Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 7843461" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Good points.&nbsp; But...I'm not hopping in the boat, yet.&nbsp; Fate shares narrative control, but nowhere on a level of PbtA.&nbsp; If NPCs needed FP, the rules would grant them to each NPC.&nbsp; As it stands, a per-PC budget means that the GM gets to ruin a PC's fun once per scene.Allied NPC FP are completely worthless.&nbsp; There's no reason for them to compel anything against an antagonist, because that's literally the GM having a conversation with herself: &quot;hey, Me, will I accept the story turning against another character I'm running in exchange for a Fate point?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Well, Me, I don't know.&nbsp; It's not like I'm in control of everything else, anyways...&quot;I don't see how compels can come from players.&nbsp; That doesn't seem to be one of the uses of a fate point.&nbsp; But, again, not an expert.If you're declaring story details that are in favor of the NPCs, you don't need a fate point - you need GM practice.&nbsp; Alternatively, you know exactly what you're doing, and it will keep the PCs on the edge of their seats up until the climactic ending of the encounter.&nbsp; Either way, no FP needed.&nbsp; If an NPC wants a compel, you're metagaming that NPC, and should see point 1.I'm applying GM, not DM, mentality, which echoes this from the Fate SRD:I would say that the basic concept of Fate is that the GM frames the scene, the PCs react to it with their characters, and then Fate Points allow PCs to tactically increase the dramatic impact of the whole thing.I'm not seeing difficulty as a last resort.&nbsp; In fact, the SRD advises that GMs can just use the Ladder for NPCs if they don't want to roll.&nbsp; So let's say it's at least 50/50.&nbsp; The point is that GMs set difficulty, which means that GMs (NPCs) don't need FP.In another one of the contradictions (ambiguities?) that [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] mentions, the SRD points out that GMs are the &quot;chairman, not god&quot; (despite determining the outcome of the PCs' decisions).&nbsp; That disagreements should result in &quot;brief discussions.&quot;&nbsp; This is not a D&amp;D procedural trope, true, but if the GM is running everything mechanically, there's no need to bring this up.&nbsp; Unless the GM has the narrative control that I understand him/her to have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 7843461, member: 6685730"] Good points. But... I'm not hopping in the boat, yet. Fate shares narrative control, but nowhere on a level of PbtA. If NPCs needed FP, the rules would grant them to each NPC. As it stands, a per-PC budget means that the GM gets to ruin a PC's fun once per scene. Allied NPC FP are completely worthless. There's no reason for them to compel anything against an antagonist, because that's literally the GM having a conversation with herself: "hey, Me, will I accept the story turning against another character I'm running in exchange for a Fate point?" "Well, Me, I don't know. It's not like I'm in control of everything else, anyways..." I don't see how compels can come from players. That doesn't seem to be one of the uses of a fate point. But, again, not an expert. If you're declaring story details that are in favor of the NPCs, you don't need a fate point - you need GM practice. Alternatively, you know exactly what you're doing, and it will keep the PCs on the edge of their seats up until the climactic ending of the encounter. Either way, no FP needed. If an NPC wants a compel, you're metagaming that NPC, and should see point 1. I'm applying GM, not DM, mentality, which echoes this from the Fate SRD: I would say that the basic concept of Fate is that the GM frames the scene, the PCs react to it with their characters, and then Fate Points allow PCs to tactically increase the dramatic impact of the whole thing. I'm not seeing difficulty as a last resort. In fact, the SRD advises that GMs can just use the Ladder for NPCs if they don't want to roll. So let's say it's at least 50/50. The point is that GMs set difficulty, which means that GMs (NPCs) don't need FP. In another one of the contradictions (ambiguities?) that [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] mentions, the SRD points out that GMs are the "chairman, not god" (despite determining the outcome of the PCs' decisions). That disagreements should result in "brief discussions." This is not a D&D procedural trope, true, but if the GM is running everything mechanically, there's no need to bring this up. Unless the GM has the narrative control that I understand him/her to have. [/QUOTE]

Verification