What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Um, no. We have a very different interpretation of the post that stated this side discussion. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] brought up kitbashing, but neither AImaro or myself have, like, at all. You're smearing different lines of argument from different posters together to discredit everything.

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.

It is close, for a bit, but, yes, then it's gone because the 5e system doesn't cater to it as well or as often as Fate does. Was I not clear about that? I thought I was clear about that. I did say that FATE does it better, right -- yes, yes, I think I did say that, more than once in more than one response to you. Instead, you seem to have replaced what I actually said with some pastiche of Lanefan's comments and your own imaginings.

I'm not trying to thwart honest discussion. It just seemed like the answer to "we need a game to do what we want" was "well, D&D can do just do it!" and there was one post, which I'm sure we all read, which the gist of it was pretty much that we should all stop complaining and just slap some rule into D&D and nothing could be better. Not that I thought you were advocating that viewpoint, but I hope you can see how absurd the response was!

That wasn't the question. The question was 'what do other systems do that 5e doesn't at least touch on?' And I answered that in two ways:

1) compelling aspects from FATE is in the 5e core with backgrounds, middle path adjudication, and various, in system uses of inspiration and traits, bonds, and flaws. However, 5e's version is much less robust than FATE's and if what you want is the compelling aspects part of FATE, you really should play FATE because it does this much, much better than 5e. That said, if what we're considering is play aesthetics, it pays to be fair all around -- FATE is better at this, but 5e does evoke a much weaker version of it, at least occasionally.

2) 5e SUCKS at any setting other than fantasy (and, arguably, not even all fantasy). It can't do cyberpunk, like, at all. It's iffy at best for horror (largely because all of it's mechanics cut against horror tropes). In this case, there's a clear play aesthetic that 5e just plain doesn't do that other systems can do. And not even systems tailored to other settings -- FATE, as I said, is setting agnostic. You can do cyberpunk, fantasy, urban magicians, even Star Wars with FATE just fine. It's a very robust element of that system of play.

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!

You're back to mechanical engines instead of play aesthetics. Of course you can't play FATE with 5e -- the rules are different. But you can grab some of those things FATE does aesthetically and do them in 5e without contorting the system or kitbashing. I know this because I do it. I gave an example. Is it as good at evoking aspects as FATE is? No, which I also said. But, it does it, and I do it because it adds to my games. Having a player leverage a trait or background in an action declaration is awesome, and I like having that done. When I tempt a player with a flaw, that's great, too. However, at the end of the day, I still like D&D because we use a more tactical combat system to kill the orcs than FATE does, and that's what we play D&D for. I like being able to use the rules to evoke aspects of the players, but it's not the focus. When we want that as the focus, we'll play FATE. Just as you do because that's what you want.

I'm not saying 5e is the uber-system, it's not, at all, but it can do a few things you're not giving credit for. And that credit isn't acknowledgement that 5e is bestest, just that it has some built in features that do some things you're not acknowledging. FATE is still the boss at aspect leveraging, but 5e dabbles. What I am saying is that 5e is a broad and shallow system -- it does many things, but few (almost none) well, and certainly in any given focus there's a system out there than does it better (you don't even have to look far, quite often). But, 5e is often surprising flexible, if not very strong. The best thing that D&D does is be D&D.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@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!

Hmm. When a player declares an action and picks a skill in BitD, as GM I have full authority to set the position and effect. Yes, I should follow the fiction, but I find that constraint present in any game I run. The rub is, though, that I, as GM, have the fiat to declare the position and effect of an action. I don't find the constraints to be a compelling argument for that not being fiat, because they're not actual constraints rather than advice. Much like your pitcher example in your other reply above, the coach's advice isn't a constraint on the pitcher so much as good advice. I find good advice exists regardless of system.

However, I do see strong merit in finding some way to differentiate systems where the GM has full authorial control vice systems that mechanically share out some authorial controls and limit GM authorities, but I'm not sure 'fiat' is the hill to die on there. I can live with it if you insist, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Considered. It has no bearing at all on the connotations of 'principled' or 'disciplined,' that I can see.

