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: 8727812" data-attributes="member: 177">I don't.  I am the one who pointed it out, after all.Not quite.  The GM is expected to create difficulties and problems.  But not "as a response to the players' efforts". It is not supposed to be a "move-countermove" dynamic, and is not supposed to be adversarial.  The GM is not creating difficulties for the purpose of protecting their favored NPC alive.  They are crating difficulties because difficulties are interesting.  And at this point, we can note that Fate is from... Evil Hat Productions.  The people who brought us Blades in the Dark, and the GM Principle, "Be a fan of the PCs".  The advice giving to GMs in Fate about exercising their power are not so succinct, but amount to something very similar.  This sentence abstracts what actually happens in play behind jargon.  I cannot speak to your experience, or diagnose your particular problems, not having witnessed them. I can make guesses, but I'd not have much confidence in them.I have played and run a lot of Fate - it has never been adversarial for me on either side of the screen.Except, of course, that's not what is happening.  The player is not asking if they can have a thing.  They are asking if they can try to accomplish a thing.  If the player asks if they can make cupcakes, the GM is not supposed to negate baking success - they are supposed to add to the situation.  A more proper complication is not a live roach in the cupcake, as that ruins the cupcake.  Better would be, the obnoxious neighbors come to the door, see the cupcakes, and ask if they could have them because they look delicious.  The cupcakes are still just as nice, but having them for dessert after dinner got a bit more complicated....Yes, and in D&D, every single room can have a trap in it that says, "Rocks fall, everyone dies".  Absolutely nothing in the contract prohibits that adventure design fiat.  No game actually protects you from problematic GM behavior.  A clever person can always find ways to abuse a ruleset.In other games, you make a success, that changes your fictional positioning in a predictable way.  But, you don't know what's in the next room or if there's about to be a random encounter - your fictional positioning is going to change, out of the PCs control, in a moment anyway.  The only difference is the time when the changing element is chosen.  In traditional games it is before the session.  In games with "success at a cost" mechanics, it is in response to a roll.  Same event, different timing.But, that's always the case.  In no game does picking the lock determine what happens next.  It only allows the PCs to move the narrative into the next room, if they wish.  It opens a narrative choice, but does not determine where the narrative will go.Eh.  GM as "referee" is a posture assumed for traditional games.  It should not be assumed to be relevant for non-traditional games.  D&D is often like a soccer match.  Fate generally isn't.</blockquote>

Verification