Neonchameleon
Legend
Reading one of the other threads several people seem to think that Fate is in some way like Apocalypse World as a narrative-heavy RPG when if anything they are on the opposite sides of traditional gaming other than both being pretty rules-light and encouraging shared worldbuilding for the backstory (which happens in most trad RPGs anyway). So I thought I'd try to illustrate what I see as the three main strands of narrative RPG.
Princes of The Universe fighting for survival in a world with the darkest power (Fate)
In a Princes of the Universe game the player characters are powerful and have meta-mechanics that mean that for short periods of time they can be almost overwhelmingly powerful and succeed at just about any roll they make - but they can't do it often. This makes the fundamental question "How far are you willing to go for this goal".
The obvious early example of a game in this style is Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) with its Karma system; players can succeed on any roll by burning karma but they can't do it all the time because you can run out of karma points fast. The approach didn't get really big until the 90s, of course, with the World of Darkness giving characters two different sorts of meta-currency in the form of Willpower and Blood Points/Quintessence/whatever this splat book gave you. Fate then strips it back and says that the most interesting character decisions in a larger-than-life game is seeing what matters to the characters and where they spend their meta-resource (which need not be meta if the player doesn't want it to be).
And you're rushing Headlong out of control (Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark)
In a Headlong game the characters are in large part the architects of their own misfortune, frequently to the point (as in Apocalypse World) that the GM never touches the dice and in a few cases (like Fiasco) there is no GM. Instead the most common consequence of a roll isn't either success or failure but success with consequences. Meaning that the PC either only gets some of what they want or what they get comes with consequences. The more the PCs roll the deeper things get because they are bringing consequences down on themselves, and the fundamental questions are which consequences the PCs will accept and how they deal with problems of their own making.
The obvious early example of a game of this style is Rolemaster with its degrees of success chart and I've never tracked down the original Ghostbusters game that introduced the world to the dice pool - but if it isn't of that style it ought to be. Right down to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man being a consequence of this.
A headlong game may normally have shared worldbuilding, but in terms of resolution it is normally extremely traditional, with the GM having if anything more authority than in a trad RPG despite not picking up the dice; you need to interfere a lot more to get the consequences right. Also meta-currency other than hit point analogues are rarer in this sort of game than they are in Trad RPGs (with things like the Lucky feat) although narratively satisfying consequences are harder when you've set the world up to the level of the Great Pendragon Campaign.
Who Wants to Live Forever? Who has forever anyway? (My Life with Master)
Most of the canon of Western storytelling says that stories are about change, and many stories are about how the protagonist changes (character growth rather than growth in power). A Who Wants to Live Forever game focuses on this, starting with the PCs with initial mechanical relationships to the world or other mechanical relationships that are going to be shattered and the PC is going to fundamentally change.
The very first Storygame, My Life With Master, did this in spades. The PCs start life as the minions of an abusive master and in the course of the three sessions or so of play one of them snaps and tries to kill the Master. Succeed or fail there's no going back from that - and the game gets wrapped up just after it's discovered whether they succeed. It can't be extended indefinitely - and that was what caused people to riot and lead to the term Storygame being produced.
Hybrids of the above
I can think of a lot of games that seriously showcase two of the above approaches, but I'm struggling to think of something that showcases all three; the Princes of the Universe style is about larger than life characters while Headlong is about misfortunes.
In Apocalypse World (which has precisely no Fate Point style narrative control mechanics I can think of) your class isn't the tricks you have learned so much as your position in the world. There are two basic ways a character can change class; the first is by experience and growth, and the second is by dying (and death is cheap) so if the local town boss (the Hardholder) is left with a bullet in their head they can come back as a badass who's lost it all and is out for revenge, not caring who gets in their way (a gunlugger). By contrast if a gunlugger gets enough of a rep and enough XP they can turn into a gang leader (a Chopper) or even lead the town as a Hardholder. The character's position changing in the world almost irrevocably and because it does so they change class. It's open ended but a dozens sessions or even half that is more than enough.
