Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Umbran]

Yes, but that's using a system where the player can invoke their own aspect. Here it would be working as a balancing method (for those that think one is necessary).

Having to have the GM initiate your power use sounds like a non-starter to me. Plus, there's already a better method implemented in several FATE-based games.

Typically, at the beginning of a session, your Fate Point pool refreshes. Your character has a "refresh" score, that says where your pool goes up to. In, say, the Dresden Files game, each supernatural power the character has costs some number of Refresh points - the more supernatural powers you have, the fewer Fate Points you start the session with.

So, if you have power, you have fewer points, and you may need those points to activate some of your powers. But, if you behave according to the code, you can get some points - the economy can be used to balance.

FATE also has a method to "punish" characters for misbehaving - Consequences. At some point, the character's going to take some damage. If he takes enough that he might die, the player can shove that off into a "consequence" - a temporary aspect that describes some difficulty inflicted on the character. In FATE, for example, a character can get into a fight and come out of it with a consequence, "Broken Wrist", or "Sprained Ankle". A big consequence may be, "Lost favor of Pelor"...

 

[Umbran]

Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon.

You say that as if it is a feature, not a bug. Failure to have a framework in debate leads to misunderstanding and inconsistency in analysis.

I often walk to the subway to get to work. To me, it isn't really far. To my friend, it is a long, long way. What it is, is 2 miles.

 

[D'karr]

What it is, is 2 miles.

But that is a really far 2 miles.

 

[Umbran]

The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.

If there was going to be no monster at all, adding a snake complicates matters.

If, however, there was going to be a monster, it isn't a complication. If there was going to be an ogre, and now there's a snake instead, that's not a big deal. It is only when the fact that it is a snake, instead of an ogre, is specifically relevant to the character that it is a ocmplication.

 

[sheadunne]

Having to have the GM initiate your power use sounds like a non-starter to me. Plus, there's already a better method implemented in several FATE-based games.

Typically, at the beginning of a session, your Fate Point pool refreshes. Your character has a "refresh" score, that says where your pool goes up to. In, say, the Dresden Files game, each supernatural power the character has costs some number of Refresh points - the more supernatural powers you have, the fewer Fate Points you start the session with.

So, if you have power, you have fewer points, and you may need those points to activate some of your powers. But, if you behave according to the code, you can get some points - the economy can be used to balance.

FATE also has a method to "punish" characters for misbehaving - Consequences. At some point, the character's going to take some damage. If he takes enough that he might die, the player can shove that off into a "consequence" - a temporary aspect that describes some difficulty inflicted on the character. In FATE, for example, a character can get into a fight and come out of it with a consequence, "Broken Wrist", or "Sprained Ankle". A big consequence may be, "Lost favor of Pelor"...

That's using Fate as the core. I was explore using D&D as the Core with simply a look at how to effect the Paladin without changing anything else in the D&D system. I'm not saying it's a good idea, only to explore the possibilities. Otherwise, bringing up Fate mechanics in a D&D Alignment thread doesn't hold much relevance. How Fate does things isn't relevant to a discussion of D&D alignment unless we want to explore changing D&D alignment to function more like Fate in some way. Can that be done without changing the core of D&D? If so, how?

On a side note, I hadn't looked at it as the GM initiating the power, rather the GM arbitrating the alignment dispute. The power was a side effect of that arbitration. It's not the direction I would want to go (I prefer mechanics supporting the action not punishing the action) but it seemed like others in the thread want to have a method for punishing character behavior (ie paladin and alignment).

I like the intention of the damage mechanic in fate, it's not quite what I would want in the game (too free form), but it's on the right track for me.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, IME... I have Fate and enjoy it upon occasion, but I am only ever willing to play it with certain people in my wider gaming group and so it tends to get limited play among us. I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion...

This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE. When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible. What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes. Ironically, the games that seem to be aiming for Narrativism as a primary goal, seem to me missing the mark on the part of an RPG I consider critical to the narrative experience. Instead of enabling a Theater Game and producing Drama, they turn the 'Role-Playing' part of 'Role-Playing Game' into another tactical subsystem so that rather than producing naturalistic play they produce a story that never achieves any sort of 'theatrical' tone to it. And to the extent that it does achieve it, it achieves it as fully ignoring the rules and playing Theater Games as any non-Nar game does.