"Judgement" carries even less information than "fiat" I'm afraid.

It carries different information, fiat implies arbitrary and without regard to anyone or anything. Judgement implies consideration of other factors - not excepting principles, though also implying some flexibility, perhaps more so than discipline.

But I'd consider it as an alternative to fiat, specifically.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The system steps back 10yds and punts to the DM, as part of its core resolution mechanic. Its written in 'natural language,' so is ambiguous enough to require constant interpretation & rulings, from the DM. It simply doesn't exist without one.

Is that hogwash? Maybe, but since MM washed the 5e hog, it's been immunized from criticism.

Nothing is immune from me nor sacred in my book.

I know from another thread that you've moved past the idea that the ideal RPG would be universal, but I still find it compelling. I classify systems as dedicated, core, multi-genre, or universal.

Dedicated is one game, one system, designed from the ground up, for that system. Obviously, the first RPGs were designed more or less that way, even if it was by degrees.

But, if you go to do a second game, and figure, why re-invent Oldowan Tools, you can strip away whatever doesn't work and build from there. Publish the stripped down version, and you've articulated a 'core system,' that you can use to build many games. AFAIK, Chaosium was the first to do that with Basic Role Playing in the early 80s.

Take that a little further, make each game built from your system mechanically compatible, and you have a multi-genre system. Like GURPS finally settled for being.

I'm not sure why you say 'take it a little further'. BRP is every bit as much a 'universal system' as GURPS (which from day one was designed as such, there was no 'settled for being', it was the concept from day 1).

Get to the point that putting out a new genre book doesn't require new mechanics, and you've arrived at a Universal System. Maybe that even really was the Holy Grail of game design, though, it's sure not the Holy Grail of sales, your fans buy one weighty tome, and they're done until the next edition. ;P

It was a holy grail, based on the VERY limited understanding of RPGs and conceptual frameworks available to articulate how they would work which existed in the late 1970's when BRP and GURPS were first conceived. I think, for the most part, designers have turned away from this model. Lets say that they have become more discriminating. There are certainly still generic core systems out there FUDGE, FATE, Cortex, Story Time, PbtA, etc.

So, 5e's sure not universal. Its got an SRD, so it's a d20 game. d20, itself, of course is a core system, and an open source one, which was an innovation - when FUDGE did it.

I feel inclined to credit FATE as multi-genre, but I'm not sure various FATE games are all as cross-compatible as GURPS.

Eh, GURPS is pretty cross-compatible. The main inssue there is they issued some source books during 2.x, some during 3.x, and some during 4.x, but a good many never got redone for each system. d6 is another similar system, but it is a bit more in the FATE category, the list of abilities and skills is genre-dependent, so d6 Fantasy character won't translate perfectly to d6 Space, though the conversion is likely to be straightforward.

In any case, the idea of 'doing 5e' or 'doing FATE' is going pretty far down a rabbit hole, IMHO. Its not about doing a character in a genre having adventures in a setting, it's about apeing system artifacts. In FATE, Aspects describe all sorts of things about your character, in 5e, traits are tightly limited, but Background, Class, &c touch on some of the same things as Aspects, also - it is, I suppose ironically, a more complicated system, that way - 'doing Aspects in 5e' is like 'doing classes in FATE,' it's kitbashing to fake how the other system does something the native system already does, just with different mechanics.
Ironically, a Universal System could do that cold, without kitbashing... there's just no good reason to do so.

The problem with the universal system concept is you have to make the decisions up front about how the major systems in the game fit together, and that means deciding a LOT of how it will work and what it is good for. A system which allows characters to be highly resistant to dying (or even virtually rules it out, like Cortex+ does) is one type of system, and it is very different, in every mechanical respect, from a system where characters are treated in a realistic "death is just one bad second away" kind of fashion. Those two systems aren't going to do the same sorts of games and you really cannot realistically make a system that covers both extremes. It would be SO generalized as to be basically nothing but some generic rules suggestions.

