Quick Question on adapting FATE

[Wednesday Boy]

I do not want to come across as belligerent so please do not take me that way. I see words like "collaborative story" as code words for a particular playstyle. A style not really my cup of tea though I could see it being popular with many people. I'm for it but just not for me. I prefer a game more focused on setting and overcoming challenges to complete goals. Pretty much I want actor stance all the time. I also want to avoid metagaming.

No worries, you don't seem belligerent to me and it's okay to have incompatible preferences.

If by "actor stance all the time" you mean the player only speaks in character, Fate won't accomodate that well. But it excels at constantly engaging the player with the essential elements of their character and gives both the GM and the player resources to highlight those elements.

My issue is that when it's not a fairly short time scale things like fate points (action points, bennies, whatever) become dissociative. It has no narrative reason other than the player is playing God and deciding when fate is with you. Pun unintended. .

For invoking and compelling situation aspects that's true. But invoking and compelling character aspects is entirely narrative. Why did you sass the cop? Because you are a "smart alec". Why did you land that uppercut? Because you "sting like a bee".

So an aspect might be Druid of the Vilhon Forest. That then would enable me as DM to reward a player when he is in that location by making some of his other skills a bit better because he knows the area and is likely more conversant with the residents.

The only difference between that and using fate points is that using fate points empowers the player to dictate that some of his Druid's other skills are a bit better because he knows the area instead of waiting for the GM to says so. (The GM still has the final say in whether the application of an aspect is valid but it puts much more narrative power in the hands of the player.)

The main thrust is exploration and setting development via connections and roleplay.

I think you should try playing a few sessions of Fate as written. The Fate games I've played in nails all of those elements. I think if you left your opinions at the door, embraced fate points for those sessions, and gave it an honest go, you could be pleasantly surprised at how well the system works as written. But if it still turns out to be too dissociative for your tastes, house rule away!

 

[Umbran]

I think you should try playing a few sessions of Fate as written. The Fate games I've played in nails all of those elements. I think if you left your opinions at the door, embraced fate points for those sessions, and gave it an honest go, you could be pleasantly surprised at how well the system works as written. But if it still turns out to be too dissociative for your tastes, house rule away!

But also note - there's likely a difference between how dissociative it is for *him* and how it is for his *players*.

If he's running the game, how dissociative it is for him isn't really relevant. As GM, he hasn't got a prayer of staying really associated to his characters. Lost cause. But, the GM's personal desires as a player should not be taken as indicative for his players.

I've seen this a bunch of times - there are GMs who can run a great game in a system they don't actually like to play, themselves, for just this reason - the GM and players are undertaking different activities, and in design, we're well served to keep those straight.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but I think I'm about to spend a lot of verbiage telling you you're wrong about some things. I admit that I don't actually know what's going on in your head - I recognize that I'm speaking based on some deductions that may be inaccurate - so for all that I apologize.

I realize that people who enjoy games with dissociative mechanics often can't understand those who don't like such things. I have no idea why. I've thought about it and speculated in my mind about all sorts of possibilities. I've accepted that people have different tastes. So I am not at all denigrating your tastes. I don't really like brussel sprouts either but if you do that is cool.

The Forge gave us a few nice things - some language for stuff, for example. It also has some unfortunate legacies - like taking theory over practical application.

I didn't realize actor stance even originated as a concept at the Forge. I realize GNS did but didn't realize the stances started there. Interesting. For me it is just a useful way of labeling a game construct. Instead of having to explain in detail what I mean I can just say actor stance and hopefully we both understand it.

I have a friend who doesn't like cheese. It isn't that he's vegan. It isn't that he is lactose intolerant, or allergic. It is not a matter of health or principle, just a matter of taste, which is fine. But then, when we're doing a game-night dinner, and he doesn't hear the ingredients list, he gleefully eats three helpings of a casserole that's got lots of cheese in it. We have to wonder if he's letting his preconception get in the way of judging the final product.

