Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Umbran]

No, but it demonstrates that Fate Core expects players to be proposing "Event" compels before Narrative Action is even taking place in a scene, that is, during framing.

Well, there's "expects" as in "I am prepared for this to happen" and there expects as in, "this is really central to function, and failing to do so is a problem". The situation for the game is more the former than the latter.

Players can suggest compels. Period. The game tries its best to not get in the way of that, so it allows them to come just at framing, during the scene, or retroactively. If characters are going to do cool stuff, the Fate points must flow. So, stand back and give folks opportunities.

The GM proposes his first "hook" and the players suggest modifications that are effectively retroactive "event" compels.

In practice, in my experience, doesn't happen much. The game allows for it, but the players generally look to the GM to frame the scene, in fairly traditional manner.

Complications to the characters life don't have to be the result of compels, they can just happen. Changing it to the snake makes it a viable compel on the snakes aspect:

Correct. You may get a Fate point not just when your situation gets more complicated, but when it does so in a manner that is thematically appropriate for the character, specifically. Which is to say, is a complication in line with your specific aspects.

 

[pemerton]

Wait, since when has XP really been all that controversial? (or initiative for that matter?).

[MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] is right about XP - a lot of people don't use them, as far as I can see, and "level when it seems right" is a supported option in the 4e DMG.

On initiative, I think there's less variation, but I certainly see posts where people have strong views about whether classic D&D-style "side vs side" initiative is better or worse than 3E and 4e-style "turn by turn" initiative.

 

[pemerton]

Joke!

I think we need a many page thread on whether or not your preference is joke-telling is acceptable. Preferably with a poll!

 

[S'mon]

The lack of mechanically-enforced Alignment in my 4e game seems to have had a positive effec on the game. People seem more comfortable playing genuinely heroic characters when there's no Alignment monitor breathing down their neck. Moral questions "How far will you go? Whay will you do?" bcome meaningful when there is no checkbox 'right answer'.

I find the Classic D&D Law/Neutrality/Chaos Alignment system works great, but I've never seen ninefold alignment work well in play. For my new Pathfinder game I'm planning to de-emphasise the knowability of alignment, only very strongly aligned characters will radiate Law/Evil/Good/Chaos, and I'm not planning to harrass the Paladin over whether her actions conform precisely to my or Paizo's notion of
LG -and I suspect we may have quite different notions anyway.

Incidentally, I've been reading a lot recently about the development of Western society in terms of the loosening of kinship networks through outbreeding - with the end of cousin marriage in
much of Europe ca AD 700-900 (mostly through the efforts of the Catholic church), tribes & clans were replaced by nuclear families, guilds, manorialism, and eventually nation states. It strikes me that the D&D concept of Good (at least post-1e) is very closely embedded in this relatively recent Western kinship structure - altruism to relatives (family, clan) is merely Neutral, while Good is defined as universal altruism. This makes using D&D Alignment to play in any society outside of the West ca
900 AD+ a poor fit. The Alignment system is constantly telling you (the PC) that your society's
moral norms are objectively wrong!

edit: Can't edit the top lines due to crappy interface, *grr*

 

[pemerton]

I've been reading a lot recently about the development of Western society in terms of the loosening of kinship networks through outbreeding - with the end of cousin marriage in
much of Europe ca AD 700-900 (mostly through the efforts of the Catholic church), tribes & clans were replaced by nuclear families, guilds, manorialism, and eventually nation states. It strikes me that the D&D concept of Good (at least post-1e) is very closely embedded in this relatively recent Western kinship structure - altruism to relatives (family, clan) is merely Neutral, while Good is defined as universal altruism. This makes using D&D Alignment to play in any society outside of the West ca
900 AD+ a poor fit. The Alignment system is constantly telling you (the PC) that your society's
moral norms are objectively wrong!

I agree that D&D alignment doesn't fit with the social structures and outlook of the medieval worlds we're meant to be emulating. Inlcuding paladins - because the detachability of good from law (and vice versa) in 9 point alignment means that a paladin's convictions about honour and duty make no sense. If a paladin knows, objectively, that a person can be good while being chaotic, or can be fully lawful yet also fully evil, then the attachement to the code becomes a mere fetish. Which in my view is silly, and makes something of a mockery of the archetype.

 

[Hussar]

An Anecdote - Where the lightbulb came on when I really stopped using alignment.

Some years ago, in a 3e game, I had a new (well, new to the group) player join the campaign. He created his character and i was looking it over and noticed that he had picked Chaotic Neutral for his character.

Me: Why is this character CN?
Player: I want to be a free spirit and do whatever I want.

To be honest, i wasn't thrilled with this. In the past, whenever I'd seen a player come with a CN character it was often seen as a license to be a disruptive player. "I'm not being a jerk, I'm just playing my character - he's supposed to be this way". But, I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt and didn't make a fuss about it.

So, time passes, four, five levels and twenty or thirty sessions later, I'm talking with the player about his character.

Me: Your character really isn't CN.
Player (bristling): Yes he is. He's totally CN.
Me: Well, no. I don't think so. Your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively. He plans pretty far in advance and frequently places the group's goals and welfare ahead of himself. He's Lawful at least, and I'd peg him as Lawful Good.
The player reacted something like this:

[video=youtube_share;x9H1ufqMBg4]http://youtu.be/x9H1ufqMBg4[/video]

Player: My character is CN so he can do whatever he wants. He wants to do what he's doing.

So, I stepped back a second and read between the lines. It wasn't that he was trying to do an end run or anything like that. What he was doing was putting up a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on his character. He'd had DM's in the past who used alignment as a crowbar to force him to act in particular ways and he absolutely did not want that.

