The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[pemerton]

Moving on from the issue of "how similar" to "in what ways similar/different":

Scene Distinctions are roughly equivalent to Situation Aspects.

<snip>

Fate also includes Challenges, akin to 4e Skill Challenges.

I don't think Fate has the idea of using aspects to convey what's at stake in a scene. This is one thing I really like in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, and have used more as I've become more comfortable with the system. For @Micah Sweet, though, it might be a bit "metagamey", as it can require some negotiation with the players to settle what's at stake. Not always - Being Pursued by Giants might be a GM-imposed outcome of an earlier scene. But sometimes - Not Sure of What to Do Next couldn't be imposed as a Scene Distinction if the players were dead-set on their next goal!

Fate doesn't have a Doom Pool per se, but the GM does have a number of Fate points for running a scene, which may also involve conceding a scene: GM Fate Points.

But the Fate GM has unlimited fate points for compels, don't they? Whereas Limits have to be paid for by spending Doom Pool dice, unless the player chooses to take a Plot Point instead.

 

[Aldarc]

Moving on from the issue of "how similar" to "in what ways similar/different":

I don't think Fate has the idea of using aspects to convey what's at stake in a scene. This is one thing I really like in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, and have used more as I've become more comfortable with the system. For @Micah Sweet, though, it might be a bit "metagamey", as it can require some negotiation with the players to settle what's at stake. Not always - Being Pursued by Giants might be a GM-imposed outcome of an earlier scene. But sometimes - Not Sure of What to Do Next couldn't be imposed as a Scene Distinction if the players were dead-set on their next goal!

You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.

But the Fate GM has unlimited fate points for compels, don't they? Whereas Limits have to be paid for by spending Doom Pool dice, unless the player chooses to take a Plot Point instead.

The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.

And again Doom Pools are not the default for Cortex Prime. So you are trying to apply a specific rule from a particular game of Cortex against a generalized one about Fate. Okay

 

[pemerton]

The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.

And again Doom Pools are not the default for Cortex Prime. So you are trying to apply a specific rule from a particular game of Cortex against a generalized one about Fate. Okay

I think I've been pretty clear I'm talking about MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.

You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.

I said something about what I don't think it has, based on my reading of Fate Core and also the link you provided. I've got no objection to being shown I'm wrong! And I wasn't positing it as a weakness, just a difference. The idea of Scene Distinctions for stakes is found in one of the PDF-only accompaniments to Civil War (maybe New Avengers?), where it's something like Get Everyone On Board the Plane! If the heroes succeed in stepping the Distinction down to d4 then the scene is over as the stakes are resolved. I don't think this idea is discussed in the Hacker's Guide; I don't know about Cortex Prime.

I think it's a clever idea, and I've taken it up in my Cortex+ Heroic GMing. Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have anything like a skill challenge, but this method can serve the same function, of allowing for Scene Resolution to work across a wider range of stakes than the more typical ones of defeating supervillains or keeping a crowd safe (say, by eliminating a Crowd In Danger scene Distinction) or similar.

 

[pemerton]

Except if there's five players at the table each with a character acting largely or completely on its own, while you're in the physical* company of your friends you're not playing a game with them - at any given moment you're either playing a game with the GM or watching one of four other people play a game with the GM.

There are a lot of assumptions built into this. Many of them may not be true when a group is playing Apocalypse World.

 

[Manbearcat]

When people dismiss criticism out of hand and accuse those criticizing of not having read, understood, played, or run these games it seems appropriate to say otherwise.

Ah. So when I agree with you, you’ll stop questioning my credentials. That’s nice.

News to me. They can’t walk away? They can’t retreat? They can’t surrender? They can’t relent? Any of which could resolve a conflict.

You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing mechanical or the referee makes it up. So, the mechanics only engage when the PCs do something on the curated list of moves. And yes, some of them are generic. Otherwise it’s free play, as I said before. But, importantly, there are times the referee can just make a move, like when the game stalls or the players look to the referee to see what happens next, etc.

So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a sequence of events, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.

And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.

Lucky you.

I’m just going to do some SWAG math here. In the last 11 years:

* I’ve averaged GMing around 4 sessions of various AW and derivative games per month. So roughly 48 per year.

* Roughly 3 hours per session w/ 6-8 player/follower/cohort moves triggered and resolved per hour, so roughly 18-24 moves triggered and resolved per session (with then bunching up in particular conflicts); let’s call it 21.

11 * 48 * 21 = 11,088

So I’ve roughly framed and resolved over 11 k moves made. All of those moves feature:

* Player(s) with nearly unparalleled control over dictating the point of play and the specific generation of content (huge input on situation framing and on decision-space + the ability to outright generate gamestate-and-imagined-space changing content + narrowing or mitigating or shutting down my consequence-space).