So far the opposite has occurred for me. In the past I played games and didn't really like them but I wasn't sure why. The game just didn't feel right to me. The amount I disliked it varied of course. When 4e arrived, I spent a lot more time self examining why I hated that game so much. There were many reasons of course but one of the major ones for me was dissociation. I then went back and began examining the games I liked and disliked and found that in a lot of cases dissociation was the root cause. Obviously a game with one single dissociative element is not as bad as a game with hundreds. I might have played Fate years ago and liked it okay. All of it's strengths would have appealed to me and while the Fate points perhaps would be a negative maybe it wouldn't have caused me to not play. Now though I realize specifically things I don't like so I am actively seeking to maximize my enjoyment.

Let us consider dissociative mechanics. A dissociative mechanic is one in which the player has to make considerations that the character could not - since within the fiction the character doesn't have "fate points", the mechanic is dissociative and metagaming. That's the theory. But, qualifying the mechanic as dissociative and metagaming, however, actually misses the base issue. The base idea is to keep the player immersed and/or thinking as their character would think. But, that should *not* be evaluated on a mechanic-by-mechanic basis! That should be evaluated on an overall game experience basis! Discarding the mechanic alone, without considering its action in the context of actual play, means you easily miss the forest for the trees. By thinking only of the mechanic itself, you miss any synergy created with the rest of the system.

I'm not sure really if immersion is even the issue. I say it is because that to me makes sense. The game just doesn't feel right to me. At the end of the day I feel less satisfied. I have self examined like I said often and I've said immersion because that is my best guess. I will also add that I do not prefer player agency being too strong outside their own characters. Again that is back to actor stance.

For me actor stance covers the following...
1. talking in character
2. the meta language between DM and player where the player takes non-verbal actions (e.g. "I open the chest").
3. the meta language of experience. (e.g. "Do I recognize that guy?")

2 and 3 are necessary evils as they are part of the pen and paper experience.

The real question is - in the context of play, does the mechanic cause the player to dissociate themselves from their character? No, at least, not in my experience. The most immersive tabletop experience I had of late was playing a FATE game at a house con. My wife, who generally wants nothing to do with mechanics for just the reasons that make most folks want to avoid supposedly dissociative mechanics, loves FATE because it allows her to more deeply concern herself with who and what her character is than most games.

The term dissociation is an unfortunate one in the sense that it never was intended to apply to the players immersion in the game. Rather it applied to the relationship of the player to the character which might result in any number of reactions. I agree many people are just fine. I liken one way of playing to 2d perspective like Assassins Creed and first person like Doom. Obviously both approaches are very popular. Some people though prefer one or the other and some prefer both. For some people, they won't buy a game for that one reason alone.

Not that FATE is a perfect system, by any means. But forcing dissociation between a player and character isn't one of its major flaws.

I think FATE set out to do a certain style of gaming and it does that style very well. I realize my own style is not in harmony with the approach that FATE targets. I was just hoping due to all the other things about FATE I do like that I might modify the game for my own purposes. I'm a long time hacker so I don't mind custom fitting a game to my needs. I do appreciate your comments though because your experience helps me to realize areas where my hacks might not work as well as I hope.

Now, after all that, I have to mention - in my personal opinion, your desire to see only Actor stance in the players should be written by hand in neat cursive writing a hundred times, put into a large ashtray, and burned. You are a GM, not the thought police. While it is okay to ask them to not, like, read the monster manual and use that information in game, the players get to make decisions for *their* reasons, not yours, and the GM doesn't get to dictate the player's approach to play.

My sensibilities say that the DM can impose anything as he is the creator of the campaign. Now having said that I agree that questioning every action or trying to be hyper vigilant on metagaming is not fruitful. Most of the time, I consider it the GM's job to build anti-metagaming into his approach. I never tell monster stats, names, hit points (in D&D), or anything else like that. I describe the monsters and I describe the effects that impact the monsters as the characters would see it. I tend to play a little bloodier than most so it works for my purposes.

 

[Emerikol]

If by "actor stance all the time" you mean the player only speaks in character, Fate won't accomodate that well. But it excels at constantly engaging the player with the essential elements of their character and gives both the GM and the player resources to highlight those elements.

I don't mean just that. In my response to Umbran, I described the idea in more detail.

For invoking and compelling situation aspects that's true. But invoking and compelling character aspects is entirely narrative. Why did you sass the cop? Because you are a "smart alec". Why did you land that uppercut? Because you "sting like a bee".

