Thoughts on GM bargain reward mechanics?

[Umbran]

I’m also a bit surprised that you consider creating narratives not RP? Maybe you mean that you just dislike arguing, then yes, totally agree — but do you really prefer to argue over rules than the details of a scene?

This I understand somewhat. Negotiating narratives is behaving more like an author than like the character. It is a completely meta-game negotiation, and has you thinking like the player, not the character.

 

[Umbran]

I also would never compel a player to roleplay accordingly to what they wrote on the character sheet: if they end up roleplaying in constrast to their character sheet, it is their problem alone as they aren't required to define anything at all, and at most I would recommend them to adjust the character sheet according to their

"Compel" is a term for a specific game mechanic in Fate.

And, we need to be a bit more broad here - because Aspects in Fate are not generally "personality traits" like "cowardly" or "overconfident". They can represent pretty much any truth about the character.

In Fate, your Aspects are as much truth about your character as any other stat or skill, and they are entirely player choice. If the player didn't want being cowardly to be a very true thing about the character, they shouldn't have chosen that aspect! They had opportunity to take anything else they'd like to be true!

From there, holding a player to the truth of an Aspect, is like holding a player to the truth that their character's strength is only an 8, not a 17.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

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.

Compels in Fate work absolutely nothing like GM Intrusions in Cypher, and Fabula Ultima has no such rules analogue at all.

The summary you have in quotes applies pretty much exclusively to Fate, and not any other TTRPGs.

 

[Pedantic]

My biggest problem with them is that they are another mechanic that sets up a "writer's workshop" repeatedly in the middle of the scene, with the player and the GM hashing out and negotiating what they want from the scene rather than just RPing. That in general is my problem with most heavy metacurrency games where the metacurrency is say more prevalent and abstract than a D6 "Force Point". There is this bad thing that can happen in a game with a lots of statuses and conditional modifiers, where the player adopts a meta-strategy of wheedling for each possible +1 bonus. Well, games that have lots of calls and currencies and compels often come down to a ton of GM wheedling to maximize the roll. Can I get this? Can I negotiate on complication? Does my call apply here? How about this one? They are meant to empower the aesthetic of narrative, but so often they just seem like something people are power gaming.

I wouldn't use the word "powergaming" but I would say they have a narrowing effect on the gameplay loop. The problem with negotiation mechanics in any kind of game (including board games and not just TTRPGs) is that they're really greedy for decision space. Negotiation, by its very nature, has more impact on the board state than any default set of actions strung together, and thus becomes a bigger and more important lever to pull for players.

It's also usually outside of the standard action economy (you negotiate either between actions or as an addition or modifier to an existing action) which means negotiation decisions significantly increase real time expenditure for little gameplay progress. That, and if they're routinely available, they exponentially increase the set of decisions available to players, which sounds good for agency, but mostly adds more analysis time without actually adding more tactically significant actions.

Once a game features negotiation, it becomes primarily a negotiation game; other kinds of mechanical decision making become less significant to outcomes so the primary thing you are doing is figuring out what kind of proposals most appeal to the other party, and where you can get marginal advantage. I don't enjoy that kind of gameplay even in games that are built specifically for it (i.e. Chinatown or Sidereal Confluence), but I find it particularly unpleasant when a game purports to offer other kinds of engaging decisions that become marginalized.

 

[Celebrim]

I wouldn't use the word "powergaming" but I would say they have a narrowing effect on the gameplay loop. The problem with negotiation mechanics in any kind of game (including board games and not just TTRPGs) is that they're really greedy for decision space. Negotiation, by its very nature, has more impact on the board state than any default set of actions strung together, and thus becomes a bigger and more important lever to pull for players.

It's also usually outside of the standard action economy (you negotiate either between actions or as an addition or modifier to an existing action) which means negotiation decisions significantly increase real time expenditure for little gameplay progress. That, and if they're routinely available, they exponentially increase the set of decisions available to players, which sounds good for agency, but mostly adds more analysis time without actually adding more tactically significant actions.

