Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

The player also chose the aspect “Defender of the Innocent” and his conception of the character was that his devotion to this duty would override his fear of snakes.

On what basis do you say this?

Or he felt his fear of snakes would override and the GM compels him to attack the snake.

Or this?

In the scenario you describe, if the player really thought that "Defender of the Innocent" was more important to the PC than "Why does it have to be snakes", s/he could use "Defender of the Innocent" to earn a fate point to buy off the GM's compel - eg by blindly charging the serpent without readying his/her defences (+1 fate point for self-invoked compel - I'm referring to 1.8.2 in the Spirit of the Century SRD, and I'd be very surprised if there is not some similar mechanism in Fate Core).

For that matter, what is the whole Compel mechanism other than a GM being able to call the player on not playing to one of his aspects

If that's how you see aspects, I really feel you don't have a good feel for how Fate (and similar games) are intended to be played.

A compel is not a device for the GM to force a player to stay "true to character". A big part of the idea of writing aspects for your character is to give the GM hooks on which to hang compels. The idea is that you are choosing the story elements you want to pose challenges to your PC.

While there is a historical trajectory in RPG design from HERO or GURPS-style disadvantages, through Pendragon's personality mechanics, to mechanics like aspects in Fate and beliefs in Burning Wheel, the intended function in game play has changed practically 180 degrees. So whereas in HERO (say) it is normal to try and choose disadvantages that you think won't come up, and thereby to get a points advantage, in Fate if you choose as your aspect "Why did it have to be snakes" than you are practically screaming at the GM "Put my PC into situations where s/he is threatened by snakes, and avoiding dealing with them isn't easy".

 

[Ratskinner]

Hey, back to Fate Aspects.

An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

GM: "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."

We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated. And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

The scenario above is a little off/awkward for a typical Fate game, IME, but: If the scenario did play out as above, the player would advisably accept the compel for Why did it have to be snakes?...and then immediately spend it to invoke his Defender of Innocents aspect. This might or might not take the form of some kind of contest of PC Will vs. Snake Intimidation. The usual method for forcing a PC to "Cower in the corner" would be to make an Intimidation (either Attack, or perhaps Create and Advantage) roll vs. the PCs will.

Compels don't happen post-facto (generally). That is, the player probably accepted a compel on Why did it have to be snakes? that made the giant monster a snake (the act of tweaking nets the player the FP). Using the character's phobia against him to keep him out of range or something, would be an invoke of the aspect, probably on some kind of Intimidation roll by the snake. Such an invocation could either a) provide a +2 to the snake's roll somehow, or raise the difficulty of the character's (relevant) action by 2. This would also net the player a Fate point.

Normally, I would expect this scenario to first hit the other aspect...that is compel Defender of Innocent to draw the PC into the combat where the GM/snake will use any Fate points it has to invoke the character's Why did it have to be snakes? aspect against him during the conflict. (This may include Intimidation attacks as well as perhaps physical ones.) These invokes will transfer FP to the PC, as well. Depending on the challenge that the snake poses to the character, the player may end up spending some or all of those invoking his Defender of the Innocent aspect for similar bonuses during the combat.

If, as you presented the scenario, the GM didn't realize/recognize that he was relying on Defender of the Innocent to draw the PC into the combat. The player is perfectly within his rights to point that out and request a Fate point for it. Sometimes this sort of thing is called a "self-compel", but I don't think that's an official game term.

I hope that helps.

 

[N'raac]

On what basis do you say this?

Or this?

On the simple basis that I set the premise, and it is reasonable for the player to have a conception of his character which suggests he will behave heroically in this situation, or will be cowed by his fear of snakes. If, as you have suggested, the player is to be permitted carte blanche to play his character, then which one overrides should be his call. It does not appear to be his call once the Compel is played.

For myself, I'm good with him making the choice himself, or with a mechanic which pits his Defender of the Innocent heroism against his fear of snakes. Now, if he had only one or the other, I would expect him to play the one he has appropriately.

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.

In the scenario you describe, if the player really thought that "Defender of the Innocent" was more important to the PC than "Why does it have to be snakes", s/he could use "Defender of the Innocent" to earn a fate point to buy off the GM's compel - eg by blindly charging the serpent without readying his/her defences (+1 fate point for self-invoked compel - I'm referring to 1.8.2 in the Spirit of the Century SRD, and I'd be very surprised if there is not some similar mechanism in Fate Core).

