Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Ratskinner]

[/QUOTE]

Actually I think your understanding of a compel is wrong.... compelling an aspect is a pro-active action.

That's the way is supposed to work. That is, the GM intentionally and knowingly using your aspects to design the scenario. A Retroactive Compel is used for (basically) when the GM forgets or overlooks that he's doing that:

Retroactive Compels
Sometimes, you’ll notice during the game that you’ve fulfilled the criteria for a compel without a fate point getting awarded. You’ve played your aspects to the hilt and gotten yourself into all kinds of trouble, or you’ve narrated crazy and dramatic stuff happening to a character related to their aspects just out of reflex. Anyone who realizes this in play can mention it, and the fate point can be awarded retroactively, treating it like a compel after the fact.

GMs, you’re the final arbiter. It should be pretty obvious when something like this occurs, though—just look at the guidelines for event and decision compels above, and see if you can summarize what happened in the game according
to those guidelines. If you can, award a fate point.

In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).

The other way you use aspects in the game is called a compel. If you’re in a situation where having or being around a certain aspect means your character’s life is more dramatic or complicated, someone can compel the aspect. That aspect can be on your character, the scene, location, game, or anywhere else that’s currently in play...

In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is.

The last part clearly shows the GM has (the choice, hence the word "can") to make an offer on a specific complication concerning the aspect, it's not enough that a giant snake is there, that isn't the complication that the offer is being made on. The snake isn't in and of itself a complication created by the compel... the snake is there, the compel has to be a situation the GM specifically offers a FP for.

You need to consider whether the situation fulfills (or can fulfill) the circumstances as presented in the two example compels (there are other similar formulations that other folks use.) It is explicitly not just when a monster shows up, but only when it causes problems for the character of the types that you can work out with those fill-in-the-blank phrases. In the big snake scenario presented, both are true for that character's aspects...hence he can collect two FP. Rather than a trap, the situation is a bit of bonanza for the PC, the innocents and the snake trigger two aspects at once and its not clear that either would alone! That bit of story is focusing intently on that PC's aspects and is precisely the kind of thing that the whole FP economy is designed to encourage. However, if he is just walking through the marketplace and I unthinkingly narrate walking past an inconsequential snake charmer, that doesn't net him a point, because it doesn't fill in the rest of the blanks very well:

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are walking through the marketplace, so it makes sense that,
unfortunately, there is a snake charmer would happen to you. Damn your luck.

In that case, the existence of the snake isn't presenting a problem for the character, and hence no FP/compel. Which is not to say that the GM or player couldn't suggest such a compel vis-a-vis the second formulation:

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect when you see a snake charmer while crossing the marketplace, so it makes sense that you’d decide to swing to the other side of the plaza to avoid it. This goes wrong when the thief you're tailing uses that opportunity to escape. (or some other adventure-appropo mishap)

However, that's different from what we were seeing in the scenario as presented. That scenario easily triggered both aspects as I noted in the previous post.

This is like saying if one of my aspects is "Why'd it have to be monsters" in a Fate D&D inspired game... I'd get a FP every time a monster appears in a scene. that makes no sense... the GM has to pro-actively contrive a specific complication around the aspect and formally offer a FP for it. I mean the snake being there in Fate could just as easily be invoked by the player as a positive... "Why'd it have to be snakes?"... I hate loathe them so much sometimes I go into a murderous rage and attack them relentlessly (spend my Fate point and give me my +2)... that's why a snake just being there isn't anything until someone chooses to compel (or invoke) that aspect in some way...

With Why'd it have to be snakes?,I think we are all relying on Indiana Jones' phobia as the inspiration. If a player took an aspect like Why'd it have to be monsters? in a fantasy game I'm running, I'd first make sure that they were intending it that way. Then I would beat on that aspect like bongo drum. Every single monster has a ready hook to invoke to add damage or insult to injury. Every...Single...One. IMO, that would be awesome theater: an adventurer who fears monsters?...hilarity ensues.

