True 20 - Who here has played it, and what was your experience?

[The_Gut]

Just an fyi: The Caliphate Nights Framing mechanic is covered in True20's core rulebook (page 156 if you have the book or picked up the free pdf).

Yeah, I've got both. I've skimmed the framing part. My time will free up in the next week or two, and I'll have time to catch up on my reading.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Sorry, but it was a direct answer to your very direct question. You may feel that if you hide your attacks behind veiled statements (e.g. One might ask what the only difference is...) nobody will call you on it, but you're not fooling anybody here, least of all me.

You want to talk about the topic, fine, but I'd ask you to adopt a new attitude.

Since I see it as responding to your in kind, you first. Otherwise, I give what I get.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Even though this has devolved (as most long running threads tend to do) into a not very interesting minor flame war, I'm going to toss in a pertinant piece.

Many independant RPG's are at present exploring systems which increase player control and participation, while decreasing GM power. (They also tend to be "lets pretend" type things, with very light stats). I think its important to give some of these a try, simply to broaden one's gaming horizons.

Some samples (none of which I've played - yet) are Prime Time adventures, Polaris, THE SHAB AL-HIRI ROACH, Mountain Witch, and others. We live in an interesting time, in terms of role playing game experimentation. Both the Roach, and Polaris don't even have game masters.

And honestly, the view of the degree and power of the GM has always varied considerably; there are certain ideas that are probably dominant in the hobby as a whole, but they've never been just a given (well, at least not for a long time). I freely admit that some memes about this I've been fighting with for on the order of two decades now. However, I don't think the idea that there are some things the GM probably should be keeping his hands off of is all that unusual even now; its just a matter of where people put the dividing degree.

 

[Thomas5251212]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, then - I assume that a GM is going to play fair with their players, and not play favorites. Doing so is a serious failure on the GM's part, and that's something that no amount of rules is going to fix, sadly. There are games like Burning Wheel that claim to level this, but I haven't seen it work in the face of an unfair GM.

I assume decent GMs will try to. I also assume they'll fail fairly frequently. Given that, there are area where I simply think they should keep their hands off; generally characterization of PCs is one of those. There are some exceptions--systems with disadvantage systems usually let you opt-in on certain traits you put into the GM's hands, but there's usually enough of a variety you can avoid psychological ones if you don't agree with his view on some of those and still end up with the point-resource you need. And as I said, just to clarify again, a hero point like mechanic is a much less severe place to have it if you must than an experience system. But on the whole, I think its far better to avoid it entirely if practical.

Essentially, the player declares something cool and in-character, and the reward is given before they perform the action...thus encouraging such actions in the future. It also places the onus of performing the actions on the player, and does a lot to remove the opportunity for favoritism from the GM. It's not a perfect patch, but it levels the field a lot IME in games with resource rewards.

I guess I'm not quite understanding how this is meaningfully different than doing it after the fact, unless the player can then just elect not to do it, and I'm not quite seeing why that would be a good thing if one views this process as good at all. I have to conclude something is sailing over my head here.

Again, it's more a social than a rules issue, and in almost all cases it'll either be an unsolvable problem or something avoided by a strong social contract.

But again, if there's not a rules element dependent on it, its pretty much a non-issue; if the player says his character is cowardly, but he doesn't act that way from the GM's POV, it might create some dissonance in their interactions, but it doesn't really mean anything as long as the player is playing his characters as he sees fit and the GM is having NPCs react as he sees fit.

 

[Thomas5251212]

I missed this amid the flamewar, but I really dig this idea. As I've mentioned before, some Natures come up more often than others*, IME, so this would maybe make up for that. Also, I'm not too generous with conviction rewards, so a static 2/day seems like a good number to me.


* It's easy for me to assign Conviction for somebody with the Brave Virtue or the Cold-Blooded Vice, but harder for somebody who is Thoughtful or Petty.

This is, in fact, part though only part of the issue I have with it; most roleplaying reward mechanics by their nature tend to intrinsically favor "loud" roleplaying rather than subtle.

I gather in your experience one extra Conviction a day is about as much as you expect from the current system anyway?

 

[Father of Dragons]

This is, in fact, part though only part of the issue I have with it; most roleplaying reward mechanics by their nature tend to intrinsically favor "loud" roleplaying rather than subtle.

I gather in your experience one extra Conviction a day is about as much as you expect from the current system anyway?

(I know you asked iwatt this, but I'll throw my two cents in. I'm like that.) In general, how frequently or easily you give out conviction is part of how "cinematic" your game is, and to a large extent is part of the setting (for example, Nevermore, which is a fairytale/dreamlands setting specifies double conviction). My off-the-cuff idea of two points a day instead of a virtue and vice is for a "typical" game (whatever that means!), and would be likely adjusted for a higher or lower conviction game. (Some people slow down the automatic recovery of conviction for grittier settings.)

 

[Jim Hague]

I assume decent GMs will try to. I also assume they'll fail fairly frequently. Given that, there are area where I simply think they should keep their hands off; generally characterization of PCs is one of those. There are some exceptions--systems with disadvantage systems usually let you opt-in on certain traits you put into the GM's hands, but there's usually enough of a variety you can avoid psychological ones if you don't agree with his view on some of those and still end up with the point-resource you need. And as I said, just to clarify again, a hero point like mechanic is a much less severe place to have it if you must than an experience system. But on the whole, I think its far better to avoid it entirely if practical.

Unfortunately, GM craft is something that no rules set can really do a lot to improve. Again, I think players taking a more proactive stance in playing Virtues/Vices goes a long way to helping the GM fairly hand out Conviction. Likewise, the stance that a point of Conviction all around for overcoming a difficult obstance is a good one, I think.

I guess I'm not quite understanding how this is meaningfully different than doing it after the fact, unless the player can then just elect not to do it, and I'm not quite seeing why that would be a good thing if one views this process as good at all. I have to conclude something is sailing over my head here.

It's a small but meaningful difference because it's not reactive but proactive - it encourages cool stuff. At least across the several groups I GM for, with different players, it definitely encourages them to jump into the mix. Again, the key concept here is proactive - increased player investiture in the characters, world and game as a whole. After the fact, it's a judgement call; before, it's encouragement.

But again, if there's not a rules element dependent on it, its pretty much a non-issue; if the player says his character is cowardly, but he doesn't act that way from the GM's POV, it might create some dissonance in their interactions, but it doesn't really mean anything as long as the player is playing his characters as he sees fit and the GM is having NPCs react as he sees fit.

Again, the social issue...and there's no rules out there that solve it. A crap GM is a crap GM if they don't learn from their mistakes. I do think trying to create a mechanical solution for this is a mistake, simply because it is a social issue, and thus falls into social contract territory.

 

[buzz]

As far as I can tell, FATE does nothing to reduce the power of the GM...

It does, though, increase the power of the players via Aspects.

 

[buzz]

As I understand it, to deny the use of an aspect is to deny a characters ability to do anything (if I'm correct that aspects roughly equate to skills).

No, skills are separate. Aspects are a means by which players can boost their PCs skill or add some narrative flair. If an Aspect isn't applicable, a player can still spend a "generic" Fate Point for a lesser boost.

 

[buzz]

Wow, no GM at all? Now that is interesting. Can you expand upon that design? Who initiates events? Or are there no events to speak of outside what the PC instigate?

W/r/t Polaris, it's more that the GM seat rotates throughout the game. You're ideally playing with four players, and, on your turn, the player sitting opposite you is the one who generates adversity (sort of like a GM), which the players to the side take on other supportive/adversarial roles. You then keep going around the table, shifting roles each time.

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3010