Thoughts on GM bargain reward mechanics?

[Gorgon Zee]

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?

That was not what I stated. I was responding to the statement that Fate had negotiation mechanics, not that it had negotiation. Every game has negotiation, or the GM is more authoritarian than most of us would like!

I agree with the rest of your post that all games have a pretty clear negotiation loop. Most systems even call it out as a helpful way to play. But there are systems that have specific mechanics for negotiation, so I just wanted to make it clear that Fate does not.

 

[stonehead]

Hold that thought....



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.




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.

That's not what I meant at all. I said I liked the players being vigilant about self-compels, and that maybe that would fix my complaints. I'll try that more intentionally next time I run one of those systems to see how it plays out at the table.

My point was that "In compelling an aspect, you are supposed to change or add to the narrative/scene" was already assumed in the original post. Obviously you don't hand out meta-currencies for inconsequential actions. That wasn't something I missed.

---

The thing about a player writing a compel or flaw into their character (I'm cowardly, I'm petrified of snakes, I have a nervous tick that upsets people) is that they should want that unexpected complication to be part of their character's existence in the game. This is essentially the ethos of Cypher, in my experience, as well --- drama and excitement are the keys to storytelling, not game dominance. Flaws and surprise both create complications, not commands to obey.

For sure, if you're making a cowardly character, it should be because you want to act cowardly. If you build an overconfident character, it should be because you want to act overconfident. If you build a compulsive gambler, it should be because you want to gamble.

If you're taking these things for mechanical benefit, you'd probably have more fun in a different system that endorses min-maxing more.

---

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 think my group is kind of similar. When we're immersed in the scene, we're very immersed in the scene, and fiddly rules can risk just getting in the way. You just act how your character would act. It's a bit immersion-breaking to zoom out and ask "Oh wait, should I get a reward for being this reckless?" That's why, if a game's going to have mechanics that guide player behavior (which it definitely does not need to), I have liked better the ones that intrude when you act out of character, not when you act in character.

 

[Umbran]

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.

On a self-compel, the GM can say no. In Fate, the self-compel is really, "suggest a compel to the GM." If the GM doesn't like it, they do not have to take you up on the offer.

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.

Entirely.

But also... you have a Trouble Aspect, yes. But you've also got probably four other aspects that you could compel on. Change it up some, dude!

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.

A couple of thoughts...

1) Unless you're doing PvP stuff, anything that's negative for one person is negative for the team. If you have to spend time or effort or whatever to deal with a complication, that's time, effort, or whatever that won't be spent on the team's goals.

2) In Fate, this should be happening to everyone at the table at roughly the same rate. If it isn't, the group needs to take a moment to think about how they have, or have not, been spending Fate points, and adjust.

Aside: By the way, having run a lot of Classic Deadlands - that issue you saw was probably the GM's fault. Players don't get to invoke their own hindrances in Deadlands - so if you have the Enemy hindrance, how often the enemy shows up is largely at GM's discretion.

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.

Well...

"In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is. You can negotiate the terms of the complication a bit, until you reach a reasonable consensus. " - Fate Core SRD

It isn't a "negotiation mechanic", but that some negotiation may happen is explicitly noted in the rules. And, yes, if someone's over-doing this negotiation to the point of argument, that's a problem

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

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.

The GM makes all these decisions with no further input from the players. That is how the rules for D&D are written and how the game is generally played in every game I have seen run across numerous GMs. The GM isn't fishing for the players' input here. The players declare an action and the GM declares if a roll is needed and/or what the result of the action is. That's all.

The closest thing to a "negotiation" that most D&D tables get to is players whining about outcomes they don't like.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm fine with the DM setting the reality of the world that the players can choose to follow. Players have the choice to follow or not, and get the reward, or not.

But for more of a spin, with willing players, I do like to make such things up with the players. The player makes the guidelines for their character. The DM makes note of them, and offers rewards for role playing those guidelines. This way it gives the player control.

A good player makes an interesting character that is often a challenge for them to role play. It is nice to have a reward in place for that.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

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.

