Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8727232" data-attributes="member: 177">So, there's several places in gaming where GM fiat can happen.  Like, in D&D, adventure design is a ginormous wad of GM fiat, but we typically ignore that when we talk about fiat.  This can skew our overall perception of how much fiat a game actually entails.  Moreover, we have no measure of fiat.So, I'm going to answer a little differently, especially since our focus seems to be on task and conflict resolution.  I'd say that Fate requires far less effort on the GM's part to enforce things than most traditional systems.  By and large, a Fate GM is best off saying "No" only when what the player proposes is widely out of line for the genre or established narrative.  The game is highly suited to "Yes, and..." approaches to play. So, how much power is given, and how much use of that power is required, are not anywhere near the same thing.Moreover, I can give some push-back on much of that being arbitrarily deciding outcomes.  D&D task resolution has two states - success and failure.  Fate has failure, success with consequence, success, and success with style.  In success with cost/consequence (in other systems as well, not just Fate), the GM is supposed to add content to the situation.  It is NOT actually arbitrarily assigning an outcome to the task at hand.  If you are trying to pick a lock, and you succeed with a cost... that lock is still well and truly picked.  That outcome is what it is.However, the GM is now also supposed to add something that makes life more difficult - like a guard coming down the hall.  This is NO LESS FIAT than a D&D GM deciding in their adventure design that guards come down the hall every 5 rounds.  It is just that the time that fiat is made is different.This becomes more clear when you realize that a skilled Fate GM is not stipulating much in their adventure prep.  In Fate, the GM has a sketch by comparison to a typical D&D GM, knowing that the system is going to add in loads of opportunities to add content later, as part of the process of play.  I cannot speak to Wil Wheaton's experience, specifically, as I have not seen it.  I can say that many people familiar with traditional games, in which the character sheet dictates some very specific and fixed abilities you are expected to use, can have issues when approaching the open and narratively-leaning Fate. The format of the session as an event that is as much a performance for viewers as it is a session of play may also enter into it in ways I could not really diagnose without seeing it.All in all, a traditional player trying Fate for the first time for broadcast... maybe wasn't a great idea to begin with?</blockquote>

Verification