Boot Hill & Top Secret used similar systems, FASE-RIP was used in a few games, too, but they were never articulated as core systems.
The 2nd and 4th eds of GW were also both D&D-like.

Boot Hill and TS are sort of superficially similar, yes. They both cover genre where sudden death by means of a bullet is a substantial part of the milieu. Several other TSR games used vaguely similar percentile-based systems. They each have relatively little in common.

FASE-RIP WAS used in MSRP, one edition of GW, and IIRC one other game, Conan.

TSR DID produce one other game based on 2e, Buck Rogers in the XXVc. AFAIK it had very little traction as an RPG.

TSR also produced the Amazing Engine multi-genre system and used it for Metamorphosis Alpha, and, of course, Alternity, which afflicted the 5th ed of GW. Both to little success.

Right, that was their dying gasp attempt to do something 'revolutionary' in RPGs. Sadly their idea of a revolution was largely early-to-mid-80's era design. Alternity though is actually NOT an AE game, though its rules set was intended to replace AE (which was universally ignored in the market and got its butt kicked by Storyteller based games, leading to its cancellation in 1994). Slavicsek and Baker were the designers on Alternity BTW.

TSR had a number of good games, but the point is, AE/Alternity aside, they really were pretty much avowed practitioners of the 'system for each game' concept.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Classic Traveller ...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.

Traveller's just basic pass/fail skill checks, apart from the technological gulf changing the names and emphasis of skills, and D&Ds pronounced discomfort with acknowledging leadership or tactical acumen as character, rather than player traits, I see no major impediments... of course, it'd really be d20, not 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

Well, if you want 4e, forcing bloodied enemies to surrender via intimidation.

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

As I opined, up-thread, 40 years of pounding the baroque D&D peg into holes of every description, with however large a hammer it might take, can leave one convinced of its maleability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure why you say 'take it a little further'. BRP is every bit as much a 'universal system' as GURPS (which from day one was designed as such, there was no 'settled for being', it was the concept from day 1).

Obviously, GURPS was going for universal, thus the U, but it didn't make it. In the final analysis you needed a worldbook before you could play in another setting or genre, even though it didn't constitute a new game Thus SJG finally went with the multi-genre label.
BRP, OTOH, was the core of a system, built up into other games.

It was a holy grail, based on the VERY limited understanding of RPGs and conceptual frameworks available to articulate how they would work which existed in the late 1970's when BRP and GURPS were first conceived. I think, for the most part, designers have turned away from this model.

IDK, having watched MM share his design process, I'm dubious that there's been any /greater/ understanding achieved.

I hope you're not referring to Forge theories. ;(

The problem with the universal system concept is you have to make the decisions up front about how the major systems in the game fit together, and that means deciding a LOT of how it will work and what it is good for. A system which allows characters to be highly resistant to dying (or even virtually rules it out, like Cortex+ does) is one type of system, and it is very different, in every mechanical respect, from a system where characters are treated in a realistic "death is just one bad second away" kind of fashion. Those two systems aren't going to do the same sorts of games and you really cannot realistically make a system that covers both extremes.

Depending on the powers allowed and offensive vs defensive RoX, Fusion could handle either extreme - and characters from each could still interact under the same system (wouldn't go well for the 1 bad second types if it were combat).

For a more extreme example an old Champions! GM, before it became Hero Systems and acquired pretensions of Universal-ness, built some Saturday Morning baddies called 'Crystal Warriors' - they were robots (so you could kill em with a clear conscience), with high CV, powerful attacks, 1 BOD, no defenses, and 3d Susceptibility to being hit, with anything.

Yep, they were minions, c1985...

...using off the shelf build rules from a system known for making it very hard to die.

Right, that was their dying gasp attempt to do something 'revolutionary' in RPGs. Sadly their idea of a revolution was largely early-to-mid-80's era design. Alternity though is actually NOT an AE game, though its rules set was intended to replace AE (which was universally ignored in the market and got its butt kicked by Storyteller based games, leading to its cancellation in 1994).

Yeah, comma instead of period there, I meant to present Alternity as another system, not another AE game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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



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.



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.