Oh I dunno. Odds are all the PCs have personal issues that are affecting the group. I figure it comes out about even when all is said and done. Certainly no-one I play with has ever compained about it.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Unless you're doing PvP stuff, anything that's negative for one person is negative for the team. If you have to spend time or effort or whatever to deal with a complication, that's time, effort, or whatever that won't be spent on the team's goals.

There's often a difference of degree, however. If my trouble is that "I cannot resist buying beautiful things" then it's not often going to dictate how a scene is going to go. It might reduce my resources (which does affect the team, but not by much) or it might get me a sticky aspect like "owes money to XYZ" which could drive a later group scene, but likely only when a GM desires it.

But if my aspect is "picks a fight with people who annoy them" it is very natural for it to turn a scene where the party is happily negotiating a deal into a combat scene. As a GM, if the player says "because I pick a fight with people who annoy me, it makes sense that I would punch this guy" I would find it hard to say that doesn't qualify as a self-compel.

Aside: By the way, having run a lot of Classic Deadlands - that issue you saw was probably the GM's fault. Players don't get to invoke their own hindrances in Deadlands - so if you have the Enemy hindrance, how often the enemy shows up is largely at GM's discretion.

Yup, that was the way it was played. But the text "You are hunted everywhere, or the crime is severe with active bounty hunters tracking your trail across the Weird West." makes it pretty clear it's going to happen regularly. And since we hung around as a group, most times the bounty hunters turned up, it was an all-hands gunfight.

----------------------

Overall, I do like "GM bargain rewards" as a general mechanism, but they do have noticeable failure modes. One is the power-gaming one, which I mostly see when narrative systems are bolted on to traditional games. The other is the player who uses a flaw effectively to force a narrative change on the group -- it feels like the bargain reward mechanism can further reward the annoying behavior: "It's what my character would do, sorry/not-sorry if it screws up the scene for everyone else"

 

[Tigris]

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).

Its a horrible mechanic for several reasons:

1. It makes the GM tell the players how to play. This is an absolute no go.
2. It cathers "try to sweet talk the gm" mechanics which often wastes a lot of playing time, and should not be encouraged.
3. It rewards you for NOT roleplaying your character (as you said), if then the GM gives you a way to play it.
4. It falls into the typical boring old "your character weaknesses needs to cause problems" trope

Honestly Gloomhaven shows how "character weakness" can be done in a way better way even if it did not even try to do that directly. The "combat quests" give you incentive to roleplay a weakness through actions, but does not require you to get problems, and its your full choice to act on it or not. Ideally you can act on your weakness without causing troubles for you or others, like cool characters in movies do.


For people who somehow do not know how it works:

• In gloomhaven at the beginning of combat you get 2 "quests" you can choose 1 from
• The quests are more like a character weakness "bloodthirsty, lazy, afraid" etc.
  • In gloomhaven each combat they are random but in an RPG you could have a small pool depending on your character which would fit well
• You can choose 1 of them and they have a condition like "bloodthirsty: Kill the most enemies" or "lazy: Get less than 10 XP" etc.
• If you fulfill the condition you get a "checkmark" as a reward. You get it even if your behaviour did not cause troubles etc.
• Checkmarks allow you to "upgrade your dice" so customize your randomness if you want. (Instead of a d20 20 cards are used).

 

[Umbran]

There's often a difference of degree, however. If my trouble is that "I cannot resist buying beautiful things" then it's not often going to dictate how a scene is going to go.

Well, actually...

If the GM is running it well, all compels are going to be more or less equal, on long average. So, like, "I cannot resist buying beautiful things" should manifest as something that actually complicates the scene. Like, there's an art store that distracts you from being on watch, so the bad guys get past you unnoticed, or something relevant to the drama at hand.

So, that leads into a question of what makes a good aspect - especially the Trouble aspect, which is mostly what we seem to have been talking about, even though you can be compelled on any Aspect, or Consequences you took from stress.

It might reduce my resources (which does affect the team, but not by much) or it might get me a sticky aspect like "owes money to XYZ" which could drive a later group scene, but likely only when a GM desires it.

Fate doesn't track resources in a detailed way - so if it manifests, it will be in a moment in which the lack is a real problem. Like, you were supposed to have that cash to pay off the drug pusher to get a kid out from being his mule, or something really important, and in that moment the suitcase of cash isn't there...

