Thoughts on GM bargain reward mechanics?

[stonehead]

There's a family of mechanics that all work like this: "The GM can invoke an aspect of your character to compel your character to do something. You can refuse (usually) but if you obey the compulsion, you get a reward; usually inspiration or xp." It was popularized by FATE, but it's used in all sorts of other systems too, like Cypher and Fabula Ultima.

At first, it seemed like a cool idea, but as I've played in games that use these mechanics, I've come to dislike how they play out at the table.

My first issue is the weird incentive structure they create. They almost don't reward you for playing your character on your own. If the GM can offer you xp to act cowardly, what happens when you act cowardly all on your own? Nothing, usually. The GM can only offer a bargain if your character is not acting according two their disadvantages. If this character was already acting cowardly, the GM has nothing to compel them to do. Some times the rules mention that you can give the bargain reward after-the-fact if the player acts in according to their traits, but that's a lot for a GM to track in practice (more on that later).

I remember one GURPS campaign I ran, and for those who haven't played, GURPS does not use a bargain mechanic. If you build a cowardly character for example, you have to succeed at a roll in order to act courageously. The GM wouldn't invoke the coward trait to get your character to run away. In this campaign, I had a player who had taken several different behavioral disadvantages. He was overconfident, honest, delusional, all sorts of things. Late in the campaign, I noticed that this character got 40 or so points from these disadvantages, but had never had to roll against them. That seemed a bit unfair, so I talked to the player about it, and he pointed out that he always played overconfident and delusional anyway, and that's why he never rolled. He was right, I couldn't think of a single time in the campaign where his character had lied or showed cautious restraint. That overconfidence had even gotten the party into some real difficult situations.

My other concern is more abstract. In the traditional ttrpg setup, the players control their characters and the GM controls the world, the npcs, and everything else. Obviously, these responsibilities are skewed, and the GM does much more work than any individual player. The trend of the past decade has been to shift some of that GM workload onto the players. Give the players some authority over the world, let them create npcs in their background, and give them mechanics to introduce story elements, and then the GM won't have to do as much work. These "bargain mechanics" flip the trend backwards, and go even beyond the traditional setup. The GM is now also responsible for how the player characters behave.

I've seen GMs (myself included) mostly forget that they're supposed to be offering these bargains, and also I've seen them struggle to remember all the options they have to invoke. In a party of 5, with 3 traits each, that's 15 individual traits for the GM to remember and consider at each opportunity. It's not that big of a burden, but it is more added on top of controlling everything else.

---

I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Could the GMs you've played with keep track of all these invokable traits ok, or did they struggle to remember them all. Were the players who had their characters act out their flaws rewarded in the same ways as the others? Is there some obvious thing that my tables have been missing?

 

[DEFCON 1]

7th Sea also had this kind of mechanic when it came to PC Hubrises.

To me they are here to try and incentivize players in making more rounded characters... ones with positive aspects and negative aspects and everything in between. To use game mechanics to inspire players to play narratively.

Many players and many games do not care about the narrative per se-- they care about the board game. Rolling the dice, comparing numbers, moving their mini, looking at charts, following what the game rules say to try and "win" whatever challenge is in front of them. That's the "game" and how it is played... with any "story" coming out of what those dice rolls and charts and game rules gave you. And for which "playing in character" is not necessarily creating a narratively-filled person with wants and needs and drives and fears... it's playing the numbers and dice that are on the character sheet and overcoming challenges.

But games like FATE and 7th Sea purposefully try and get players to consider all those facets of a well-rounded character that you might find in a book or on a stage. To actually choose foibles for their PCs and be willing to play those foibles during the roleplay. Because many players won't. After all.. why would a player purposefully nerf their PC by giving themselves character things that actively hurt them during the game? Well... some games inspire those players to do so by rewarding them mechanically for nerfing themselves narratively.

Now you are right that there are indeed some players who will naturally create their own hubrises, or flaws, or issues for their PCs without needing to be rewarded by the game for it. And it may feel like they are getting "punished" if they choose to play those flaws on their own before the GM ever offers a reward for it. But I am willing to bet most players who do that won't really care... because playing their character's flaws are part of their own fun of inhabiting their characters in the first place, no reward needed. Now if the GM remembers and decides to offer a bennie after-the-fact for playing the flaw, the player certainly won't say 'No'... but they aren't playing those flaws FOR the bennie. Rather, just because playing those flaws for them are just more fun.