OK, first thing:

The central character attributes in FATE are called aspects. Aspects cover a wide range of elements and define what makes your character unique—basically, they describe the core of your character's identity. (By contrast, skills and stunts could be said to paint a similar picture of what your character can do, rather than who he is.)

Note how this is stated, central character attributes. 5e's central attributes are ability scores, class, and race, and I'll throw in alignment as being pretty 'core' as well, at least by tradition. Background can be added to this in 5e. These are still a fairly restricted set of things. Character traits/goals are purely secondary in 5e, embellishing the existing picture told by your class, stats, etc.

As for uses of of aspects:

Invocation: Spend a fate point, describe how one of your character's aspects is beneficial to him, and get either a +2 bonus or a reroll to a skill roll.

Invocation for effect: Spend a fate point and describe how one of your character's aspects allows you to make a declaration of fact about something in the game.

Compel: Either receive a fate point when one of your character's aspects works to his disadvantage, or spend a fate point to avoid that disadvantage.

Tag: On any aspect you create or discover in a scene, get the first invocation for free (as in, without spending any fate points).

5e has a sort of an 'invocation', but it is NOT constrained by any character trait, you can spend inspiration for anything at all in 5e, but it only mechanically grants advantage, nothing else.

Invocation for effect doesn't exist in 5e at all. This is really the most core piece of FATE for Story Now.

Compel does not exist per se in 5e either. You get inspiration for 'cool stuff', but it isn't related to disadvantages, nor limited to only compelling an 'aspect' of your character.

Tag is entirely missing in 5e.

So we see that 5e actually lacks most of FATE's aspect-related mechanics and what it does have is less tied to specifics of the character.

At the start of a game, you'll place aspects on your character as part of the process of character creation. These aspects are effectively permanent, though they can change over the course of time.


In addition, during the setting creation process you will also place aspects on the setting in which the game takes place—these work just like character aspects do, defining the most important features and elements that make the setting unique.


You will also encounter temporary aspects during the course of play. These aspects might be placed on your character to describe momentary changes of condition or circumstance


(Off-Balance, Broken Nose), or they might be placed on an environment to highlight elements that might come into play during a scene (Gas Main, On Fire, Uneven Terrain). Typically, you will use your skills to create or discover these aspects during play.

Note how players can SET ASPECTS ON THE GAME WORLD which is completely outside of anything suggested in even optional 5e rules or discussion AFAIK. It is a significant element of FATE, again particularly as you move to hard Story Now play.

Aspects are, as seen above, also a generalized system mechanic, not something specifically tacked onto PCs uniquely. This allows the mechanic to play a much wider role in the game, particularly in genre-specific or thematic ways.

Other things:

Players can invoke ANY aspect, those on their own character, another character, the environment, etc. as long as it can be explained how it is relevant. Again, 5e just doesn't go here at all in several ways. Players can also invoke more than one aspect at a time for greater effect, given that they possess sufficient FATE points.

Compelling is a very flexible part of FATE and pretty much drives the game:


[h=3]

GM-Driven Compels[/h] Some compels are used to directly drive the story in one way or another and, as such, are really the province of the GM. A good GM will want to use the aspects of the PCs to create adventures and provide the basis for scenes.


This means that sometimes an aspect may add a complication "offscreen," such as when the GM decides to use a character's personal nemesis as the villain for a session or to give the character an unpleasant responsibility or assignment. She might also use a character's aspect to justify a particular "hook" for a future scene. When this happens, it counts as a compel.


GMs should not rely on a player's particular response to this kind of compel to drive a plot—remember, the purpose of a compel is to create drama, not force people into things. Keep in mind that a player can always negotiate the terms of a compel—he might have an even better idea for a dramatic way to start a scene or move the story along.


Say Yes, Roll the Dice, or Compel

Are you beginning to see how central to FATE this mechanic is? Contrary to what has been stated in previous posts, FATE is NOT "a skill based game with an Insight-like mechanic tacked on." The mechanics of Invocation and Compulsion are the game.