If on the other hand, the player intended that they hated snakes in the way you describe, then I'd ask that they rename that aspect to better reflect that. If you have Snakes enrage me! or The only good snake is a dead snake those are good, too. I can envision ways to both compel and invoke either one.

 

[N'raac]

On the first thing, I don't actually understand it. (And never have - it's a part of the AD&D alignment system that has never made sense to me.) The way you put it, doing good via a lawful approach and doing good via a chaotic approach is like doing good by being a blacksmith (it's handy for people to have horseshoes and ploughshares) or doing good by being a weaver (it's handy for people to have cloth). But nothing in the blacksmith/weaver set up suggests that smiths should hate weavers, or vice versa. They're just different approaches to living a virtuous life.

Perhaps a lack of understanding of the two axis model could be a reason one would not like alignment? Does each sect of a deity's worshippers detest the others and consider theirs the One True Way? I do find that most games focus on the Good/Evil axis rather than the Law/Chaos axis, but there is certainly conflict to be had in both. To the real world, consider "nanny states" and "libertarians". Heirachical models versus independent action. A leader or a team of equals.

There is no more specific, generally accepted definition of "good" - it's one of the most flexible words in the English language, in terms of the objects, states, persons, behaviours etc it can be applied to.

Knowing the definition of "Level" in a dictionary will not assist in reading its use in a D&D context either. The terms are defined within the game system differently than they may appear in the dictionary.

Yes. That's not saying that they define their code. It is saying that their interpretation is paramount. But interpretation is not definition - and that's not just a point of semantics, either in general or in the context of RPG play. The general point probably doesn't matter here, but the RPG point is this: definition corresponds roughly to backstory; interpretation corresponds roughly to play, including action resolution. I have never said that players have sole authority, or even necessarily primary authority, over backstory. I've said they have primary authority to play their PCs, including interpreting what does or doesn't fit with their PCs' moral convictions.

So I'm back to months and levels of play before we discover that the character who claims to derive all of his abilities from his devotion to a specific moral code, being rewarded with these abilities by the deity which supports that code, is not actually following that deity's code. So where DO his abilities come from? And how is that consistent with his conception of his character?

There seems to be some confusion here over what "belief" means when a game like Burning Wheel talks about "beliefs being tested in play". Beliefs in that usage is synonymous with "commitments", or "moral convictions". It's not about testing whether your belief that the Raven Queen likes pizza but not donuts is true or false.

So was your extensive discussion some time back about a character whose belief was that he was rightful heir to the throne (fact of parentage and background) not consistent with BW?

So if you want to change the backstory of the Raven Queen so that she is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead then - at least at my table - that is typically not something to be done in the course of play. That is something to be established by general consensus prior to play.

You provided a quote saying "this is the relevant passage". I read that passage and made my interpretations. Then you come back and say "Oh, that's a huge change to my backstory". I thought you were opposed to "hidden backstory".

I'm not judging that character.

You are judging the core concept of a possible character so, yes, you are judging my concept's consistency with not the words you presented as "the relevant passage", but your interpretation of those words guided by your campaign backstory. Now, if your perspective is that you would make that assessment only once it has been determined a given player will play in your game, then dismissing this concept is fine. However, that assumes the player in question has demonstrated he is a fit for your game, which seems to mean that he shares your base assumptions. If everyone at the table shares your assumptions then of course there will never be any debate as to those assumptions. It seems like "reasonable player" is defined in your model as "player who agrees with me".

 

[Ratskinner]

Fate questions for @Umbran , @Imaro , or any other regular players...

So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel. The player is choosing how to react in fear to the snakes... does that make it a decision one? Would the Event one be the environment doing something to him?

At least historically, the distinction is unimportant. That is, the important thing is that the compel is somehow complicating the PC's life/adventure. Those two types of compel are just a sort of guideline to determining if that's happening or not. Other Fate folks have written similar formulas (it seems like Fate Accelerated has more need of this, for whatever reason). However, yes, "Event" compels means something external to the character while "Decision" compels usually mean something the character does.