The Firefly system (note: not the Serenity system) seems to be aimed at action-comedy and is a rare Headlong Princes game. The consequences pile up, but so do the plot points and as things become more of a mess there are still the plot points piling up to be able to get out of there. If anything I'd say it was better for a Ghostbusters or Police Academy style game of action-comedy where there are huge messes but people don't seriously get hurt than it is for the slightly grittier Firefly
Princes of The Universe fighting for survival in a world with the darkest power (Fate)
In a Princes of the Universe game the player characters are powerful and have meta-mechanics that mean that for short periods of time they can be almost overwhelmingly powerful and succeed at just about any roll they make - but they can't do it often. This makes the fundamental question "How far are you willing to go for this goal".
The obvious early example of a game in this style is Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) with its Karma system; players can succeed on any roll by burning karma but they can't do it all the time because you can run out of karma points fast. The approach didn't get really big until the 90s, of course, with the World of Darkness giving characters two different sorts of meta-currency in the form of Willpower and Blood Points/Quintessence/whatever this splat book gave you. Fate then strips it back and says that the most interesting character decisions in a larger-than-life game is seeing what matters to the characters and where they spend their meta-resource (which need not be meta if the player doesn't want it to be).
And you're rushing Headlong out of control (Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark)
In a Headlong game the characters are in large part the architects of their own misfortune, frequently to the point (as in Apocalypse World) that the GM never touches the dice and in a few cases (like Fiasco) there is no GM. Instead the most common consequence of a roll isn't either success or failure but success with consequences. Meaning that the PC either only gets some of what they want or what they get comes with consequences. The more the PCs roll the deeper things get because they are bringing consequences down on themselves, and the fundamental questions are which consequences the PCs will accept and how they deal with problems of their own making.
The obvious early example of a game of this style is Rolemaster with its degrees of success chart and I've never tracked down the original Ghostbusters game that introduced the world to the dice pool - but if it isn't of that style it ought to be. Right down to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man being a consequence of this.
A headlong game may normally have shared worldbuilding, but in terms of resolution it is normally extremely traditional, with the GM having if anything more authority than in a trad RPG despite not picking up the dice; you need to interfere a lot more to get the consequences right. Also meta-currency other than hit point analogues are rarer in this sort of game than they are in Trad RPGs (with things like the Lucky feat) although narratively satisfying consequences are harder when you've set the world up to the level of the Great Pendragon Campaign.
Who Wants to Live Forever? Who has forever anyway? (My Life with Master)
Most of the canon of Western storytelling says that stories are about change, and many stories are about how the protagonist changes (character growth rather than growth in power). A Who Wants to Live Forever game focuses on this, starting with the PCs with initial mechanical relationships to the world or other mechanical relationships that are going to be shattered and the PC is going to fundamentally change.
The very first Storygame, My Life With Master, did this in spades. The PCs start life as the minions of an abusive master and in the course of the three sessions or so of play one of them snaps and tries to kill the Master. Succeed or fail there's no going back from that - and the game gets wrapped up just after it's discovered whether they succeed. It can't be extended indefinitely - and that was what caused people to riot and lead to the term Storygame being produced.
Hybrids of the above
I can think of a lot of games that seriously showcase two of the above approaches, but I'm struggling to think of something that showcases all three; the Princes of the Universe style is about larger than life characters while Headlong is about misfortunes.
In Apocalypse World (which has precisely no Fate Point style narrative control mechanics I can think of) your class isn't the tricks you have learned so much as your position in the world. There are two basic ways a character can change class; the first is by experience and growth, and the second is by dying (and death is cheap) so if the local town boss (the Hardholder) is left with a bullet in their head they can come back as a badass who's lost it all and is out for revenge, not caring who gets in their way (a gunlugger). By contrast if a gunlugger gets enough of a rep and enough XP they can turn into a gang leader (a Chopper) or even lead the town as a Hardholder. The character's position changing in the world almost irrevocably and because it does so they change class. It's open ended but a dozens sessions or even half that is more than enough.
The Firefly system (note: not the Serenity system) seems to be aimed at action-comedy and is a rare Headlong Princes game. The consequences pile up, but so do the plot points and as things become more of a mess there are still the plot points piling up to be able to get out of there. If anything I'd say it was better for a Ghostbusters or Police Academy style game of action-comedy where there are huge messes but people don't seriously get hurt than it is for the slightly grittier Firefly