 

[payn]

I dislike them for all the reasons @stonehead mentions in the OP. I also understand ten conceptually as mentioned by @DEFCON 1 .

In practice I’ve found you get more caricatures than characters out of the players. The only triggers are 1or 2 traits that try to get shoe horned into every session. I have seen it work well in something like Pendragon but that’s a very specific role play game.

I kinda wish it worked the opposite way. A layer may invoke a trait to force the GM to construct a scene, character, narrative around the character as directed by the player.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I dislike them for all the reasons @stonehead mentions in the OP. I also understand ten conceptually as mentioned by @DEFCON 1 .

In practice I’ve found you get more caricatures than characters out of the players. The only triggers are 1or 2 traits that try to get shoe horned into every session. I have seen it work well in something like Pendragon but that’s a very specific role play game.

I kinda wish it worked the opposite way. A layer may invoke a trait to force the GM to construct a scene, character, narrative around the character as directed by the player.

I just think it's more about the players than it is about the games. Some players thrive in games like this, and some players don't. And a GM needs to know what kind of players they have before trying to introduce a game to them such as this.

Unfortunately, more often than not the GMs out there are more experienced at RPGs on the whole than their players are... and thus are more easily bored with the same-old-same-old and more likely tantalized by new games and new methodologies. So they will be much more ready to try something new such as these games than their players ever will be, and they'll attempt to get their players in on it, when few-if-any really give a crap about it.

 

[payn]

I just think it's more about the players than it is about the games. Some players thrive in games like this, and some players don't. And a GM needs to know what kind of players they have before trying to introduce a game to them such as this.

Unfortunately, more often than not the GMs out there are more experienced at RPGs on the whole than their players are... and thus are more easily bored with the same-old-same-old and more likely tantalized by new games and new methodologies. So they will be much more ready to try something new such as these games than their players ever will be, and they'll attempt to get their players in on it, when few-if-any really give a crap about it.

Yeah I can see that. I think the issue is largely one where it’s is the players and the mechanics are not going to facilitate the experience. I’ve seen more working around the system than working with it. Definitely the best experiences are with folks who engage with the rules as intended.

 

[Coroc]

There's a family of mechanics that all work like this: "The GM can invoke an aspect of your character to compel your character to do something. You can refuse (usually) but if you obey the compulsion, you get a reward; usually inspiration or xp." It was popularized by FATE, but it's used in all sorts of other systems too, like Cypher and Fabula Ultima.

At first, it seemed like a cool idea, but as I've played in games that use these mechanics, I've come to dislike how they play out at the table.

My first issue is the weird incentive structure they create. They almost don't reward you for playing your character on your own. If the GM can offer you xp to act cowardly, what happens when you act cowardly all on your own? Nothing, usually. The GM can only offer a bargain if your character is not acting according two their disadvantages. If this character was already acting cowardly, the GM has nothing to compel them to do. Some times the rules mention that you can give the bargain reward after-the-fact if the player acts in according to their traits, but that's a lot for a GM to track in practice (more on that later).

I remember one GURPS campaign I ran, and for those who haven't played, GURPS does not use a bargain mechanic. If you build a cowardly character for example, you have to succeed at a roll in order to act courageously. The GM wouldn't invoke the coward trait to get your character to run away. In this campaign, I had a player who had taken several different behavioral disadvantages. He was overconfident, honest, delusional, all sorts of things. Late in the campaign, I noticed that this character got 40 or so points from these disadvantages, but had never had to roll against them. That seemed a bit unfair, so I talked to the player about it, and he pointed out that he always played overconfident and delusional anyway, and that's why he never rolled. He was right, I couldn't think of a single time in the campaign where his character had lied or showed cautious restraint. That overconfidence had even gotten the party into some real difficult situations.

