Thoughts on GM bargain reward mechanics?

[Gorgon Zee]

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.

It should be pointed out that you are the one who decided what your aspects were. If you have an aspect “frightened of loud noises” it’s because you wanted that. The GM is not coaxing you to play their way; they are finding ways to reward you for doing exactly what you have told them you want to do.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I thought it was a good thing in a Star Trek Adventures campaign I was in. We were a bunch of Starfleet officers, dutifully following orders, prime directive, etc. and the general MO above table was to do everything by consensus. The GM offering people the powerful Determination metacurrency at key moments to follow their values to extremes that involved disobeying orders or going off the agreed upon path helped create occasional (very Star Trek appropriate) intercrew conflict and tension. A clear mechanical reward for a character breaking from the group made it easier to get support from the other players.

But it worked in that particular instance because the dynamics of the game setting and play group sometimes made it hard to play out our character values as well as the game intended, and the reward was really just a way for the GM to communicate "hey, you doing this extremely expediant but unacceptably dangerous (or whatever) thing you were ordered not to do is exactly the sort of plotline they'd have for a character in a Star Trek episode."

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Nothing prevents self-compelling except the GM. ISTR reading Fred Hicks endorsing the GM-accepted self-compel.

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?

In L5R, I award one XP for notable play of disads without the void point reward.
So, use it to recover a void point, or use it to earn the extra XP.

 

[zakael19]

I love these in Forged in the Dark games:

• Players are incentivized to make things more complicated for themselves by asking for Devil's Bargains to increase their chance of success in the moment in exchange for later cost. Perfectly matches human nature.
• In Deep Cuts, the GM can invoke your Harm to complication the situation; and the player can invoke their Trauma to do the same (2x per session iirc). In both cases, the payoff is XP - but for the former the player can simply spend Stress to "Tough it Out" instead if they want, so it's consent preserving.

 

[stonehead]

...


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.

Does that change much? The overconfident PC in my GURPS story caused lots of problems for the party with his lack of discretion. In the games I've played with this mechanic, it's not like playing according to the character's aspect didn't cause any problem.

Nothing prevents self-compelling except the GM. ISTR reading Fred Hicks endorsing the GM-accepted self-compel.

In L5R, I award one XP for notable play of disads without the void point reward.
So, use it to recover a void point, or use it to earn the extra XP.

How do self-compels work in practice? Does the overconfident character just say he walks right into the ambush, and then ask the GM if that's worth XP? Does he ask if walking in would give XP before deciding whether or not to spring the trap?

That does address my concern of shifting even more responsibilities on to the GM, and arguably addresses the issue of incentivizing acting in-character normally. On paper it sounds like it would solve my problems. Then again, on paper I was excited about this entire family of mechanics, and my opinion only changed after playing with them. I'll have to try a game with self-compels explicitly encouraged.

 

[Umbran]

Does that change much? The overconfident PC in my GURPS story caused lots of problems for the party with his lack of discretion. In the games I've played with this mechanic, it's not like playing according to the character's aspect didn't cause any problem.

It is supposed to change things. In compelling an aspect, you are supposed to change or add to the narrative/scene.

So, for example, if your character is overconfident, but doesn't have an aspect for it, they will boldly walk into situations, and many of them will turn out okay, but eventually one of them will be rather much for them to handle.

If you compel a character with an Aspect of overconfidence, the GM will create a difficult situations, even if the scene wasn't going to be like that to begin with.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Does that change much? The overconfident PC in my GURPS story caused lots of problems for the party with his lack of discretion.

If he causes problems for the party, then as a GM I would not tend to award a Fate point as he is not the subject of the complication -- the group is. And, just like in any system, if one player is constantly getting the group in trouble, I'd make sure that the group is OK with this (you can usually tell simply by their reactions).

How do self-compels work in practice? Does the overconfident character just say he walks right into the ambush, and then ask the GM if that's worth XP? Does he ask if walking in would give XP before deciding whether or not to spring the trap?

In my groups I probably see more self-compels that GM compels. It can go several ways. An overconfident character would say what they do and ask if that was worth a Fate point. Since their overconfidence is an aspect, I would only award a Fate point if it was more than normally overconfident, or higher personal risk or something more than just general overconfidence.

But just as often a player will do something just roleplaying their aspects, and another player will say "hey GM, isn't that worth a Fate point?".

That does address my concern of shifting even more responsibilities on to the GM, and arguably addresses the issue of incentivizing acting in-character normally. On paper it sounds like it would solve my problems. Then again, on paper I was excited about this entire family of mechanics, and my opinion only changed after playing with them. I'll have to try a game with self-compels explicitly encouraged.

Honestly, I have not been super-happy with this sort of mechanic bolted on to traditional systems. Those systems are focused on what you do (taking actions) not who you are (playing a character) and so the edges/hindrances or flaws systems tend to be seen as ways to get bonuses with minimal drawbacks. So although no Savage Worlds gunfighter is ever going to take the major hindrance "one-eyed", a huckster or priest might, because mechanically the benefits they get outweigh the negatives.

So, even though I strongly flaws in enjoy aspect-based games and think they add a lot of fun, I would be wary of their use in a game where their effect is purely mechanical.

 

[stonehead]

It is supposed to change things. In compelling an aspect, you are supposed to change or add to the narrative/scene.

So, for example, if your character is overconfident, but doesn't have an aspect for it, they will boldly walk into situations, and many of them will turn out okay, but eventually one of them will be rather much for them to handle.

If you compel a character with an Aspect of overconfidence, the GM will create a difficult situations, even if the scene wasn't going to be like that to begin with.

Right, I meant does it change anything about my complaint. In my original examples, the PCs followed their aspects to the detriment of the party. If you spot an ambush, and the overconfident character charges in on their own just because they're acting in character, then, unless if the party is vigilant about self-compels like @Gorgon Zee is proposing, they don't get rewarded.

And the issue of shifting the responsibility of characterization from the players onto the GM isn't addressed at all. If anything, creating difficult situations on otherwise normal scenes seems like more effort than remembering and invoking all 15 or so compellable traits.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

Struggled. Most GMs struggle running games because they don't prep properly.

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 cannot understand what you meant there.

 

[Umbran]

Right, I meant does it change anything about my complaint. In my original examples, the PCs followed their aspects to the detriment of the party. If you spot an ambush, and the overconfident character charges in on their own just because they're acting in character, then, unless if the party is vigilant about self-compels like @Gorgon Zee is proposing, they don't get rewarded.

Hold that thought....

And the issue of shifting the responsibility of characterization from the players onto the GM isn't addressed at all.

So, the problem now is that you reject making it the player's responsibility to be vigilant about self-compels, and you also reject making it the GM's responsibility.

So, you want to get value out of a thing in a game, but it has to happen by itself, with nobody responsible for it actually happening.

That's not a thing. In tabletop gaming, nothing happens without human intervention.

If anything, creating difficult situations on otherwise normal scenes seems like more effort than remembering and invoking all 15 or so compellable traits.

In practice, I have never had a issue making situations more complicated. It isn't like you have to redesign the scene. Thinking of one element to add has not been a major burden in play. I cannot speak to how it would be for you.

Indeed, as a GM, I find the compels lessen the amount of work I have to do. They mean I have to prep less, as some of the game content is created in play.

As a GM, I keep a list of the characters' various Aspects pinned where I can see them on my GM's screen. Again, precious little difficulty there.