Is it cheesy to compel when the other person is out of fate points (too close to rail-roading, or does getting the fate point make up for that)?

hmm....that's a tougher question (especially as folks have differing views on what entails rail-roading). Being totally out of FP in a Fate game typically indicates that you've just been in a really big, climactic, draining, conflict, and have resolved a bunch of storylines (and earlier compels). At least in my experience, refusing a compel is relatively rare and usually means that the players feel they have enough on their plate already. The scenario presented by the "rail-roading" side seems to be that FP are used heavily to avoid compels, and that is how you would end up drained. I must say that this has never happened IME. I don't know what the situation looks like in play, but I suspect it indicates a highly dysfunctional table. At the very least, it would indicate that several times in a row, the GM has offered you the chance to put your character in a situation that your aspects indicate you'd like to see....and then you refused them all.

Can you use the Fate point earned from accepting the compel to essentially mitigate the compel?

Not directly, that is, you can't accept and deny the compel simultaneously. However, if the compel got you in a fight or hampered an investigation, you could certainly use the FP during the ensuing action. That's part of the point of giving it to you.

 

[N'raac]

In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).

Leaving aside the specifics of the Fate mechanics, may I suggest this thread indicates they are also susceptible to different interpretations and disagreement on how the mechanic works, or is intended to work? I'm seeing differences in when fate points are awarded, which aspects are "good aspects" or "bad aspects", etc.

Ratskinner's statement makes it pretty clear that the GM is making the judgment of when that aspect merits, or does not merit, a mechanical award. It seems the player believes his character merits a Fate point and the GM can disagree. That seems similar to a player believing an action is consistent with his alignment and the GM disagreeing.

Whether this becomes an argument at the table or not does not depend primarily on whether we are dealing with aspects or alignments, but on whether the people at the table can "agree to disagree" and accept a ruling of "NO".

Using the following to highlight differences in "how the rules work", not to suggest who may be right or wrong.

 

[Ratskinner]

One can view this "each setback grants you a bonus" style of play as needing to be bribed to role play your character where his personality is disadvantageous. If it is a bad mechanic which assumes the PC's may not adequately role play those drawbacks (which seems to be the main charge against alignment), why would those same reasonable players, role playing their characters to conception, need to be bribed to do so? The same logic suggests the bribe mechanic is also a poor one.

The "economy" facet of Fate points is actually more of an automatic limiter on the scope of your aspects, rather than the bribery mechanism as you describe. That is, when you take an aspect like "Follow the code of Pelor", we determine how much that is worth during play by you accepting compels on it. In D&D, this is determined ab initio, and basically resorts to the binary situation of the DM calling the PC "in" or "out" of bounds for the Code of Pelor. He is encouraged to judge you harshly, because you have a raft of special abilities that are dependent upon being judged "in". With the Fate way of doing it, the DM and player both determine how much it is worth. Each compel accepted is a vote for the code being harsher and worth more, each compel refused is a vote for to not mean as much. The reward is FP, which you can use to promote your PC's heroism later.

Nor does alignment have to be a bludgeon used against the PC's. Alignment or disadvantages/complications certainly can be used to bludgeon the characters (and their players) and so can aspects in Fate, as set out above.

It is, I would hope clear by my recent posts, that it is much more difficult for the Fate DM to use Aspects as a bludgeon against his PCs.

 

[Sadras]

@pemerton

If you mean, can the player do the wrong thing in playing his/her PC, then the answer is no.

You covered more or less interesting actions/pissing others off, but what about inconsistency in roleplaying one's character? Are you saying it doesn't happen?

There is an implicit idea in at least some of the posts on this thread - and maybe in yours, though I'm not sure - that the player has an incentive to write (say) LG on his/her PC sheet, but then to get the "benefits" of playing CE. And hence that the GM has to police that. My response upthread to that idea, which I now reiterate, is that I don't see how playing an honourable PC is a disadvantage, or playing CE is a benefit.

In earlier editions of the game - the Fighter was very bare in terms of class features, while the Paladin had many benefits. Playing a dishonourable Paladin, allowed one to benefit from all the class features without having any of the social/ethical restrictions. That right there is an advantage.