In a large number of instances this works for me but in a few it doesn't. This though could be handled by the aspects I allow in the game.

The only difference between that and using fate points is that using fate points empowers the player to dictate that some of his Druid's other skills are a bit better because he knows the area instead of waiting for the GM to says so. (The GM still has the final say in whether the application of an aspect is valid but it puts much more narrative power in the hands of the player.)

I agree that the application of an aspect would be something the player could propose and the DM accept or reject. This parallels actual game events so to me it is actor stance and is fine.

I think you should try playing a few sessions of Fate as written. The Fate games I've played in nails all of those elements. I think if you left your opinions at the door, embraced fate points for those sessions, and gave it an honest go, you could be pleasantly surprised at how well the system works as written. But if it still turns out to be too dissociative for your tastes, house rule away!

I think the game probably works awesome. It may just not give me the payoff I want out of a roleplaying game. That is a big difference. I don't expect the Fate people to cater to what I want. I might play in a one off Fate game somewhere like a con to see how I liked it. I surmise I'd like it at least somewhat because it would have all those features I do like. I don't think though long term in a campaign that the Fate points as used officially would be something I'd like and they'd likely detract from my enjoyment.

I'm totally on board with the idea that we are talking about tastes and not right or wrong or good or bad.

 

[Umbran]

I realize that people who enjoy games with dissociative mechanics often can't understand those who don't like such things.

I understand at least some of the common issues with dissociative mechanics. My personal reaction isn't so strong, but I get the points folks make about them.

I didn't realize actor stance even originated as a concept at the Forge. I realize GNS did but didn't realize the stances started there.

Whether they did or not isn't material. Taking theoretical distinctions as more important than practical performance in play is a Forgism. This is understandable, as the Forge rather created a lot of our theoretical distinctions. When you have a bright and shiny hammer, of course you set about pounding on everything.

The basic issue is that our theoretical frameworks are not like physics - they deal with tendencies, not absolutes. Dissociative mechanics *tend* to have a particular impact on the feel of a game, but that is not an absolute rule. FATE happens to have a very novel design and structure, that seems to generally lessen some of that theoretically expected impact.

So far the opposite has occurred for me. In the past I played games and didn't really like them but I wasn't sure why. The game just didn't feel right to me. The amount I disliked it varied of course. When 4e arrived, I spent a lot more time self examining why I hated that game so much. There were many reasons of course but one of the major ones for me was dissociation. I then went back and began examining the games I liked and disliked and found that in a lot of cases dissociation was the root cause. Obviously a game with one single dissociative element is not as bad as a game with hundreds. I might have played Fate years ago and liked it okay. All of it's strengths would have appealed to me and while the Fate points perhaps would be a negative maybe it wouldn't have caused me to not play. Now though I realize specifically things I don't like so I am actively seeking to maximize my enjoyment.

My little story about my cheese-hating friend was intended to describe how theoretical classification of one part ("cheese" or "dissociative") does not really indicate the action of the whole. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak - ultimately, the classification of the individual mechanics isn't important. The action of the game as a whole - the overall experience - is what matters.

Me, I'm not a fan of olives. For a very long time, I avoided anything that contained olives - much like you avoid certain types of mechanics - because I knew I didn't like the olives, and that would imply that I wouldn't like a dish that included them. But then, I got married. And my wife likes olives. So, I got exposed to more olive-containing dishes. Most of them I continued to dislike. But, I found a few in which the olives weren't objectionable, and a couple in which the olives were actually a positive thing in the dish.

The really important bit is that I found that *trying* things with olives in it was okay. Even if I didn't like a particular dish, it isn't like *trying*, with an open mind, lost me much. The worst thing I got was an occasional dish I didn't care for. The best things were a couple of dishes I now really like. The preconception, even though it seemed reasonable and well-founded, was not serving me well.

For me actor stance covers the following...
1. talking in character
2. the meta language between DM and player where the player takes non-verbal actions (e.g. "I open the chest").
3. the meta language of experience. (e.g. "Do I recognize that guy?")

2 and 3 are necessary evils as they are part of the pen and paper experience.

Okay, that is a small subset of what is covered by the common use of "Actor Stance" in RPGs.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/

Stance is defined as how a person arrives at decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions.