My other concern is more abstract. In the traditional ttrpg setup, the players control their characters and the GM controls the world, the npcs, and everything else. Obviously, these responsibilities are skewed, and the GM does much more work than any individual player. The trend of the past decade has been to shift some of that GM workload onto the players. Give the players some authority over the world, let them create npcs in their background, and give them mechanics to introduce story elements, and then the GM won't have to do as much work. These "bargain mechanics" flip the trend backwards, and go even beyond the traditional setup. The GM is now also responsible for how the player characters behave.

I've seen GMs (myself included) mostly forget that they're supposed to be offering these bargains, and also I've seen them struggle to remember all the options they have to invoke. In a party of 5, with 3 traits each, that's 15 individual traits for the GM to remember and consider at each opportunity. It's not that big of a burden, but it is more added on top of controlling everything else.

---

I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Could the GMs you've played with keep track of all these invokable traits ok, or did they struggle to remember them all. Were the players who had their characters act out their flaws rewarded in the same ways as the others? Is there some obvious thing that my tables have been missing?

I prefer games, in which it is not neccessary for the DM to coax me to play in a certain way, but rather the story almost commands me to play a character e.g. fearful in a situation just because e.g. anything else would be stupid or suicidal.

 

[Umbran]

My first issue is the weird incentive structure they create. They almost don't reward you for playing your character on your own. If the GM can offer you xp to act cowardly, what happens when you act cowardly all on your own? Nothing, usually. The GM can only offer a bargain if your character is not acting according two their disadvantages. If this character was already acting cowardly, the GM has nothing to compel them to do.

...

Is there some obvious thing that my tables have been missing?

Yeah, I think there's something you are missing.

From the Fate SRD:
"Players, if you need fate points, this is a really good way of getting them. If you propose a decision-based compel for your character to the GM, then what you’re basically asking is for something you’re about to do to go wrong somehow. You don’t even have to have a complication in mind—simply signaling the GM should be enough to start a conversation."

Which is to say - a Fate compel isn't, "you follow your Aspect". It is, "you follow your aspect, and that makes things more complicated for you." The Fate point is for the complication, not just for acting like your Aspect says.

Like, say your character has the Aspect, "Yellow-bellied", and when the tough guy in the saloon puts a hand by his holster, you hit the floor under a table, that's not worth something in and of itself. Heck, it might even be a smart move!

If you say, "GM, I'm kinda yellow-bellied, how could this impact the situation?" The GM says, "Sure... you can dodge with a scamper out the door like a rabbit, so he can't shoot you. But then Mongo slowly walks out into the street, under the noon sun, and shouts, in front of the whole town, "What's the matter, Deputy? You too lily-livered to face me, man-to-man?" That'd be worth a Fate Point.

 

[Umbran]

I kinda wish it worked the opposite way. A layer may invoke a trait to force the GM to construct a scene, character, narrative around the character as directed by the player.

So, Fate Points add a complication to an existing scene, and can take mere moments to set up.

Constructing entire scenes and narratives per request is not someting I'd want to force a GM to do at runtime.

Ashen Stars (a Gumshoe variant, by Robin Laws) has the concept of a Personal Arc, defined by the player, that the GM can use to give you opportunity to explore your character, but tht is done on the level of prepping and creating adventures, not invocation in the process of play.

 

[payn]

So, Fate Points add a complication to an existing scene, and can take mere moments to set up.

Constructing entire scenes and narratives per request is not someting I'd want to force a GM to do at runtime.

Ashen Stars (a Gumshoe variant, by Robin Laws) has the concept of a Personal Arc, defined by the player, that the GM can use to give you opportunity to explore your character, but tht is done on the level of prepping and creating adventures, not invocation in the process of play.

Well yeah that was what I meant. Adds some aspect to the scene or narrative not creates one from whole cloth.

 

[Umbran]

Well yeah that was what I meant. Adds some aspect to the scene or narrative not creates one from whole cloth.

Fate used to have that - spending a Fate point would allow a player to establish something new in the fiction.

I think they dropped this for a couple of reasons:

1) It was awkward to adjudicate - exactly how big or important a thing can the player establish?
2) Back at the time, loads of people had real problems with giving players authorial control beyond the person of their character. I saw lots of early "dissociated mechanics" arguments start over it.