So much of what the Indy Nar games create seems fundamentally backwards to me, and the opposite of where I would go to create story. If the experience of a great RPG is to be like the experience of reading a great novel or watching a great movie, where you are determining the story as you go along, then the Indy Nar games seem to have created the experience of creating a novel or movie or video game as part of a creative team - which is not at all the same thing. I don't want to be hashing out the story of the story in out of character language and figuring out how the rules apply or don't apply here. I just want to be IN the story and transported by it, in the same way that I'm transported by and IN the story of a great novel or movie.

Every time I sit down to learn one of the Nar 'story first' games, I end up putting down the rules in disgust precisely because they don't seem to put 'story first'.

Which isn't to say that I wouldn't enjoy playing them with the right GM and group. I just don't happen to know any GM or group that could pull it off.

Even then in our last game, an urban fantasy one-shot based loosely upon the rules for White Picket Witches and using FAE... there were plenty of "discussions" during the game that mirrored D&D's alignment discussions since aspects are so open to interpretation... it's almost unavoidable, especially when using a free-form magic system based (at least partially) around aspects as well as when players get in a bad situation and they are trying to connect any and every aspect they possibly can to the situation in order to get a chance to invoke. Even keeping genre coherent was hard at times as our game started in a drama-horror vein similar to shows like "The Gates", "The Secret Circle", "Teen Wolf", etc. and by the end seemed to lean much more towards action-horror in the vein of "Blade" or "Vampire Hunter D".

If you've got specific genera emulation you want to do, I find you have to write the rules of the genera into the rules. I wouldn't expect to be able to emulate horror well in a universal system, least of all a Nar system. Ironically, to do horror well I think you need a highly gamist system that simply crushes the players ability to win. None of the "failing forward" and "say yes" crap. CoC with its monsters basically immune to damage and its sanity death spiral, or Dread with its inevitably crumbling tower get the psychology really well I think.

I still think Toon got it right. The Nar mechanics popular in Indy games... do really well at emulating cartoons. Dresden Files; yeah I see that. Anime makes sense too. I might run GI Joe using Nar rules; failing forward is a rule of the genera in after school cartoons.

 

[billd91]

When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)

Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon. Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.

No, real life moral debate typically incorporates a whole lot more than just two axes. You may have people agreeing that a war on drugs is pointless government interference in a private individual's life yet see them disagree vehemently on the role of the state in dealing with poverty and taxation all the while agreeing that religion is a delusional waste of time yet disagreeing whether John Lennon saying the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ was disrespectful.

We could add a lot more granularity to game morality and behavior by adding more axes (consider Pendragon's personality characteristics and how they can promote particular moralities, for example), but I'm not sure that necessarily serves D&D better than simplification into 2 axes (good/evil, group-structured/individual-unstructured).

 

[Umbran]

To further illustrate our difference of opinion : I'm not sure I actually like the idea of a compel for "you can't get close to it" (however you wish to phrase it) because that, to me, sounds much more like a situational aspect than the results of a compel. To establish that in the fiction, I would (instead of a compel) make a Create an Advantage attempt (Snake's Intimidate vs Character's Will...or similar) then put a "keeping my distance" aspect on the scene/character. (This would also net the player a FP for invoking his aspect against him.)

Except "invoking his aspect against him" *is* a compel!

So, what you've managed to do is decide the snake needs to take an action to place an aspect on the character, and then compel that aspect.

But there's already an aspect on the character that could be compelled directly to the same effect. In the fiction - the character is already phobic of snakes. You don't have to induce fear, as he's fearful naturally.

 

[sheadunne]

This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE. When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible. What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes. Ironically, the games that seem to be aiming for Narrativism as a primary goal, seem to me missing the mark on the part of an RPG I consider critical to the narrative experience. Instead of enabling a Theater Game and producing Drama, they turn the 'Role-Playing' part of 'Role-Playing Game' into another tactical subsystem so that rather than producing naturalistic play they produce a story that never achieves any sort of 'theatrical' tone to it. And to the extent that it does achieve it, it achieves it as fully ignoring the rules and playing Theater Games as any non-Nar game does.

