The opposite of OSR

[Reynard]

Ah, but FATE breaks the “DM is the arbitrator” tenet. Often players in FATE games decide and arbitrate.

I don't think that is true. FATE is a pretty traditional RPG system, Aspects notwithstanding. Just because the rules allow the players to define Aspects based on die results doesn't mean that they are arbiters of the rules. Players in FATE don't perform any adjudication, and that's the line between traditional RPG and other sorts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think that is true. FATE is a pretty traditional RPG system, Aspects notwithstanding. Just because the rules allow the players to define Aspects based on die results doesn't mean that they are arbiters of the rules. Players in FATE don't perform any adjudication, and that's the line between traditional RPG and other sorts.

That's a very unique take, I think.

 

[RealAlHazred]

That's a very unique take, I think.

I kind of agree with @Reynard about FATE. I've run it, and players did not shift anything. They defined Aspects of a Scene, for example, but didn't have the currency to change the stakes -- that was up to me. It's similar to AD&D players deciding to smoke out a group of raiders hiding in a cave, instead of attacking them head-on. Is that letting the players be the arbitrator of the encounter?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I kind of agree with @Reynard about FATE. I've run it, and players did not shift anything. They defined Aspects of a Scene, for example, but didn't have the currency to change the stakes -- that was up to me. It's similar to AD&D players deciding to smoke out a group of raiders hiding in a cave, instead of attacking them head-on. Is that letting the players be the arbitrator of the encounter?

Not sure you entirely embraced the ruleset, then. Players should absolutely be changing the fiction in FATE -- create an advantage, for instance, is a clear invitation for the player to introduce new fiction that changes the situation. If this isn't happening, you're not engaged with the full ruleset. Which is entirely possible -- I've heard of people playing FATE that refused to ever compel an aspect and who fully prepped a FATE game like a D&D AP adventure. I mean, I guess you can do that if you're ignoring the ruleset and it's assumptions, but that doesn't actually mean FATE is like D&D because that's what you did.

 

[mhd]

Well, on the allegedly other side of things, there are also D&D groups where the "ruling" is often a table consensus, not DM fiat.

 

[Marc_C]

Well, on the allegedly other side of things, there are also D&D groups where the "ruling" is often a table consensus, not DM fiat.

That is exactly how I've been doing it since 1981. We discuss and come to an interpretation that satisfies the table.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure you entirely embraced the ruleset, then. Players should absolutely be changing the fiction in FATE -- create an advantage, for instance, is a clear invitation for the player to introduce new fiction that changes the situation. If this isn't happening, you're not engaged with the full ruleset. Which is entirely possible -- I've heard of people playing FATE that refused to ever compel an aspect and who fully prepped a FATE game like a D&D AP adventure. I mean, I guess you can do that if you're ignoring the ruleset and it's assumptions, but that doesn't actually mean FATE is like D&D because that's what you did.

I don't think we are defining things quite the same way. The rules of fate provide clear guidance how players can use and create Aspects. That they do so within the framework of those rules does not mean they have adjudication power. In FATE adjudication is still solely within the auspices of the GM.

 

[Minigiant]

I think people are mistaking adjudicating the rulings and rules and describing the actions and illustration of those rules and rulings. Games like FATE and even 4e still have the DM adjudicate, the players just have a lot more control over the description of the outcomes of the actions and the list of possible outcomes.

 

[Umbran]

In FATE adjudication is still solely within the auspices of the GM.

Yes and no. There is a strong advice of negotiation in the adjudication in Fate. What the created advantage aspects are, what consequences are appropriate to take, whether an Aspect can be tagged in a given situation is all supposed to be open to negotiation, not just standard autocratic adjudication.

 

[Umbran]

the players just have a lot more control over the description of the outcomes of the actions and the list of possible outcomes.

And there's a philosophical question as to whether this amounts to "changing the stakes."

In a purely mechanical view, the only stakes you really see in Fate Conflicts is Stress. And your character can only take so much Stress before being Taken Out. And that the players cannot change. The caveat to this being the ability to Concede a Conflict, which allows the players to opt out. What's at stake is who gets to narrate the finish of the conflict, really.

Of course, if we view the ability to set the narrative to be the ability to change stakes, then in this Fate violates the precept that players should know the stakes before roiling dice - the GM does not generally determine what they'll narrate about taking out a PC before it happens.