An exception to the above would be if the game is a classic Gygaxian dungeon game, where the players' only motivation, within the game, is to maximise treasure gained and monsters killed. In that sort of game being LG is a disadvantage of sorts (it puts constraints on your killing and looting), and in that sort of game - as I said upthread - I can see the function of GM policing of a paladin or cleric's alignment. But I don't run that sort of game, and haven't for nearly 30 years.

Fair enough. Are you saying players have changed over the years and min/maxing does not occur anymore so DM's are not required to police PC's motivations anymore? So due to players becoming so honourable and trust-worthy without meta-game influences these days, all PCs can only but roleplay right? If that is so, that is quite a harsh statement to make.

 

[Ratskinner]

Leaving aside the specifics of the Fate mechanics, may I suggest this thread indicates they are also susceptible to different interpretations and disagreement on how the mechanic works, or is intended to work? I'm seeing differences in when fate points are awarded, which aspects are "good aspects" or "bad aspects", etc.

Ratskinner's statement makes it pretty clear that the GM is making the judgment of when that aspect merits, or does not merit, a mechanical award. It seems the player believes his character merits a Fate point and the GM can disagree. That seems similar to a player believing an action is consistent with his alignment and the GM disagreeing.

I couldn't say that all aspects ever are always clear to everyone....but I can say that, because of the surrounding mechanics, that any confusion has much less impact on play. In fact, one critical difference I see is that if a GM and Paladin disagree over some course of action...play in D&D has to stop while they argue it out, play in Fate doesn't. This is partly because the stakes aren't has high for the character and partly because the game incorporates some of that argument into the mechanics. In Fate, much like in fictional sources, we don't start knowing all there is to know about a character, and uncovering something like the Code of Pelor can be an important part of play.

Whether this becomes an argument at the table or not does not depend primarily on whether we are dealing with aspects or alignments, but on whether the people at the table can "agree to disagree" and accept a ruling of "NO".

I can only say that I haven't seen it in practice. The Fate mechanics rely, in part, on negotiation of such things. Even within the compel rules there is advice for negotiating the options to tempt the player. What becomes an alignment argument in D&D becomes interesting play in Fate.

 

[Umbran]

Actually I think your understanding of a compel is wrong.... compelling an aspect is a pro-active action.

Except for retroactive compels, where the GM realizes (or is reminded) that the player has been actively and intentionally playing to an Aspect such that it has been complicating their lives in an interesting way, so that they earn a Fate point after the fact. This is not uncommon - in a Spirit of the Century game, for example, each character has 10 Aspects. If you've got a party of five characters, that's 50 Aspects the GM is supposed to keep in mind, aside from those of the NPCs and locations. The GM *will* forget, occasionally.

While the snake charmer is not a great example, there are similar compels that can be used. Say your character has the Aspect, "Mortal enemy of the Great Danton". There may be a compel in which the GM decides that, though the original writeup didn't include it, the Great Danton is now one of the evil masterminds behind the current scenario.

The mere presence of a snake charmer isn't a complication, because the character doesn't *have* to interact with the charmer - complication of the character's life is not assured. The charmer is merely a setup that makes compels more likely. However, when Danton shows up, he'll actively target the PC - and that is a complication that the character can't just walk past.

 

[Imaro]

That's the way is supposed to work. That is, the GM intentionally and knowingly using your aspects to design the scenario. A Retroactive Compel is used for (basically) when the GM forgets or overlooks that he's doing that:

A GM drawing on character's aspects to create a scenario... is not the same as compelling them. Compelling an aspect is a specific action that is laid out in the rules, and it is not interchangeable with designing a scenario. A retro compel is when the GM is laying complications (that actually affect you character in a negative way) down on your character but not giving you a fate point... again just sticking a snake in a scenario isn't doing that.

In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).

Okay the retro fate point depends on 2 things... the situation and the GM deciding if it is warranted... So now were back in different GM's equal different judgments on what applies territory.