It was indicated earlier that the fate point gained by accepting a Compel cannot be used to mitigate the effects of the compel. As I see that, the player does not get to trade the Fate point back to override the compel. Why would he ever spend a Fate point up front to resist the Compel if he can get the same result by immediate override with the Fate point he receives for accepting (but not really) the Compel?

While there is a historical trajectory in RPG design from HERO or GURPS-style disadvantages, through Pendragon's personality mechanics, to mechanics like aspects in Fate and beliefs in Burning Wheel, the intended function in game play has changed practically 180 degrees. So whereas in HERO (say) it is normal to try and choose disadvantages that you think won't come up, and thereby to get a points advantage, in Fate if you choose as your aspect "Why did it have to be snakes" than you are practically screaming at the GM "Put my PC into situations where s/he is threatened by snakes, and avoiding dealing with them isn't easy".

I can tell you that Hero gamers have not universally, or even broadly, taken your view of the disadvantage system. Rather, many select their disadvantages (renamed complications in 6th Edition) based on their vision of the character - that is, on the same basis of Fate aspects, that these are the types of challenges the player wishes to face. My experience is that most players role play those disadvantages, and neither mechanically seek to avoid them nor try to take disadvantages that minimize their down side and maximize their point value. Indeed, a guiding precept of Hero is that a Disadvantage that does not disadvantage the character (or a Complication that does not cause complications) is worth no points.

I can't speak to GURPS in this regard as I have not played that system, nor have I had any real contact with the GURPS community.

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. That does not make them inherently abusive - the GM who would abuse them, IME, will find something else to abuse if that mechanic is removed. It is not alignment, disadvantages or aspects (or any other similar mechanic) that causes the problem, it is poor use of the mechanics by the GM and/or the players.

 

[Ratskinner]

Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...

The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.


There are two major categories for what a compel looks like in the game: events and decisions. These are tools to help you figure out what a compel should look like and help break any mental blocks.
[h=4]Events[/h]An event-based compel happens to the character in spite of herself, when the world around her responds to a certain aspect in a certain way and creates a complicating circumstance. It looks like this:

• You have ____ aspect and are in ____ situation, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, ____ would happen to you. Damn your luck.

So it seems the situation proposed is valid under the rules.

Incorrect. Although I would describe it more as something awkward that might happen in a game with folks who are all unfamiliar with Fate.

Read the examples after that formulation of the compel. That formulation is used for events that are outside the character's control. In this case, that's the compel that would earn the characters a FP simply because its a snake.

You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, this giant snake is threatening them. Damn you luck.

The character might also earn a second FP from another similar compel:

You have Defender of the Innocent as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that a giant monster is threatening them.

If the GM didn't recognize this, the player would be completely in their rights to point it out and demand the Fate points. (Retroactive Compels, Fate Core p. 74)

Causing the character to do something, requires the second formulation:

• You have ____ aspect in ____ situation, so it makes sense that you’d decide to ____. This goes wrong when ____ happens.

...and the third example for that formulation roughly corresponds to the proposed scenario:

Zird has Not the Face! when he gets challenged to a barfight, so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge. This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’s a coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.

So: You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and you're facing a giant snake, so it makes sense that you'd flee rather than face the monster. This goes wrong when the people it threatens are devoured and you fail <whatever mission got us here>.

Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.

 

[pemerton]

So one player choosing a Lawful approach and another choosing a Chaotic approach to do Good is “moral relativism” if both are right.

<snip>

Alignment posits two axes, Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic. Arthur and Robin Hood are Good. Will they agree on how to deliver Good? Likely not – one is lawful and one is chaotic.

But one player wishing the prisoner to face the punishment for her crimes and the other sparing her of that punishment, with both being right, is not moral relativism.

On the second quote - who said they're both right? I never did. My point is that I don't have to decide as part of my adjudication of the game. Nor as part of my enjoyment of the game. (Just as, say, I can watch Pulp Fiction without having to form a definitive view on the morality of the hit-men characters.)

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.

But in D&D 9-point alignment the LG character is meant to have moral objections to the CG character - not to simply regard him/her as someone who chose different means. To try to give it some sort of (caricatured) context, when Superman regards Batman as somewhat suspect for not being fully above-board in his approach to crime fighting, Superman is suspecting that Batman is not entirely, or really, good. Conversely the idea that Superman would regard Batman as entirely good, and would regard Batman as using objectionable methods, makes no sense. And if Superman regards Batman as entirely good because he regards Batman's methods as not objectionable, although not the ones Superman himself chooses to deploy, then there is no conflict between law and chaos - contrary to what D&D's alignment system asserts.

