Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7977057" data-attributes="member: 16814">I disagree with this on the basis that it's a different thing for the player to be able to leverage authority to create binding resolutions on the GM versus the GM allowing players the leeway to suggest things, pursuant to GM approval.  It leads to rather different feels and different outcomes.Yes, if you run Fate like this, then it loses much of it's narrative game feel.  You can do it, but at the cost of a lot of the interesting bits of the system.  And, no, narrative games do not usually involve the GM creating an adventure.  That's, largely, the part that doesn't happen at all.When I run Blades, my prep is almost zero.  Maybe some thinking of some neat complications that can be quickly added if they fit, but nothing planned, no set pieces, no red herrings, no plot at all.  Doing so would actually violate the concept of the game.  Instead, play starts with the players identifying a score -- they tell the GM and that's what it is, it's binding on the GM.  Then, they have to answer two questions about how the score starts -- the plan (from a list of six types) and detail about that plan.  Say, the plan is Stealth, then the detail is the entry point.  The players define this, not the GM.  Then you have the engagement roll, which sets the stage for the starting position.  Only now, at this point, do I, as GM, have input -- I set a scene that must adhere to the plan and detail -- ie, they are sneaking in via the designated entry point -- with an immediate complication based on the engagement roll.  Play begins now with the players saying how they deal with the complication, and however they say is how it gets dealt with.  The GM gets to either accept that (if it's not important or boring) and move on or challenge with a check.  If challenged, the GM sets through negotiation the position (risk) and effect (the impact of the action) and the players can deploy resources to improve odds or increase effect.  The mechanic is engaged (it's the same mechanic for all checks, roll the relevant skill in d6 plus bonuses, take the highest, 6 is success, 4-5 is success with cost/complication, 1-3 is failure).  On a success, the player's intent is binding on the GM -- what they wanted happens to the level of effect set.  If complication or failure, though, the GM gets to introduce negatives, which can be damage (damage in Blades is nasty), complications, costs, gear, etc.  The GM has a lot of leeway in complications/costs, limited only by the position (risk) of the action.  Play proceeds.  This looks a lot different from a 5e game, even with a permissive GM (which I am), who still runs a check against what they think is acceptable/desirable before approving player suggestions.  Nothing the players do can bind the GM.I submit, stongly, that these are different beasts altogether and 5e doesn't have any way, short of hacking (and that heavily), to do these things.AND, that's fine.  5e is a great game, it just doesn't deliver everything possible.  It does deliver well on D&D.Arguably, there's aren't FATE mechanics to compel diplomacy either, unless a PC set their compellable trait as "would rather talk than fight" or similar.  FATE compels are handles the players choose for their PCs to evoke their PCs, not things the GM does to make things go the way the GM thinks they should.  This is why I contest [USER=7016699]@prabe[/USER]'s description of compels as usurping player control.  The player made that choice because they wanted that to factor into their character, so it's not usurping control to offer the player an opportunity to make that trait matter in the current scene.</blockquote>

Verification