You need to consider whether the situation fulfills (or can fulfill) the circumstances as presented in the two example compels (there are other similar formulations that other folks use.) It is explicitly not just when a monster shows up, but only when it causes problems for the character of the types that you can work out with those fill-in-the-blank phrases. In the big snake scenario presented, both are true for that character's aspects...hence he can collect two FP. Rather than a trap, the situation is a bit of bonanza for the PC, the innocents and the snake trigger two aspects at once and its not clear that either would alone! That bit of story is focusing intently on that PC's aspects and is precisely the kind of thing that the whole FP economy is designed to encourage. However, if he is just walking through the marketplace and I unthinkingly narrate walking past an inconsequential snake charmer, that doesn't net him a point, because it doesn't fill in the rest of the blanks very well:

Again, what complication based on his aspects has arisen... before the snake does anything it is just there. Now if the GM has the snake actually attack some innocents (which it has not done at this point) and then makes the character defend them... that could be a compel on "Defends Innocents" because the actual complication is that the character must put himself in danger to save them. However the GM is just as right if he compels the character's "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect to make him flee from the giant snake, again the complication from the snake being in the scene is that he has to flee from it... and then attack the innocents (At this point the player would get another Fate point but he cannot use it or anything else to mitigate the fact that he is fleeing from the snake). What I'm saying is the snake being there isn't directly causing a complication for the character so he should not get a FP just because a snake shows up in a scene.

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are walking through the marketplace, so it makes sense that,
unfortunately, there is a snake charmer would happen to you. Damn your luck.

In that case, the existence of the snake isn't presenting a problem for the character, and hence no FP/compel. Which is not to say that the GM or player couldn't suggest such a compel vis-a-vis the second formulation:

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect when you see a snake charmer while crossing the marketplace, so it makes sense that you’d decide to swing to the other side of the plaza to avoid it. This goes wrong when the thief you're tailing uses that opportunity to escape. (or some other adventure-appropo mishap)

However, that's different from what we were seeing in the scenario as presented. That scenario easily triggered both aspects as I noted in the previous post.

No it didn't the snake hasn't caused a complication for the character when the scenario starts, it is only after the GM decides what the snake will do and how it will cause a complication for the character thatan actual compel takes place, and as I stated the snake could just as easily scare the character as attack the innocents, triggering either of those aspects. your fitting of the giant snake scenario into the formula of the compel is exactly like the first one above about the snake charmer... it's not causing a direct complication for the character yet.

With Why'd it have to be snakes?,I think we are all relying on Indiana Jones' phobia as the inspiration. If a player took an aspect like Why'd it have to be monsters? in a fantasy game I'm running, I'd first make sure that they were intending it that way. Then I would beat on that aspect like bongo drum. Every single monster has a ready hook to invoke to add damage or insult to injury. Every...Single...One. IMO, that would be awesome theater: an adventurer who fears monsters?...hilarity ensues.

Emphasis mine... a giant snake just being in the scene (especially since even you admit the aspect is supposed to be centered around a phobia) doesn't add damage, or insult to injury... now once it's invoked to cause the player to run away in fear or attacks the innocents... then it does that.

If on the other hand, the player intended that they hated snakes in the way you describe, then I'd ask that they rename that aspect to better reflect that. If you have Snakes enrage me! or The only good snake is a dead snake those are good, too. I can envision ways to both compel and invoke either one.

Well IMO oppinion fear can cause a flight or fight respeonse and so the character would be able to draw on either when it comes to his fear of snakes... of course this is more of that ambiguity, and different GM decisions we were talking about before...

 

[Imaro]

The mere presence of a snake charmer isn't a complication, because the character doesn't *have* to interact with the charmer - complication of the character's life is not assured. The charmer is merely a setup that makes compels more likely. However, when Danton shows up, he'll actively target the PC - and that is a complication that the character can't just walk past.

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] ... The above is my point, when the scenario starts the snake is in the scene but hasn't caused a complication for the character either way... the player doesn't have any FP's so he can't invoke anything and the DM decides to compel the character with his "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect with the condition that he flee from the snake...