• In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
• In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)
• In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.

So, the stances are about much more than just verbiage at the table - they are about the decision making process of the player. If a player has had a bad day at work, and decides he really wants to kill some orcs, so his character sets about aggressively towards the orcs in game, technically he's in Author stance - making an in-fiction decision for out-of-fiction reasons.

The term dissociation is an unfortunate one in the sense that it never was intended to apply to the players immersion in the game. Rather it applied to the relationship of the player to the character which might result in any number of reactions.

Broadly, an associated mechanic is one the *character* can think of - it has basis in the game world, and can thus be used purely from Actor stance. If your magic system uses "mana" as a power source, and "mana" is a thing people in the fictional game-world know about, and a wizard can therefore think in terms of how he wants to save or spend his mana like he can think about spending his gold coins, then your mana points are an associated mechanic in the game.

A dissociated mechanic works with things the characters don't know about (like, say, "character levels") and requires the player to step out of Actor stance to use.

The typical reason, in my experience, folks want to push for Actor stance and Associated mechanics is to increase immersion. That's not the only reason, but it has been typical. My experience, with a bunch of players and several different GMs running FATE games is that, the dissociation of compels is vastly outweighed by other action within the system. The brief metagame-discussion enables greater enjoyment, so overall it isn't an issue in play.

I think FATE set out to do a certain style of gaming and it does that style very well. I realize my own style is not in harmony with the approach that FATE targets.

That's when I have three reactions:

0) Target, along with everything else, is theoretical. You don't know how FATE plays. Your realization is actually more like preconception. Sorry.

1) Pick the right tool for the job. If you really think that FATE isn't designed to do what you want to do, that its major features run clearly contrary to your style, drop it like a hot rock. Base on a core system that actually does what you want, and you will have to do less work. GURPS using their simple combat options may be better for you than FATE, for example.

2) Go into design projects with more than theoretical knowledge of the base system you're working upon. If you aren't willing to spend a few hours playing the game to see how it runs, drop it like a hot rock, and find something you either already know from play, or that jazzes you enough that you are willing to play it stock before taking a hatchet to it. Doing design work without real understanding is a recipe for a failed project.

The fact of the matter is that, honestly - FATE is a pretty novel design. It has characteristics in play that many people don't expect. It is perfectly okay to not like it, but you should judge from a place of knowledge.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

That's when I have three reactions:

The 5th Edition rules say you're only allowed one reaction per turn. But you could houserule that you can have three reactions.

 

[Umbran]

The 5th Edition rules say you're only allowed one reaction per turn. But you could houserule that you can have three reactions.

Unfortunately, I'm playing "Papers & Paychecks", which hasn't seen a fundamental rule revision since... ever.

 

[Emerikol]

First let me say I really appreciate the in depth responses.

Whether they did or not isn't material. Taking theoretical distinctions as more important than practical performance in play is a Forgism. This is understandable, as the Forge rather created a lot of our theoretical distinctions. When you have a bright and shiny hammer, of course you set about pounding on everything.

The whole point though even if they failed in some cases of creating these definitions is to give us all a language where we can discuss game design more easily and effectively. Now I realize in some cases the goal perhaps was not achieved.

The basic issue is that our theoretical frameworks are not like physics - they deal with tendencies, not absolutes. Dissociative mechanics *tend* to have a particular impact on the feel of a game, but that is not an absolute rule. FATE happens to have a very novel design and structure, that seems to generally lessen some of that theoretically expected impact.

Perhaps it's a continuum and some people are more affected than others by different mechanics. It has been an observation of mine that 4e overwhelmed even the moderate dissociative dislikers whereas perhaps Fates single point of dissociation is something a moderate disliker could tolerate for all the other benefits. I do like the fact that negative aspects come into play in an elegant way. That is a benefit no doubt. In the past with other games, I really disliked action points and bennies from SW so perhaps I am jaded about Fate points.

My little story about my cheese-hating friend was intended to describe how theoretical classification of one part ("cheese" or "dissociative") does not really indicate the action of the whole. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak - ultimately, the classification of the individual mechanics isn't important. The action of the game as a whole - the overall experience - is what matters.

