Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[TwoSix]

This is exactly the doublethink I can't seem to do that these games require. Do I or do I not have a goal I am trying to achieve? If I do, then striving to achieve it means limiting obstacles and eeking out advantage with each action. If I don't, then I can't apply the logic of gameplay to my decision making, and the exact structure of when to strive and when to accept and why consistently eludes me.

Your goal as a group is to produce compelling fiction. Your characters have goals, but they're a piece of the fiction, not the point of play. You can produce compelling fiction whether or not your character succeeds.

As a player, succeeding on checks is generally better than not, because it gives you more authority to dictate the fictional setup. But it isn't like you're being evaluated on how often you successfully meet the successful conditions on checks, like scoring the endgame in a board game. The only metric of success is whether or not the group thinks you did a good job producing compelling fiction.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I don't really see clocks as a mechanism for avoiding consequences. I see them as a method for staggering the consequences out over the course of a score.

At least as a player, I tend to see Clocks as a way to focus my decision-making. Does my little dude prefer this risk or that one? I tend to feel the same way about Entanglements. If I'm not particularly bothered about an Entanglement's consequences, I'll pay the mechanical cost and be done with it (e.g., in our current game, we had an Entanglement with the Bluecoats, but we were at +3 with them and the cost was loss of standing; we had it to burn so we ignored it). Similarly, we had a Clock running about another criminal running off with some electroplasmic tech from Gaddoc Rail station which was worth significant coin. We ended up letting her (and it) go because we had other fish to fry.

 

[Umbran]

This is exactly the doublethink I can't seem to do that these games require. Do I or do I not have a goal I am trying to achieve?

Why would you (or at least your character) not have some goal you/they are trying to achieve? Like, when does anyone take actions that have literally no purpose in mind? That's not really a thing.

 

[Fenris-77]

The limiting obstacles and eeking out advantage is definitely a thing, but it's done not by direct reference to the mechanics, but by positing actions and plans in the fiction that would derive those things. When the mechanics of the PC and your evocative action declarations are in line then you get some of what you want. When those same actions make clever use of the current setting state you get more of what you want. This is broadly similar to what happens in a lot of games, but the difference is in the explicit focus on the conversation and fictional positioning before anything else.

You can play any trad game in exactly the same way (I've played and run 'em) but because trad games tend to be very fuzzy on the details of how to manage the conversation and adjudication thereof, and lack mechanics that provide any nuance, a lot more is left on the shoulders of the GM to just git gud.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your goal as a group is to produce compelling fiction. Your characters have goals, but they're a piece of the fiction, not the point of play. You can produce compelling fiction whether or not your character succeeds.

As a player, succeeding on checks is generally better than not, because it gives you more authority to dictate the fictional setup. But it isn't like you're being evaluated on how often you successfully meet the successful conditions on checks, like scoring the endgame in a board game. The only metric of success is whether or not the group thinks you did a good job producing compelling fiction.

Does the game actually state that the whole point of play is to provide compelling fiction?

 

[Pedantic]

Why would you (or at least your character) not have some goal you/they are trying to achieve? Like, when does anyone take actions that have literally no purpose in mind? That's not really a thing.

I'm not interested in the "characters'" goals here, they're fictional constructs without agency. I'm interested in what the players' goals are and how those are supposed to be pursued. What is the purpose for proposing one action over another, and how should they reason about those choices, so as to prefer some specific approach?

The limiting obstacles and eeking out advantage is definitely a thing, but it's done not by direct reference to the mechanics, but by positing actions and plans in the fiction that would derive those things. When the mechanics of the PC and your evocative action declarations are in line then you get some of what you want. When those same actions make clever use of the current setting state you get more of what you want. This is broadly similar to what happens in a lot of games, but the difference is in the explicit focus on the conversation and fictional positioning before anything else.

That doesn't hold, unless the players are actively ignorant of the game's mechanisms. If some manipulation of those mechanisms better serves their purported goals, then they should take those actions; I don't think they have a goal in the sense I used it earlier at all. I think they're doing something else (the precise what that thing is I freely admit to not really understanding) and that's getting discussed as though they were playing a game, right up until it comes to the question of a player trying to engage with the mechanics to succeed.

I think the issue isn't the mechanical engagement, it's the goal the player is pursuing, and how that informs their decision making.

You can play any trad game in exactly the same way (I've played and run 'em) but because trad games tend to be very fuzzy on the details of how to manage the conversation and adjudication thereof, and lack mechanics that provide any nuance, a lot more is left on the shoulders of the GM to just git gud.

My criticism of that kind of trad play is slightly different; I think they're narrow games with very limited space to play (mostly, it's about socially manipulating your GM), but I can parse player decision making as gameplay still.

They want to get the game to a specific state, they have some condition that is a loss (usually death, sometimes some other stuff), formulate a set of tactics or longer term strategy that gets them to that state as efficiently as possible while avoiding the loss condition as effectively as they can. I'd critique the action space as being very limited (superficial claims of tactical infinity aside) and often unknowable, in a way that degrades the quality of possible decision making, but I understand the basis of that decision making, and could articulate why a player would prefer one move or another.

Your goal as a group is to produce compelling fiction. Your characters have goals, but they're a piece of the fiction, not the point of play. You can produce compelling fiction whether or not your character succeeds.

