The opposite of OSR

[pemerton]

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.

Burning Wheel, and Prince Valiant, and Maelstrom Storytelling, and Agon 2nd ed, and Apocalypse World, all have a GM who adjudicates action resolution and frames scenes. But I don't think many D&D players would characterise them as "traditional" RPGs. All of them permit players to establish binding outcomes via action resolution that (i) are not confined to combat and (ii) don't depend simply on extrapolation from established fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

There's nothing to adjudicate there, though. You use the rules, the GM is bound by them, they have no say. If the GM tries to break these rules, the players have the ability to call this out. This is the same kind of adjudication of the rules the GM has. It's not like D&D, where it's explicit that the rules are what the GM says they are -- the rules of Fate are the rules of Fate -- the GM is not free to ignore them whenever they want.

So, adjudication is a table issue -- was the rule used correctly here. It's shared between players and GM. The GM has no special authority.

Often one of the biggest hurdles to trying games like this is bringing over assumptions for other games, like the GM being the final arbiter of the rules. This isn't so in some other games. The GM is not the final arbiter of the rules in Blades in the Dark, for instance -- they only have the authorities granted by the rules of that game. The table can choose to change those rules -- of course, this is obviously true for any game -- but the GM is not privileged in this decision.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I'm not sure this last is true. You are aware that the GM can take your character out with this roll, but not how. That's knowing what's at stake, but not specifics. Like in poker, I can evaluate what's at stake (my bet) and the likelihood of success (if I know the game), but I can't tell if I lose what I will lose to (outside of very specific circumstances). Would you say I don't know the stakes here? I don't believe so.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Except this is contradicted by the rules and guidelines of Fate. The GM may get final say in adjudicating the rules, but players do get a say.

As the GM, you are the director of game sessions. Note that you are not the boss. Fate Condensed is collaborative, and the players have say in what happens to their characters. Your job is to keep things moving by doing these things:

• Adjudicate the rules: When some question comes up about how to apply the rules, you can discuss it with the players and try to reach an agreeable consensus, but you get final say.

The GM in Fate is more like the moderator of a committee rather than the judge, jury, and executioner of the rules.

This also ignores the points in the game where the players in Fate do perform adjudication (e.g., creating an advantage, conceding defeat, consequences, declaring a story detail, etc.).

 

[Reynard]

Except this is contradicted by the rules and guidelines of Fate. The GM may get final say in adjudicating the rules, but players do get a say.

The GM in Fate is more like the moderator of a committee rather than the judge, jury, and executioner of the rules.

This also ignores the points in the game where the players in Fate do perform adjudication (e.g., creating an advantage, conceding defeat, consequences, declaring a story detail, etc.).

You literally quoted the section from the rules that says the GM gets the final word in adjudication. That's the definition of a trad game.

 

[Umbran]

You literally quoted the section from the rules that says the GM gets the final word in adjudication. That's the definition of a trad game.

I think the point is that in a trad game, there is no significant negotiation or player input, while in Fate, there's supposed to be a good deal of it. In traditional games, the GM adjudicates. In Fate, the GM has final word - the difference being a conversation in which there is a final word, instead of a fiat from the start.

If you want to claim there's no significant or meaningful difference, to you, you're free to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You literally quoted the section from the rules that says the GM gets the final word in adjudication. That's the definition of a trad game.

It isn't. The definition of a trad game, I mean.

 

[darjr]

You literally quoted the section from the rules that says the GM gets the final word in adjudication. That's the definition of a trad game.

Final say, trad games the GM is the only say. Sure players suggest things or ask but in no way do they have any authority. Especially not by the rules.

 

[darjr]

Also aren’t there a few fate games that discard the “final authority”?

 

[Parmandur]

FATE.

No, I think Fate shares a bit of quick and dirty attitude with OSR. Burning Wheel is the anti-OSR.