It often works, but I've played say Bohnanza or Settlers of Cataan with players who understand that the game is going to largely come down to leveraging advantages from trades but who aren't particularly good at psychology and so instead of like making a fair or nearly fair offer that someone might take, they'll waste enormous amounts of time making complex offers and wheedling on everyone else at the table searching for every possible exchange they can make to the point we had to start keeping time.

Fortune in the end games to me have this problem that stake setting is just so the opposite of immersive. Can it work with some groups? Certainly.

Nothing ever killed my interest in a game system quite as hard as the "let's play" FATE episode hosted by Wil Wheaton and GMed by one of the games creators. Analyzing that episode as a long time GM as to what was actually going on in that example of play and the actual dynamics of that game, I was like, "Nope. Never going to play that."

 

[Blue]

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.

Realize that the rules don't make this distinction. One of the examples I've seen was "Wanted by the Crown" and having bounty hunters attack. This will cause problems for the party, and it is a valid compel on the Aspect. Event based compels often will affect the entire party. The idea that a complication can only affect the single character is not supported by the rules.

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).

In a game like Fate every single character will have a Trouble Aspect. In Blades in the Dark any character can make a Devil's Bargain. It's similar in other systems that it's part of the base assumptions of the game. A player shouldn't join a game with these mechanics in the first place if they weren't okay with it. It's like a player joining a D&D game and then having an issue with violence.

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?".

A player doesn't get a Fate point for acting out their Aspect in a negative way. They get a Fate point for a complication occurring because they did so. So just acting overconfident isn't a self-compel.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

The problem with negotiation mechanics in any kind of game (including board games and not just TTRPGs) is that they're really greedy for decision space. Negotiation, by its very nature, has more impact on the board state than any default set of actions strung together, and thus becomes a bigger and more important lever to pull for players.

So, just to be clear, Fate does not have any negotiation mechanics. What Celebrim found annoying was arguing about narrative decisions; there are no negotiation mechanics in Fate.

There are indeed games with negotiation mechanics -- such as DramaSystem / Hillfolk -- and those do require a group to buy into that style of play. But Fate doesn't have any negotiation mechanics over narrative decisions any more than D&D has negotiation mechanics over rule decisions.

Again, I completely agree that arguing over narrative or rule decisions is annoying, but that's a player/GM issue; neither D&D nor Fate have any built-in mechanic negotiation steps.

I guess it's possible that some groups might argue more over narrative mechanics than they do over rule mechanics, but I just haven't seen it. I play both a lot, and I have been far more guilty of being argumentative over rules (I'm still annoyed that apparently I needed to make a monster knowledge check rather than just look to know that a demon's chains were attached to them, not carried and so a command to them to drop their weapons would auto fail) than I am over narrative choices.

I've played and run in many trad and narrative games at cons with random people, so I feel my experience is pretty broad, but if your group is an exception and argues more over narrative than rule decisions, I guess narrative games are not for your group.

 

[Pedantic]

So, just to be clear, Fate does not have any negotiation mechanics. What Celebrim found annoying was arguing about narrative decisions; there are no negotiation mechanics in Fate.

There are indeed games with negotiation mechanics -- such as DramaSystem / Hillfolk -- and those do require a group to buy into that style of play. But Fate doesn't have any negotiation mechanics over narrative decisions any more than D&D has negotiation mechanics over rule decisions.

Again, I completely agree that arguing over narrative or rule decisions is annoying, but that's a player/GM issue; neither D&D nor Fate have any built-in mechanic negotiation steps.

I guess it's possible that some groups might argue more over narrative mechanics than they do over rule mechanics, but I just haven't seen it. I play both a lot, and I have been far more guilty of being argumentative over rules (I'm still annoyed that apparently I needed to make a monster knowledge check rather than just look to know that a demon's chains were attached to them, not carried and so a command to them to drop their weapons would auto fail) than I am over narrative choices.

I've played and run in many trad and narrative games at cons with random people, so I feel my experience is pretty broad, but if your group is an exception and argues more over narrative than rule decisions, I guess narrative games are not for your group.

I don't know that I would draw the line between "arguing about narrative mechanics" and "negotiation" quite as cleanly as you do here. How do you resolve "is this compel valid?" without negotiation, especially if you have players invested in trying to get a specific outcome?