But if my aspect is "picks a fight with people who annoy them" it is very natural for it to turn a scene where the party is happily negotiating a deal into a combat scene.

Yes, it can. But, then, THAT'S THE POINT. That is the system working as designed. Compels are supposed to make things go a little sideways.

As a GM, if the player says "because I pick a fight with people who annoy me, it makes sense that I would punch this guy" I would find it hard to say that doesn't qualify as a self-compel.

So, in Fate the rule is not "The GM will accept anything that is a valid self-compel". The GM gets to choose, and ask themselves, "Will this make the game better, or just a pain in the butt?" If the latter, the GM can and should say "No."

In this case, for example, if the session has been going the player's way, everting's gone smoothly, no hitches, that's a great time for an awkward unwanted fight to break out, and turn that delicate negotiation into a bar brawl in which the party now has to try to get the McGuffin out of the room in the chaos. That sounds great!

If the party has already had three fights, and everyone's got a lot of stress and Consequences already... maybe not.

Yup, that was the way it was played. But the text "You are hunted everywhere, or the crime is severe with active bounty hunters tracking your trail across the Weird West." makes it pretty clear it's going to happen regularly. And since we hung around as a group, most times the bounty hunters turned up, it was an all-hands gunfight.

Yeah, that's a GM problem. It is the GM's job to work such stuff in in a way that's interesting , not just a slugfest every session or two. That's boring.

Overall, I do like "GM bargain rewards" as a general mechanism, but they do have noticeable failure modes.

Sure. But is there any mechanic that doesn't have a failure mode or two lurking in the background?

One is the power-gaming one, which I mostly see when narrative systems are bolted on to traditional games.

shrug. You don't get so much out of a Fate point that it becomes a real power move. And, really, I don't expect backing up a truck of Fate points to hit a "win" button would be exciting for power-gamers.

The other is the player who uses a flaw effectively to force a narrative change on the group

I'm not sure this is a distinct flaw of the mechanics. Narratives are being changed by everyone, all the time. Every time a player makes a choice, the narrative changes.

Like, a disruptive player can make a fight break out without self-compelling, if they want a fight to break out. He doesn't need a flaw saying that he can do that.

No mechanic will save you from folks who don't want to play well with the rest of the table. That's not a mechanical issue.

 

[stonehead]

Yeah, that's a GM problem. It is the GM's job to work such stuff in in a way that's interesting , not just a slugfest every session or two. That's boring.

It's good if a system has tools to make that job easier, or even automatic. If a game devolves into a slugfest without GM creativity, that's the system's fault, not the GMs. Lancer is a good example. Its encounter building rules emphasize creating interesting enemies, interesting battlefields, and interesting objectives. P2E on the other hand, gives some vague advice, but nothing concrete to act on. When I've ran P2E, I do put in that extra effort to keep things interesting, but this one aspect is something Lancer does better than P2E.

Like, a disruptive player can make a fight break out without self-compelling, if they want a fight to break out. He doesn't need a flaw saying that he can do that.


No mechanic will save you from folks who don't want to play well with the rest of the table. That's not a mechanical issue.

That's true, but good systems can protect against misuse. And good systems encourage good play. If a game is nominally about subtle diplomacy, but it rewards xp only for killing enemies, that's bad design. You can't just say "Well, problem players will cause problems anywhere. You should just ignore the incentives of the system and cooperate anyway."

Oftentimes these issues aren't even caused by intentional malice anyways. TTRPGs are naturally more vague so that they can handle more situations than other types of games. People can disagree about this vagueness without being intentionally disruptive.

Is starting a barfight because you cheated at cards a fun character building moment, or a pointless obstacle that just distracts from the game? Reasonable minds will disagree. Whether the system should encourage these things or not is a design decision. You aren't automatically a disruptive player for thinking it's fun when the rest of your party doesn't (or vice-versa).

I'd use a toaster as an example. You shouldn't stick a knife in a toaster to fish out your toast, because it might shock you. But good toasters have breaks to prevent shocks so that they don't kill anyone who uses it incorrectly. Anyone determined to could shock themself with a toaster, but better toasters make this harder to do.