How can you have the eternal struggle of good vs. evil if we cannot have either “good” or “evil” in any way defined?

Here is a candidate definition of "good": a general terms of commendation. Here is another: "good" = "admirable or worthy of emulation". Those are both mine. Dictionary.com gives me 41 definitions of "good" as an adjective. Some of the relevant ones include "morally excellent", "virtuous", "righteous", "satisfactory in quality", "excellent". As you can see, those are also all general terms of commendation, used to describe things that are admirable or worthy of emulation. "Admirable" and "worthy" are themselves general terms of commendation.

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.

The eternal struggle of good and evil is a trope because we are familiar with it as part of both religious and literary traditions going back for thousands of years. We recognise it in virtue of trappings (eg light vs dark) and context (eg betrayal of innocence or seduction by power), not to mention the deployment of other stereotypes (eg nobility and honour vs deceit and expedience).

Gygax incorporates the trope into Greyhawk by giving us Iuz and the Horned Society at war with Furyondy, Veluna and the Shield Lands. We can recognise the trope without needing any sort of definitive account of what constitutes good or evil: there are Knights of the Hart and Knights of Holy Shielding, guarding lands ruled by an archcleric and a paladin, from a group of hierarchs (already a sinister appellation!) who lead orcs and goblins, and from the child of a witch and a demon prince.

In fact, in some ways - as with Tolkien's LotR - the fiction works better if we don't inquire too closely into what makes Sauron or Iuz evil, because when we do make that inquiry we tend not to find much of an answer, at least if modernist sensibilities are deployed. Likewise, it's helpful if we don't inquire too closely into what makes Aragorn, or Furyondy, or The Shire for that matter, good. After all, is it really good that Bilbo and Frodo live in wealth from birth, while Sam only gets to move out of his gaffer's digs as a reward for saving the universe? And how many contemporary readers of Tolkien or players of D&D really regard any form of monarchy (and associated notions of "noblesse oblige") as a good form of government that best maximises altruism and minimise harm to the common folk?

This is not just a feature of contemporary fantasy, either. It's also a feature of superhero comic books. (Obviously there are exceptions - Wagner's Ring would be an exception in the domain of fantasy, and Watchmen in the domain of super heroes, where the audience is expected to engage in that closer inquiry, and to be impressed by what the author offers up as an answer.)

Good is defined in the rules. In game, that is the definition of “good” as it is used in the alignment context. It overrides all other definitions for that purpose.

As I've already pointed out, that definition relies upon using other evaluative language - such as "altruism" (= furthering the interests of others - but what counts as an interest?), or "harm" (=, let's say, wrongly setting back the interests of others - but what counts as an interest, or as wrongful setting back?).

You have indicated that only the player’s determination of whether their code is being followed matters.

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, the Demon Prince wants what RQ has – again, why can that not be interpreted as “The Demon Prince longs to join the Raven Queen’s legions of Undead warriors with his own, the better to conquer all the lands.”

If you want to change the campaign backstory, that's either something that happens prior to play; or, alternatively, is something that might unfold as a big reveal arising out of actual play and action resolution. I don't see it's relevance to who, if anyone, is obliged to evaluate the conduct that a player declares for his/her PC.

I do not believe my interpretation of the words – to cast the RQ is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead – is a less reasonable interpretation of the words above. So why is a character who holds those beliefs categorically “wrong” rather than someone whose beliefs can be tested in play?

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 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. Much like, if one of the players wants to play a seafaring character, then before play starts we would have to all agree on whether the starting town or village is coastal or inland.

(I know there are some RPGs, and some approaches even to 4e, that allow the players to make far-ranging determinations about backstory as part of the process of action resolution. My game is not one of those, though.)

If they have to invoke RQ to guard their loved ones from the threat of undeath, how does that mean she is diametrically opposed to it?

Because the word used is "curse", not "threat", and the entry is written from the point of view of explaining why the god is worthy of devotion.

The character who believes that killing people is a service to the Raven Queen, bringing them to her realm of death. You are judging that character. You are saying your judgment is to be preferred over mine.

<snip>

And why does your judgment whether my attempts are sincere relevant?

I'm not judging that character. There is no character. There is no play or prospect of play. And that is also the relevance of sincerity. You haven't sat down, read through the 4e PHB, and said "I know what, I want to play a murder who slays people in devotion to the Raven Queen." As best I can tell, you didn't even know the backstory for the Raven Queen until I posted it. You haven't talked about a class that might make this character work (I would suggest Avenger, or perhaps Executioner Assassin with an Avenger or Cleric multi-class). You're not pitching a character at all.