Me, I'm not a fan of olives. For a very long time, I avoided anything that contained olives - much like you avoid certain types of mechanics - because I knew I didn't like the olives, and that would imply that I wouldn't like a dish that included them. But then, I got married. And my wife likes olives. So, I got exposed to more olive-containing dishes. Most of them I continued to dislike. But, I found a few in which the olives weren't objectionable, and a couple in which the olives were actually a positive thing in the dish.

The really important bit is that I found that *trying* things with olives in it was okay. Even if I didn't like a particular dish, it isn't like *trying*, with an open mind, lost me much. The worst thing I got was an occasional dish I didn't care for. The best things were a couple of dishes I now really like. The preconception, even though it seemed reasonable and well-founded, was not serving me well.

I actually got this point I believe. I should I stated so. Without a doubt, there are things people can eat in casseroles that they wouldn't eat separately. As that applies to games we would have to see. At this point some really good aspect of play would have to depend upon Fate points to accomplish their purpose and be so good that they pay for the negative of dissociation. I don't doubt for many people the price is low since it is the sole point where dissociation occurs. I'm not sure about me.

Okay, that is a small subset of what is covered by the common use of "Actor Stance" in RPGs.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/

So, the stances are about much more than just verbiage at the table - they are about the decision making process of the player. If a player has had a bad day at work, and decides he really wants to kill some orcs, so his character sets about aggressively towards the orcs in game, technically he's in Author stance - making an in-fiction decision for out-of-fiction reasons.

My greatest hate is reserved for director stance. Author stance is fine so long as it can plausibly be explained as an actor stance decision. I am not a mind reading DM.

The typical reason, in my experience, folks want to push for Actor stance and Associated mechanics is to increase immersion. That's not the only reason, but it has been typical. My experience, with a bunch of players and several different GMs running FATE games is that, the dissociation of compels is vastly outweighed by other action within the system. The brief metagame-discussion enables greater enjoyment, so overall it isn't an issue in play.

That is my gut feeling too. That the issue is immersion. But to be honest, I've come to realize that I'm not 100% sure what it is other than a feeling of dissatisfaction with the experience. I realize that doesn't help much.


I'm noticing in the list below you started with 0. Are you an IT person my chance? .

That's when I have three reactions:

0) Target, along with everything else, is theoretical. You don't know how FATE plays. Your realization is actually more like preconception. Sorry.

True. It's not 100% though without similar experiences with other games but I will definitely concede that it's mostly perception.

1) Pick the right tool for the job. If you really think that FATE isn't designed to do what you want to do, that its major features run clearly contrary to your style, drop it like a hot rock. Base on a core system that actually does what you want, and you will have to do less work. GURPS using their simple combat options may be better for you than FATE, for example.

But honestly, is the entirety of any game just one rules point? The reason I am considering Fate is that it has a lot of elements I love. Even some you personally seem to not love. Fate points are a single element in an entire game. I am not rejecting Fate. I am just concerned over one element. It is a big element I give you that. Still I think if I wanted to write my own game, it would not be at all out of line to take ideas from other games and specifically Fate. Any game I'd write would be playtested and if I found that something was missing fun wise I would of course keep tweaking it until I got what I wanted.

2) Go into design projects with more than theoretical knowledge of the base system you're working upon. If you aren't willing to spend a few hours playing the game to see how it runs, drop it like a hot rock, and find something you either already know from play, or that jazzes you enough that you are willing to play it stock before taking a hatchet to it. Doing design work without real understanding is a recipe for a failed project.

My problem is I live in a FATE-less area. I don't know of any FATE games anywhere. It's Pathfinder and to a lesser extent D&D 3.5e predominantly with a smattering of FFG's Star Wars. So I could as a DM, try to run a one off session to get a feel but since I'm not experienced that might not be a good test either. Maybe next Gen Con I'll make a concerted effort to find a FATE game.

The fact of the matter is that, honestly - FATE is a pretty novel design. It has characteristics in play that many people don't expect. It is perfectly okay to not like it, but you should judge from a place of knowledge.

Knowledge is always better. I am though limited in my options. Maybe some FATE play throughs exist on the web. If you know of any I'd appreciate a link.