So much of what the Indy Nar games create seems fundamentally backwards to me, and the opposite of where I would go to create story. If the experience of a great RPG is to be like the experience of reading a great novel or watching a great movie, where you are determining the story as you go along, then the Indy Nar games seem to have created the experience of creating a novel or movie or video game as part of a creative team - which is not at all the same thing. I don't want to be hashing out the story of the story in out of character language and figuring out how the rules apply or don't apply here. I just want to be IN the story and transported by it, in the same way that I'm transported by and IN the story of a great novel or movie.

Every time I sit down to learn one of the Nar 'story first' games, I end up putting down the rules in disgust precisely because they don't seem to put 'story first'.

This is a very interesting analysis. As with you, I want to put story first. The question becomes whose story? I'm guessing from your post you want a single story with the GM in charge of the story? It seems to be that Indy games are about each character having a story and each character in charge of that story development. The role of the GM becomes the facilitator of those stories rather than the single developer of that story. The GM focuses on genre and themes, but each individual character determines where their particular story leads. Which may create the disconnect you feel toward those game. They're very good at producing shared individual stories, but less effective at creating a single unified story.

 

[Umbran]

The PC is in the encounter as soon as the situation is described; he sees the ogre menacing the family.

The player can choose how the PC will respond to the situation presented: he can try to negotiate, engage in social combat, physical combat, or attempt to use an Aspect in the environment to help resolve (if a Fate point is available). You don't get a Fate point for facing a situation.

Or, he could walk away. You get a Fate point for facing a situation when you otherwise would not have, except that you have an Aspect that says you should.

The Player is out of Fate points. The character has several stress boxes checked, and a consequence from a previous fight. Overall, the character is kinda battered, and a rational person would be trying to get out of the dungeon to rest. The character stumbles into the room, seeking an exit...

He sees the ogre and the family. He *could* just turn and walk away. He does not have to respond to the situation at all!

The player says, "Screw this, I don't want to get more beat up, I'm leaving!" And the GM holds up a Fate Point and says, "But you're a Defender of the Innocent..." That's a compel.

If the player says, "Crap. My character's beat up. A sane man would walk away. GM, I'm a Defender of the Innocent, do I get a Fate point if I engage?" That's the player suggesting a compel.

Mind you, this is on the edge of being a double-compel, as the character really is beat up, and didn't have a choice. If you're going to *force* a character into a life threatening situation, giving two points might be warranted.

-----

Now, make it a giant snake, instead of an ogre.

The player says, "Screw this, I'm leaving!" The GM says, "But you're a Defender of the Innocent" and holds up a Fate point (or two, if the GM feels this is risky enough to be a double).

The player, having no Fate Points left, doesn't really have a choice in the matter. He gets a Fate point and steps forward.

The fact that it is a snake is not yet a complication! The player is still free to deal with the snake in any way he pleases. The situation is not yet more complicated for the character than the ogre would have been. The fight may actually run for a little while normally...

The GM now says, "Why did it have to be a snake? You're beat up and didn't want to get into this fight, and you're not winning fast. Your fear is rising, and you find you have to keep your distance..." and holds up *another* Fate Point.

The player can now either keep his distance (and have two Fate points to be creative with) or buy off that compel with the earlier Fate point and attack normally.

----

This partially demonstrates how "Why did it have to be snakes?" is not a great aspect to have. We think, "He has that aspect, so facing a snake is risky for him, and is thus a complication!" That's because it is written to seem only negative - we don't see how the player can turn that Aspect into an asset. But, if the player is creative, he can turn that around...

The player is compelled to fight the snake, and has been given one Fate point. He's not yet been compelled to keep his distance.

The player says, "Why'd it have to be a *snake*? My character has had a hard day. He's been knocked around, abused, insulted, and all. He's fed up. He looks a the serpent and thinks, 'Insult on top of injury? A snake? Really? REALLY?!?! ARRRGH!' and flies into a rage and attacks." Passing the Fate point back to the GM, he rolls dice, and adds two to the roll for his righteous anger.

So, now we see that it being a snake can be used by the player, making the thing easier, not more complicated.

Thus, the snake isn't a complication until it restricts the players action, and not before.