So I'm not making any judgement of any actual or prospective character.

 

[pemerton]

Incorrect.

<snip>

Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.

Thanks for posting that (and the one above it). I thought I had to be on the right track when I suggested that the player in the situation could get the needed fate point via a "self-compel" of "Defend the Innocent" (given that innocents were being threatened), but it's good to have someone who actually know the system explain the details.

 

[pemerton]

It was indicated earlier that the fate point gained by accepting a Compel cannot be used to mitigate the effects of the compel. As I see that, the player does not get to trade the Fate point back to override the compel. Why would he ever spend a Fate point up front to resist the Compel if he can get the same result by immediate override with the Fate point he receives for accepting (but not really) the Compel?

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] has explained how this actually works.

As to why the player might buy off the compel? - perhaps because they don't want to fight a snake who has a standing advantage against that PC in virtue of the aspect in question.

It is not alignment, disadvantages or aspects (or any other similar mechanic) that causes the problem

They are not similar mechanics. Aspects are not tools for guiding characterisation. They are not "disadvantages" or limits. They are tools to be used (by both players and GM) for creating situations in play. They engage the mechanics of the game - both scene-framing and action resolution mechanics - and thereby generate a certain sort of fiction as the outcome of play.

 

[Imaro]

Incorrect. Although I would describe it more as something awkward that might happen in a game with folks who are all unfamiliar with Fate.

Read the examples after that formulation of the compel. That formulation is used for events that are outside the character's control. In this case, that's the compel that would earn the characters a FP simply because its a snake.

You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, this giant snake is threatening them. Damn you luck.

The character might also earn a second FP from another similar compel:

You have Defender of the Innocent as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that a giant monster is threatening them.

If the GM didn't recognize this, the player would be completely in their rights to point it out and demand the Fate points. (Retroactive Compels, Fate Core p. 74)

Causing the character to do something, requires the second formulation:

• You have ____ aspect in ____ situation, so it makes sense that you’d decide to ____. This goes wrong when ____ happens.

...and the third example for that formulation roughly corresponds to the proposed scenario:

Zird has Not the Face! when he gets challenged to a barfight, so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge. This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’s a coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.

So: You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and you're facing a giant snake, so it makes sense that you'd flee rather than face the monster. This goes wrong when the people it threatens are devoured and you fail <whatever mission got us here>.

Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.

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

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. 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...

 

[Umbran]

So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel.

I always saw that distinction as really only one way to help a GM think about compels to generate them. Once you have the idea, there's no need to shove it back into that framework.

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)?

If the player is out of fate points, he or she either wants the session to end (so they get a refresh for next session) or to be compelled. The player should be inviting them, suggesting them as often as possible if they're out of points. If you are out of fate points, you're stuck with die rolls, which on average will be no help whatsoever! You can't make any powers or stunts that require fate points work.

It is utterly cheesy to use the opportunity to "beat" the player. If you're in an adversarial mindset playing a FATE based game, just stop, 'cause (IMHO) you're doin' it wrong. The whole purpose of the fate point economy, and that ebb and flow, is to build an awesome narrative. This is not a simulation, or a gamist win/lose thing. You want to build a narrative. You want ot get that player a point or two so they have a chance to try to squeak out of the tight spot. They may fail, of course, but if you've given them the point, then they fail dramatically, which is the best kind of fail.

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

Mitigate? Well, overcome or work around, at least.

"I compel you to stay out of striking distance of the serpent!"

"Okay, I'll take that. So, can I use that fate point to stipulate there's a chandelier above that serpent, and the rope holding it up is right... over...here...?" (declaring a story detail, rather than invoking an aspect)

or

"Okay, I'll take that. So, I am going to just throw my sword at it, and I want to hit it right in the eye! I am a 'Defender of the Innocent', can that apply?"

I wonder how often...

... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.

Well, FATE is supposed to be rather more cooperative than your traditional D&D game. The players are handed a lot more narrative control - negotiation happens all the time, in my experience.

 

[pemerton]

Mitigate? Well, overcome or work around, at least.

"I compel you to stay out of striking distance of the serpent!"

"Okay, I'll take that. So, can I use that fate point to stipulate there's a chandelier above that serpent, and the rope holding it up is right... over...here...?" (declaring a story detail, rather than invoking an aspect)

I like that as another way to use the newly acquired fate point to do something about the serpent.

"Okay, I'll take that. So, I am going to just throw my sword at it, and I want to hit it right in the eye! I am a 'Defender of the Innocent', can that apply?"

That too.