More specifically in the case of modern D&D, I think there's a very clear negotiation loop that happens at many tables, but isn't laid out specifically in the books, using involving skill checks.

Player proposes a course of action and desired outcome, DM sets a DC or suggest a different scope of action, negotiation ensues to determine the precise stakes before dice are rolled. There is no way to know say, the DC to try and befriend a feral manticore with a gift of food, until you ask your GM, and the GM's view of that difficulty (and how effective the outcome is, ranging from "the manticore lets you pass" to "the manticore tags along with you" to "the manticore has disadvantage on the first round of the inevitable combat") is now a point of negotiation between the players at the table.

You could endorse a strong "the GM makes all these decisions with no further input from the players" mode as a solution, but that's generally not how these things actually work in practice.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Realize that the rules don't make this distinction. One of the examples I've seen was "Wanted by the Crown" and having bounty hunters attack. This will cause problems for the party, and it is a valid compel on the Aspect. Event based compels often will affect the entire party. The idea that a complication can only affect the single character is not supported by the rules.

Understood. But what I am saying is that a player who always self-compels in ways that affect the party as a whole rather than themselves is abusing the rules to make their trouble aspect effectively a party aspect. It's not illegal rules-wise, it's just not working as intended and you should check that the group is OK with this.

In a game like Fate every single character will have a Trouble Aspect. In Blades in the Dark any character can make a Devil's Bargain. It's similar in other systems that it's part of the base assumptions of the game. A player shouldn't join a game with these mechanics in the first place if they weren't okay with it.

And a party can have their own aspects. What I am saying is that if a player consistently treats their own trouble aspect as if it were a party trouble aspect, then they are imposing their narrative choices on the group and so the GM should check that the group is OK with it.

I've actually been in a game where this was an issue. One player had points for being a hunted outlaw and every third town or so the whole group got into a shoot-out because of it. All of us suffered because of it, but only that player benefited from the points they had due to taking the hindrance. Now this was the Deadlands original system, which (although I really enjoy it) is wonky as all heck and arguably unplayable, so not the best example. But i think the principle stands -- if a hindrance/flaw/aspect is meant to be personal, and gives benefits for one person, it's not great if the negative effects are felt by the group.

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

A player doesn't get a Fate point for acting out their Aspect in a negative way. They get a Fate point for a complication occurring because they did so. So just acting overconfident isn't a self-compel.

Uh, yes, that's what I said. It has to have risk or something or be "more than just general overconfidence" I didn't use technical Fate language because not everyone is familiar with it, but I agree that when asked to award points for a self-compel, the action needs to add a complication, not just be a general representation of the aspect.

 

[Umbran]

Once a game features negotiation, it becomes primarily a negotiation game;

With respect, you're vastly overstating the situation.

As a practical matter, in Fate, a compel is typically going to come up when you are low or out of Fate points. Your typical party of four had like a dozen of them to start with, so you've probably already been playing for a couple of hours before you're collectively running dry.

And then, while negotiation is possible, there isn't actually frequently need to haggle much over it. Most frequently, in my experience, you accept the compel as suggested.

Why? Because, in Fate, the GM isn't out to get you! Or, isn't supposed to be, anyway. Fate isn't designed as a tactical test to see if you survive - there are other games for that sort of thng. With a compel, the point is to make the narrative a little more interesting and relevant to your character, specifically, and give your character a little more oomph to do awesome things. So, you don't have to be very defensive about it.

other kinds of mechanical decision making become less significant to outcomes so the primary thing you are doing is figuring out what kind of proposals most appeal to the other party, and where you can get marginal advantage.

Fate isn't designed to be about squeezing out every ounce of advantage you can find, by negotiation or otherwise. That's not where to find the fun in the system. If you come to the table with that focus, you're playing at odds with the basic system design, which is not the system's fault.

Plus... do you realize that the four basic action types in the game are Attack, Defend, Overcome and... Create an Advantage? You don't need to try to squeeze every marginal advantage out of a compel - you can just generate your own new advantages!