There are in fact a bunch MORE points that could be made about aspects and other elements of FATE related to them, there are Assessments, Declarations, a whole bunch of stuff related to Tagging and setups, etc. This is not just some isolated subsystem, it is an all-pervasive mechanical framework which creates a game system.

I hope I have hereby answered some of your questions. If you are interested you can check out the aspects page of the online FATE "SRD" at http://www.faterpg.com/dl/df/aspects.html It is interesting reading.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, first thing:
Note how this is stated, central character attributes. 5e's central attributes are ability scores, class, and race, and I'll throw in alignment as being pretty 'core' as well, at least by tradition. Background can be added to this in 5e.

Backgrounds are actually in the basic pdf, they're about as optional as race & class - a significant change from their introduction in 4e.

These are still a fairly restricted set of things. Character traits/goals are purely secondary in 5e, embellishing the existing picture told by your class, stats, etc.

Taken together, that is a great deal more complexity, and, considering the structure of classes, a great deal less flexibility, than FATE Aspects.

FATE is NOT "a skill based game with an Insight-like mechanic tacked on." The mechanics of Invocation and Compulsion are the game.

There's a lot to Fate that is about Playing A Certain Way, it's clearly spelled out and consistently supported and encouraged, if not outright forced. You could play that certain way in a lot of systems, but you wouldn't have the confidence that anyone playing at the same table who played a different way would be hosed.

5e is also, more cryptically, about Playing A Certain Way, it's a weight of tradition impressed into most of the game, where it's less so - inspiration, for instance - the sub-systems feels 'tacked on.' Perhaps ironically, a big part of that is affirmation of the DMs prerogative to make the game his own...
...and if a player doesn't go along with that (among other things), he's hosed. Similarly, you could play that certain way in many other systems, you just wouldn't receive the customary rewards for it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Backgrounds are actually in the basic pdf, they're about as optional as race & class - a significant change from their introduction in 4e.

Taken together, that is a great deal more complexity, and, considering the structure of classes, a great deal less flexibility, than FATE Aspects.

There's a lot to Fate that is about Playing A Certain Way, it's clearly spelled out and consistently supported and encouraged, if not outright forced. You could play that certain way in a lot of systems, but you wouldn't have the confidence that anyone playing at the same table who played a different way would be hosed.

5e is also, more cryptically, about Playing A Certain Way, it's a weight of tradition impressed into most of the game, where it's less so - inspiration, for instance - the sub-systems feels 'tacked on.' Perhaps ironically, a big part of that is affirmation of the DMs prerogative to make the game his own...
...and if a player doesn't go along with that (among other things), he's hosed. Similarly, you could play that certain way in many other systems, you just wouldn't receive the customary rewards for it.

If you read the link I provided to the Aspect part of the FATE SRD, yes, I think it is fair to say that a lot of what it states is in some sense 'advisory'. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise really, as its all heavily tied to narrative and thus to interpretations of what various aspects MEAN in a fictional sense (IE can you compel a specific aspect in a certain way, would a PC taking a certain action be a 'self compel', etc.). Still, its quite clear what is intended, and it is heavily supported by the logic of the FATE point economy. As noted by someone else above, if you fail to use Compels and Invocations 'correctly' then the economy of FATE points falls apart. So the game WILL mechanically tell you when you are 'doing it wrong'. Anyway, you simply cannot play 5e, or most traditional style RPGs like FATE, they simply lack the mechanical framework to make it happen. 5e Inspiration and 'bonds' really are not the same thing at all. Those who conflate them are in error.

Speaking for myself, I would say that most RPGs don't work well when you attempt to force them to work with a set of assumptions and principles that are at odds with the way the designer envisaged the game working (though there are games where there are 'alternate paths', like 4e probably).

 

[Aldarc]

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.

This is an incredibly superficial reading of both Fate and 5E Inspiration. You're just repeating your "a cat is a horse because they share X features" syllogisms. I have cited mechanics. I have described what they do. If you honestly can't see the difference, then I certainly question your grasp of both Fate and 5E D&D mechanics. If you would like me to do your work and show you how Inspiration mechanics are different in their implementation, I can do that as well. I have linked before to Angry GM also detailing the mechanical deficiencies of 5e Inspiration, and I would recommend that you look that up again.