And, that's when the light went off. I realised that I actually completely agreed with his point of view. I've seen DM's over the years do exactly what's been advocated several times in this thread - use alignment to influence or force behaviour from the players. And I always hated it. Now, I don't use alignment at all and it has done nothing but make the game better. Removing the Damocles Sword of alignment from over the heads of the players is an excellent way to allow those players to see that you trust their ability to portray their character. And that leads to better, more engaged players who no longer need to play "Read the DM's mind" games in portraying their own characters.

Will this be the same for everyone? No, obviously not. But, I know that I certainly won't be adding alignment back into D&D anytime soon. It's, IMO, a completely unnecessary mechanic that does nothing but cause arguments and fights at the table and adds nothing of value.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Jacob Marley is right about XP - a lot of people don't use them, as far as I can see, and "level when it seems right" is a supported option in the 4e DMG.

s ve.

I have certainly met the occassional person who doesn'y use experience or uses it differently, but they are quite in the minority, and it has never been the subject of debate that i have seen (pretty much every major rpg out there uses experience of some kind, whereas alignment is not nearly so universal).

 

[N'raac]

What's clumsy about not using alignment, and about not wanting to have a game mechanic which obliges me to decide whether near-omnipotent, near-omniscient exemplars of goodness agree with what the players are having their PCs do?

Nothing. My comment on clumsy implementation is aimed at those who feel alignment must necessarily go wrong. I find those anecdotes where the GM uses alignment to straightjacket the choices of the PCs indicates clumsy usage of the rules, not an inherent flaw in the rules themselves, just as it is suggested that use of "Why did it have to be snakes" to force a character to flee the scene is suggested to be poor usage of those rules.

That said, if a character is granted powers by some near-omnipotent and near-omniscient force in order to advance his objectives, I would expect maintaining those powers without attention to that force's objectives to be problematic at best.

And you are still holding my murderous servant of the Raven Queen is an inappropriate character, so you are still deciding whether that near-omnipotent, near-omniscient entity agrees or disagrees with the values of my character. You are largely doing this before play, but I suspect my character having an epiphany a few weeks into the game where he realizes proper devotion to the Raven Queen requires sending as many living people as possible to her Realm of the Dead would not be well received, despite the consistent assertion that the player can play his character ay way desired, and the GM will not judge the consistency of his values with those of a patron deity, or anyone else.

I can't think of any problems with either wanting to make it so that the player interprets their own alignment if it works for a table, or scrapping alignment and much of its accompaniments altogether. Of course I also don't have any problem with it being used in the ways I've always seen it done. :::shrugs::

Pretty much my point. I don't see huge problems caused by its removal (the challenges of removal of alignment-based spells and alignment-based abilities can be resolved). But I see no reason to remove it when the flaws and issues are, in my experience, vastly overstated.

I have certainly met the occassional person who doesn'y use experience or uses it differently, but they are quite in the minority, and it has never been the subject of debate that i have seen (pretty much every major rpg out there uses experience of some kind, whereas alignment is not nearly so universal).

I have seen a lot more support for leveling at the speed of plot in recent years. I think most games use some system for character advancement and improvement, many calling it "experience points", but there is a wide variety of different implementations other than "leveling up". Most changes I see in the D&D model change the determination of timing of leveling up, and not the mechanic itself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have seen a lot more support for leveling at the speed of plot in recent years. I think most games use some system for character advancement and improvement, many calling it "experience points", but there is a wide variety of different implementations other than "leveling up". Most changes I see in the D&D model change the determination of timing of leveling up, and not the mechanic itself.

I haven't seen this very much. I see most major games using an xp mechanic (not necessarily levels, which are strongly identified with D&D) but an xp reward system. In D&D, i have encountered folks who simplify leveling or alter it, but only rarely do I see this. I think for most players, XP is a pretty core part of the D&D experience and and important aspect of play (the desire for xp in many ways drives the game forward). I am not saying it is inst out there, but i dont think remval of xp is seriiously being debated, and I do not think it is as subject to debate as say alignment. Same with initiative. There have been different methods, and by 2E you have lots of optional approaches, but initiative is a standard feature of most rpgs. XP is also a pretty standard rog mechanic. Alignment isn't. Its part of D&D, but lots if other big rpgs dont use anything like it. So while i dont think the issues with alignment are as inevitable as people say, and i think removing it from D&D for next would be a huge mistake, i do at least see it has its detractors. Not really encountering much opposition to XP or initiative though.

 

[Imaro]

Keeping in mind that Zird's sheet says nothing about any gear,

From the Fate corebook...

Skills and Gear
Some of the skills, like Shoot and Crafts, imply the need for gear. We
presume by default that if you have a skill, you also have the tools
you need to use it, and that the effectiveness of those tools is built
into the skill result. If you want to make gear special, you’ll want to
look at the Extras chapter.

This answers the question of Zird's gear as his magic is based on the Lore skill. It also infers that if a character is purposefully lacking the gear he needs, then his skills will be less effective. Once the complication of Zird's gear being missing is established... different GM's can handle the decreased effectiveness of his lore skill in different ways.

what's your response to the following:

Inspired by recent headlines, the GM wants to introduce a storyline about local gangs attacking civilians. "Where does Zird go to relax after a long day at the Collegia Lab?"
"hmm....the public baths!"
"Okay, you're there and soaking in the tub without your gear, when a group of teenage thugs bursts into the room brandishing knives and coming for you!"

My reaction would be that the GM is breaking the fundamental assumptions of the game since the default is that characters always have the necessary gear to use their skills and this is factored into their total score. So I would expect the GM, to find a way to make this a compel, or find some other way to give the player a FP for doing this to them. The only way this wouldn't be an issue is if the GM still allowed the player to use his skills without any type of mechanical disadvantage since, at that point for all intents and purposes, it is just window dressing.