 

[Vaslov]

Howdy Emerikol,

If you are looking for a play through check out Knights of the Knight's Dresden recordings. I am not a fan of podcasts, but when I first got into Fate I found these guys had a nice mix of rules and play to better understand the game and it is well edited. I recommend the Dresden: Delivery story line. Skip the Common Ground story line as it stunk. I think it is Episode 90 that has a great example of social combat, which FATE excels at but may not be your cup of tea. http://www.kotnpodcast.com/

Reading your first post reminded me of some of my own initial thoughts around FATE. Initially I was very concerned about fate points combat novas. Once I saw a few combats play out I realized that was not an issue. I figured I would share some of my observations after running a few games on the off chance it helps or gives you an idea.

My primary FATE group is running a Dresden game. I came in with no experience and my players knew the Dresden world, but did not have the game books. I can tell you the world creation steps were not great in execution, but in the end it paid off. The players all really got hooked on how open ended the character creation was. From a pastry chef alchemist to a wushu martial artist to a Klingon Photomancer. The last character turned the entire campaign on it's head by adding the Court of SciFi to the Faire Courts. Cause you know. Klingons are part of Farie. Not what I planned at all when I was thinking a Dresden game and it nearly brought me to tears as it was not the story I had in mind. Seemed to silly. After talking to the players on it we went back to the world creation steps and reworked some ideas. Not only does this new SciFi Court work, it is the central theme and plot movement behind everything in the game now. What still amazes is it still feels very much like a Dresden story. With a little thought between games I was even able to wrap some of the original stories I had in mind around it. As other have said above FATE empowers players with a lot of agency. I find everyone including myself is having more fun working with that in mind.

As those characters have leveled up one of the first things the players noticed is they did not make skill pyramids, but more like skill towers. When they got their first skill point all of them were stuck putting it in the 1 skill slot as they decided to max out there skills where possible in creation. On reflection many of them realized the wisdom of spreading out into many skills as 1's and 2's and then move some of the critical ones into the 3, 4 and 5 slots as the game progressed. The power level swings in FATE are a lot less than with D&D. If are going for that D&D feel to get that "you are 1st level" feel you might want to cap max skill level pretty low (2 or 3).

In another game, with different players, I was concerned FATE would not be a good match as they were a very mechanical group. We all were interested in the Savage Worlds Accursed setting so I started up a game in that setting & rules. By that point FATE had trained me to run games a bit differently so I started out with something very similar to FATE world creation with them before character creation. This helped all of us see the world in a bit more detail and helped me understand what flavor of Accursed they wanted. This post is already long so if you are interested here is a write up of the game, including world creation notes, I am keeping on the SW Forums. (http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43665)

While first trying to understand the game I found reading some of the older FATE campaign settings helpful. They hacked the rules in different ways when FATE was not well defined as it is in Core. Most of them are quite cheap now. I would recommend BirchNewman-StarblazerAdventures (SciFi) and NewtonBirch-LegendsOfAnglerre (Fantasy).

Good luck with your FATE hack and have fun with it! I hope you decide to share some of what you do.

Vaslov

 

[Ratskinner]

I saw this a few days ago and wanted to mull it over before replying.

After some consideration, I think Fate would work just fine without compels. However, I'm not so sure about taking away invokes. I think aspects become too weak without it. I would suggest that if you completely want to eliminate the Fate Point economy that you find some way to link some stunts to aspects (I think there's something in the toolkit about this) and add a bunch more stunts to the characters. Otherwise, aspects only serve as permission-granters, which is rather weak.

Do free invokes granted by Create an Advantage actions bother you in the same way as Fate Point driven invokes? If they do, then I'm really not sure what you'd be getting out of Fate vs. Fudge or just replacing D&D dice with Fate Dice.

I actually think the bigger problems you face are with the leveling mechanics and the zero-to-hero thing. IME, its really hard to bend Fate that way, the mechanics give the players a good amount of input into how things go...which means that its difficult to create that "just off the farm and in over my head" feeling you might get from low level D&D. However, that's with the full mechanics, I'm not sure how it would go if you somehow took out the FP economy (or large parts of it).

Anyway, I hope you and your group enjoy whatever you come up with.