* Every move made with a complete table-facing architecture from the what and why of framing > decision-space > how to marshal resources and what the immediate and downstream impacts of that marshaling would be (including liability assumed for Cohorts/Followers helping and the like) > target numbers > consequence-space (including the ability to lock in taking outcomes off the menu).

* Never a complaint about this pathological arresting of agency you’re concerned with. In fact…only ever the opposite * EXCEPT ONE SINGULAR INSTANCE IN A VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION WHERE THE GAME OF “SPINNING PLATES” PLAYERS MUST MANAGE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED A PLAYER COGNITIVELY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL DISPOSITION (it felt overwhelming and “spiral-ey”…which has nothing to do with task vs conflict resolution).


So no.

Just no.

What you are depicting above is either a very unique situation where games aren’t being run correctly (the fiction isn’t being aggressively followed and/or the rules/principles aren’t being observed and/or the conversation of play is not yielding anywhere near the transparency that it should) and/or ** the players are of a very particular cognitive orientation toward granularity of action resolution mechanics with no mental malleability or toggle (and again…amplified by improper play and lack of transparency in framing > decision-space > consequence-space).

TLDR - If a “Separate Them” or equivalent move is made (and holy crap are these rare cases) everyone_at_the_table knows that going in…and they know how to take that off the consequence-space menu.

EDIT - This actual player * and these conceptual players ** do not have overlap (I mean…the conceptual players may possess the quality of * but the real player * does not possess the quality of conceptual players **).

 

[pemerton]

If a “Separate Them” or equivalent move is made (and holy crap are these rare cases) everyone_at_the_table knows that going in…and they know how to take that off the consequence-space menu.

I quite like it as a move!

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs seem to get separated from time to time, often by one or more being taken prisoner but also (in the Annic Nova) by doors shutting or lifts failing. In Burning Wheel it happens in similar sorts of ways, probably less often. In 4e it's routine - push someone over an edge, erect a magical wall, etc.

There's also the softer version (that I think @Campbell alluded to) - of having a NPC invite one PC but not another to a meeting or event.

I'm not quibbling with your enumeration of your own instances. But given how significant this is in fiction - I was just rereading the Hellfire club episodes of the Dark Phoenix saga, where Wolverine is in the tunnels because Leland made him heavy; Luke has to go on his own to Dagobah; every second Star Trek episode where something goes wrong with the transporter; etc - it seems weird that it should be seen as so hard to implement in RPGing.

 

[Manbearcat]

I quite like it as a move!

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs seem to get separated from time to time, often by one or more being taken prisoner but also (in the Annic Nova) by doors shutting or lifts failing. In Burning Wheel it happens in similar sorts of ways, probably less often. In 4e it's routine - push someone over an edge, erect a magical wall, etc.

There's also the softer version (that I think @Campbell alluded to) - of having a NPC invite one PC but not another to a meeting or event.

I'm not quibbling with your enumeration of your own instances. But given how significant this is in fiction - I was just rereading the Hellfire club episodes of the Dark Phoenix saga, where Wolverine is in the tunnels because Leland made him heavy; Luke has to go on his own to Dagobah; every second Star Trek episode where something goes wrong with the transporter; etc - it seems weird that it should be seen as so hard to implement in RPGing.

Yup, no I agree.

Soft move “opt-in” Separate Them (or them separating themselves!) are ubiquitous. That is routinely a part of my games. Like actually pretty much constant (though, again, it’s either opt-in or player-directed).

The hard move Separate Them on a 6- is there but profoundly less so…and if it’s on the table…you know about it…and how to take it off the table!

Typically in my games Separate Them is you’ve figuratively or literally vacated the premise and you’re in another place:

• “the psychic maelstrom”
• “the ghost field”
  *“your own head confronting personal demons”
• “your dreams or someone else’s”
• “the spirit realm”
• “the fey wild”
  [*]“lost in a white-out”
  [*]“drowning in the bog/underwater”
• “another room”
  [*]“on the other side of a cave-in”
  [*]“swept down an avalanche/landslide”
  [*]“down a crevasse or sinkhole”

The italicized are the ones Ive primarily used. And it’s no mystery that you got there or how you got there!

 

[Charlaquin]

You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.


The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.

And again Doom Pools are not the default for Cortex Prime. So you are trying to apply a specific rule from a particular game of Cortex against a generalized one about Fate. Okay

Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…

 

[Aldarc]

Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…

To be honest, I’m not sure either.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…

To be honest, I’m not sure either.

Feels like this requires a “Separate Them” hard move!

Make sure you transparently convey the situation to the quoted text and that you’re aggressively following the ENWorlf forum fiction!

Wouldn’t want the quoted post feeling their agency being shut down!