Inspiration is supposedly gained via roleplaying your Bonds/Flaws/Ideals (BFI) or "just because." Though these Bonds/Flaws/Ideals come from your Background, the rules do provide latitude to create your own or not even bothering.

What does Inspiration do? It grants advantage on a chosen roll - i.e., roll 2d20 and take the higher roll result - and that is it. Inspiration can be used on any player roll. Though Inspiration is generated from BFI, it is not spent in regards to BFI. It will often be spent on some random attack, skill, or saving throw roll that is disconnected from a character's BFI. And all they are getting is taking the highest result from 2d20.

In Fate, fate points represent a mostly closed loop of player engagement with character concepts. (Again excepting the occasional stunt or power powered by fate points.) A character gains fate points by primarily roleplaying their Trouble Aspect and accepting GM Compels based on them. They spend Fate points by invoking their Aspects. So this economy circles back to Aspects, with the Player constantly reinforcing their character concept in play by spending and gaining Fate points.

When Batman invokes his aspect "World's Greatest Detective," it's because he has seen the dice roll result and he wants that +2 bonus because he knows that if he pushes himself a little further, he will either succeed or succeed with style in his investigation of the crime scene and then he will be one step closer to solving the case.

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.

If you would in fact go that far, then you would be making a horribly fallacious argument so I would respectfully advise you against that now so that you don't make the mistake of going that far. Because if you did what you described, you would not have Fate, which is the point. Fate is built on FUDGE - Fudge dice rolled against a ladder* - but Fate has definitely become more than simply FUDGE. Because if you removed Aspects from the game, you are left with only rolling Fudge dice against a ladder.** You have no High Concept, Trouble, or Character Aspects. You lose the Create an Advantage action. You lose almost the entirety of player engagement of the mechanics with those character concepts via Fate point interaction with aspects. You lose the narrative permissions. You lose the ability to declare story details. You lose the interaction in the scene with situation aspects. You have lost boosts. You have lost the Consequences system. You have stripped a lot of the heart and soul of Fate's play. So no, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], this is not the same as what I accuse 5e as being. Could I play Fate without once touching the Aspect/Fate point mechanic? Now, could I play D&D 5E without ever once touching the Inspiration mechanic. Nowhere even remotely close to being equivalent cases.

* This is as much of a system as "roll over target number with a d20".

** The skill system is not really that important for Fate. Fate Accelerated uses approaches that are about how and not what. Other Fate games such as Jadepunk, use a modified version that combines skills into Professions that you can rank. Some games of Fate forgo skills and just have you rank your aspects with a numerical value, and that is what you add to your roll. So the Aspects are clearly more crucial for running Fate than the skills.

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...

I suspect so. Mearls and Crawford are not unaware fools when it comes to the current gaming scene. Mearls has made reference, for example, to mechanics that he would like to see in D&D from Shadows of the Demon Lord. And there is a lot of engagement of different D&D-oriented fan streams online that seem aware of the trends and paradigm shifts emergent in a lot of indie games (e.g., BitD, DW, Fate, Cypher, Tiny Dungeon, etc.).

It is close, for a bit, but, yes, then it's gone because the 5e system doesn't cater to it as well or as often as Fate does. Was I not clear about that? I thought I was clear about that. I did say that FATE does it better, right -- yes, yes, I think I did say that, more than once in more than one response to you.

For the record, I thought that you were clear with this point.

You're back to mechanical engines instead of play aesthetics. Of course you can't play FATE with 5e -- the rules are different. But you can grab some of those things FATE does aesthetically and do them in 5e without contorting the system or kitbashing. I know this because I do it. I gave an example.

Honestly, for D&D I would probably prefer incorporating Dungeon World bonds over Fate's Troubles/Aspects system. If I wanted the latter, then I will just play Fate. Dungeon World at least exists as some measure of a PbtA emulation of D&D style adventures.