Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[FrogReaver]

Um, if you can't say that a game has flaws (and all games do), then the claim is that a game is perfect. Surely you aren't advancing that?

As @hawkeyefan had repeatedly said, he both runs and enjoys running 5e. I also run and enjoy running 5e. It has flaws. So what? Do you need it to not to?

I'd say devoting some time to "other games have flaws too" would suffice to put an end to that perception.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That seems as though it is probably correct, though using meta-currency as a player doesn't feel to me so much like agency as narrative authority. I don't get to change the direction of the fiction, I just get to change the framing of the scene: I can use a Fate Point (and an Aspect my character has) to turn a random mook into my character's college roommate, but that doesn't define how the fiction progresses outside that scene. The Certificate @pemerton has mentioned in Prince Valiant, he's described as an auto-win, which seems different (and may be why he doesn't think of it as a metagame instrument/mechanic).



I've done some thinking about it, and I figure that it's my strongly-preferred way to play because I want it to be my character's story, not my story (multiplied by the number of characters/players). It's probably why using meta-currency feels so different to me than operating as my character--the difference between spending a Fate Point to edit an NPC and using a Charm Person spell, more or less. I suspect that makes sense to you. It also, I think, talks to your paragraph below, about tools in the toolbox, which I don't have any strong argument with.



I'm not agreeing with this position, but I believe you have elucidated why it has been said that games that use such metagame rules aren't TRPGs--because they force the players to divorce themselves from their characters, to want something other than what their characters want, to act in the game differently from what their characters arguably should. That has the potential to open a can of worms, so I'm going to say again that it's not my position: I'm perfectly happy to call Blades or Fate or AW or any of the other games that have been mentioned in this thread TRPGs; I don't think they're really operating all that differently, and I don't see any point in defining the category so it only includes games I like.

My experience with Blades is that I'm more connected with the character even though it has non-PC centered tools for the player than I am in 5e where I don't. Fundamentally this is because Blades focuses the game like a laser on things my character cares about and constantly challenges even the concept of the character. I'm plugged into the fiction because I can drive it with my character. 5e, on the other hand, usually isn't focused on the characters, but on some external threat that the characters engage. The mechanics are less visceral and focus on tactial minutia which leads me to play my character less focused on the needs and desires of the character and more on being tactically sound and making the smart play.

And, none of that is bad. I actually love 5e because of it's tactical focus on play. It creates a game that I enjoy, and my players enjoy, because we like solving tactical problems with a strong layer of character thrown in. Blades, on the other hand, is all character with less tactical play. It scratches a different itch. They both have strengths. I don't see playing solely through the character as a particularly compelling argument for immersion. If it works for you, though, awesome.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think I'd resent the NPC, but not necessarily the GM. At least, that's my first instinct. I mean, it's OK for a GM in a supers game to have mind-controlling villains, IMO. Sure, there could be Bad GMing (I feel as though I should trademark that) but Bad GMing isn't a requirement for having an NPC/villain/monster charm or dominate a PC.

Interesting, definitely not the answer I expected. My answer would be that a lady's charm isn't mind control and that this mechanic is treating it as such and thus there is actually no fictional basis for my character to lose agency over his actions which to me would mean that I as the player should also keep agency over choosing my characters actions.

 

[prabe]

That's a bit off-center. A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has. In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them. It is a loss of agency? Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise. Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person? Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person. Does this distinction matter? Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really. But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.

No, it's not the same thing as Dominate Person. Compelling a character in Fate is the GM reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the GM's story; an illithid Dominating a PC is reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the illithid's story. And yes, the GM is operating the illithid: That's his fricking job, to operate in this case the illithid as it attempts to tell its story.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd say devoting some time to "other games have flaws too" would suffice to put an end to that perception.

That's been talked about quite a bit, you may have missed it. Pretty much everyone talking about other games points to things they don't do well.

