be disciplined in following them (even if, actually especially if, you feel like you "know better" in an instance of play).