As a player, succeeding on checks is generally better than not, because it gives you more authority to dictate the fictional setup. But it isn't like you're being evaluated on how often you successfully meet the successful conditions on checks, like scoring the endgame in a board game. The only metric of success is whether or not the group thinks you did a good job producing compelling fiction.

This is the "no goal" option, or perhaps "the goal is not a product of gameplay." I'm still not totally clear on how to make decisions, or why those decisions are interesting. "Create compelling fiction" isn't parsable as a game; figuring out how you did isn't evaluated by result or mechanism but by a different kind of critique. If making decisions is not a question of gameplay, it's motivated by other concerns, and I can't help but feel those are not products of systems and mechanisms in the game, but from some outside force, perhaps the attitude the players are expected to adopt.

Frankly, I don't expect after all the effort that's already spent on these texts for someone to explain what the actual thing being done here is in a way that I'll grasp at this point. I just find it very muddled when it gets discussed as gameplay but then attempts to reason about it as gameplay are critiqued.

 

[zakael19]

Let me be clear - I don't mind that the GM is deciding how hard it is. That is common across loads of games. I minded the assertion that somehow the GM is not part of this determination!

I was focused on the Dice probability side of my comments, not the fictional side (effect). If you’re arguing that lower effect means maybe more dice rolls or something, sure; although it probably actually means more expenditure of resources in the form of Loadout or Stress to get the Effect where the player wants for the Risk they’re about to face with dice. The probability of success on a roll is within the player’s hands entirely (the Action determines the base dice pool, the player has Say there; they have resources to boost the pool via various ways). The GM’s say is entirely on “what will this dice roll get you.”

The GM doesn’t affect probability*, they affect outcome / reward. I’m trying to draw a contrast with a a game where the GM goes “ok yeah, give me a X roll” and may or may not tell you what the DC or equivalent is; and often won’t tell you what you’re risking (position) or will get (effect).

*ok, so technically you can bring Harm in which might result in a smaller dice pool if we agree that say having a broken arm means you’re going to be a lot less effective at trying to fight or whatever.

 

[Fenris-77]

That doesn't hold, unless the players are actively ignorant of the game's mechanisms. If some manipulation of those mechanisms better serves their purported goals, then they should take those actions; I don't think they have a goal in the sense I used it earlier at all. I think they're doing something else (the precise what that thing is I freely admit to not really understanding) and that's getting discussed as though they were playing a game, right up until it comes to the question of a player trying to engage with the mechanics to succeed.

It does actually, it's the way FitD rules work (very successfully). I'll happily agree that the trad version needs some finesse because it isn't supported by the mechanics at all. You're putting a lot of weight on the pejorative 'manipulate' here which isn't in any warranted by the FitD rules.

 

[Umbran]

I was focused on the Dice probability side of my comments, not the fictional side (effect).

It seems to me that you are more focused than that.

The GM doesn’t affect probability*, they affect outcome / reward.

With respect, I'd say you've lost the forest for the one mechanical tree.

What I'm talking about is the overall process, and how hard it is for the player to reach the goal they've chosen. If you lessen effect, that makes it harder to reach the goal - they will need to take more chances of failure/setback, take on greater risks, or spend more resources, to succeed in the way that actually means something for the player.

In the overall process of achieving a goal, probability, risk, and reward are all part of "how hard is it?" Sure, the rules may say, "A 4 is a basic success" (or whatever), but if the GM is setting effect, they set what "a basic success" means in the context, and therefore how many basic successes will be needed, or whether a critical success will be needed, or what have you - the point is actually pretty system-agnostic.

 

[Pedantic]

It does actually, it's the way FitD rules work (very successfully). I'll happily agree that the trad version needs some finesse because it isn't supported by the mechanics at all. You're putting a lot of weight on the pejorative 'manipulate' here which isn't in any warranted by the FitD rules.

I'm solidly pro-manipulation here. My issue is that RPGs are deeply inconsistent about whether or not players should be doing mechanical manipulation and when. I am not using the term pejoratively; if I had it my way, games generally would simply not include mechanics players are not supposed to try and leverage.

Let's take the case that @Crimson Longinus put forward earlier. If the player's goal is to succeed at the stated goal of a given score and to come out as far ahead on resources so they can continue to do so in future, it is beneficial to a player looking to minimize complications to, to the best of their ability, persuade their GM to set as many possible clocks that will not matter if they aren't filled by the end of score. This essentially lets them create new pools of resources they can spend.

This is putatively undesirable behavior, and out of the bounds of how a player should approach the game. Similarly, a player should seemingly propose actions without regard for how they might be categorized into one skill or another; or at the very least, in situations where more than one skill may apply, players should not seek to manipulate their action declarations to use their higher ranked skill if possible.

Both of those cases that were discussed earlier don't make sense, if the player's goal is to succeed in their action declarations and/or in whatever goal their pushing in the game state. Either the player is laboring under a different set of incentives with a different actual goal (the thing I think is the case), or those situations are some kind of design weakness, or there are other rules in play (my proposal players should be making decisions as if in ignorance of their mechanical consequences).

Given how much the design is lauded as achieving the goals, and indeed, these are not held up as weaknesses to be shored up because they produce undesirable player incentives, it seems clear to me that players should be using a completely different criteria to make decisions.