I can say that before I started playing other games and really embracing the differences, I was defensive about my game of choice and statements that it has flaws. I thought it was a slam against my choice of entertainment. It's not. It's an honest evaluation of the game. I am now very happy I'm aware of the flaws of 5e, much like I'm happier to know where potholes in the road are. It's because I can now steer around them. 5e is by no means perfect, but it's still a good game. Use it for what it does well and you'll have fewer issues. Use it for things it doesn't do well and you'll have more. This really shouldn't be a contentious statement.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a bit off-center. A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has. In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them. It is a loss of agency? Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise. Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person? Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person. Does this distinction matter? Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really. But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.

IMO, Having agency over what actions some mechanic can force you to do has absolutely no impact on whether you have agency over your chracters actions. In both cases you don't.

It seems like your concept of agency is some ever morphing hybrid of every kind of agency imaginable which allows you to muddy the waters by introducing a different type of agency into a discussion about some other type.

 

[prabe]

Interesting, definitely not the answer I expected. My answer would be that a lady's charm isn't mind control and that this mechanic is treating it as such and thus there is actually no fictional basis for my character to lose agency over his actions which to me would mean that I as the player should also keep agency over choosing my characters actions.

Oh, if the GM wants a given lady to be so charming that it's effectively mind-control, or at least something that uses mechanics similar to charm/dominate magic, that's ... at least a defensible choice. I've played and run enough supers games, where mechanics often end up being put to strange uses, that I wouldn't be bothered by that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it's not the same thing as Dominate Person. Compelling a character in Fate is the GM reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the GM's story; an illithid Dominating a PC is reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the illithid's story. And yes, the GM is operating the illithid: That's his fricking job, to operate in this case the illithid as it attempts to tell its story.

If your experience is that Compels are about forcing the character into the the GM's story, then either you've played with bad GMs or you played with good GMs that just didn't grok FATE. This might, perhaps, be colored by your stated preference to only engage the fiction through the player declaring actions for the PC.

To me, having the GM Compel a trait I've chosen for my character is an opportunity to embrace that aspect of my character -- an aspect that is, in part, definitional to my character and totally my choice. It may not be the smart play in the fiction, but it's still definitely something my character would likely do. If this doesn't apply, then the Compel is being incorrectly used.

Here are examples of event Compels from FATE SRD:

Cynere has Infamous Girl with Sword while covertly attending a gladiatorial contest, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, an admirer would recognize her in the stands and make a huge fuss, turning all eyes in the arena her way. Damn her luck.

Landon has I Owe Old Finn Everything and is returning to his home village after hearing it was sacked by barbarians, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, Old Finn was captured and taken far into the mountains with their war party. Damn his luck.

Zird has Rivals in the Collegia Arcana and is attempting to get an audience with their Inner Council, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, his rivals force the Collegia to demand he provide a detailed account of his highly-coveted research to re-establish his relationship with the organization. Damn his luck.

Honestly, these look like things D&D GMs do without any mechanics at all.

 

[prabe]

My experience with Blades is that I'm more connected with the character even though it has non-PC centered tools for the player than I am in 5e where I don't. Fundamentally this is because Blades focuses the game like a laser on things my character cares about and constantly challenges even the concept of the character. I'm plugged into the fiction because I can drive it with my character. 5e, on the other hand, usually isn't focused on the characters, but on some external threat that the characters engage. The mechanics are less visceral and focus on tactial minutia which leads me to play my character less focused on the needs and desires of the character and more on being tactically sound and making the smart play.

And, none of that is bad. I actually love 5e because of it's tactical focus on play. It creates a game that I enjoy, and my players enjoy, because we like solving tactical problems with a strong layer of character thrown in. Blades, on the other hand, is all character with less tactical play. It scratches a different itch. They both have strengths. I don't see playing solely through the character as a particularly compelling argument for immersion. If it works for you, though, awesome.

Remember that my first impulses on reading through the SRD were to intentionally play Blades badly. Clearly there's some difference between how I connect to characters and how you do. That's ... excellent, actually; as you say--awesome.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, if the GM wants a given lady to be so charming that it's effectively mind-control, or at least something that uses mechanics similar to charm/dominate magic, that's ... at least a defensible choice. I've played and run enough supers games, where mechanics often end up being put to strange uses, that I wouldn't be bothered by that.

I follow. I think my conception was more of using natural means to charm you, whereas you are picturing the possibility of someone so charming they are efficetively supernaturally charming