Thoughts on GM bargain reward mechanics?

[Umbran]

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.

I think you are now pretty far afield of the subject of the thread. You're off in system support of adventure design. While that's an awesome topic, it is too big for this thread, and ought to have a thread of its own.

 

[aramis erak]

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?

You've got the sequence wrong. It's really a case of reminding the GM you have a compellable aspect

Player: I think my "loner" should trigger and take me out of scene.
GM: Take your Fate point for the compel and sit out the rest of the scene.
(note that it's not lauch a new scene nor truly splitting the party - just remove from that scene)

GM: you run into a group of orcs
Player: I think my "Hatred of Orcs" should trigger. Mouth off or attack?
GM: Fate Point for attack...

Note that most flavors of fate don't use XP, but milestones.

 

[stonehead]

You've got the sequence wrong. It's really a case of reminding the GM you have a compellable aspect

Player: I think my "loner" should trigger and take me out of scene.
GM: Take your Fate point for the compel and sit out the rest of the scene.
(note that it's not lauch a new scene nor truly splitting the party - just remove from that scene)

GM: you run into a group of orcs
Player: I think my "Hatred of Orcs" should trigger. Mouth off or attack?
GM: Fate Point for attack...

Note that most flavors of fate don't use XP, but milestones.

That's useful to know, thanks!

In cases where the player's suggestion isn't relevant, or the GM can't make an interesting complication out of it on the spot, do they still follow through on the action? If the GM says this scene isn't important enough to justify a Fate point, does the loner player still sit out from the scene? Does the orc hater still attack even if the GM decides the Orcs were already hostile and so it's not worth a Fate point?

Probably this varies between tables, but I'm curious.

 

[aramis erak]

That's useful to know, thanks!

In cases where the player's suggestion isn't relevant, or the GM can't make an interesting complication out of it on the spot, do they still follow through on the action? If the GM says this scene isn't important enough to justify a Fate point, does the loner player still sit out from the scene? Does the orc hater still attack even if the GM decides the Orcs were already hostile and so it's not worth a Fate point?

Probably this varies between tables, but I'm curious.

With the GMs I played fate under, no self compels were rejected...
I would say that a failed SC generally would be no effect, were I running it. But I'd only reject something that didn't logically fit the aspect...

 

[Umbran]

In cases where the player's suggestion isn't relevant, or the GM can't make an interesting complication out of it on the spot, do they still follow through on the action? If the GM says this scene isn't important enough to justify a Fate point, does the loner player still sit out from the scene?

The action can continue. There's just no complication added to the scene in the process.

 

[stonehead]

The action can continue. There's just no complication added to the scene in the process.

That's probably for the best.

Some of my players really like to know the entire situation before committing to any action. I would imagine they would want to know if starting a fight would count as a self-compel before committing to it, but I could see it getting annoying having the back and forth: "Would this be a valid compel? No? Ok, then I don't do that. Would this could as a valid compel? No? Then I don't do that either."

 

[Umbran]

Some of my players really like to know the entire situation before committing to any action.

I mean, control is an illusion, but sure, I get it.

I would imagine they would want to know if starting a fight would count as a self-compel before committing to it, but I could see it getting annoying having the back and forth: "Would this be a valid compel? No? Ok, then I don't do that. Would this could as a valid compel? No? Then I don't do that either."

You keep returning to whether the compel is "valid". I've already noted, the GM is not required to accept all valid self-compels. The question is whether the compel would make things more interesting or entertaining.

So, using the example upthread - if you have a Trouble aspect of "Hunted by John Law", and you repeatedly try to self-compel it by way of having a handful of bounty hunters show up at inopportune moments for a shoot-out, I'm apt to reject it on the basis of it being boring, whether it is technically well-formed or not.

 

[stonehead]

You keep returning to whether the compel is "valid". I've already noted, the GM is not required to accept all valid self-compels. The question is whether the compel would make things more interesting or entertaining.

So, using the example upthread - if you have a Trouble aspect of "Hunted by John Law", and you repeatedly try to self-compel it by way of having a handful of bounty hunters show up at inopportune moments for a shoot-out, I'm apt to reject it on the basis of it being boring, whether it is technically well-formed or not.

That's what I have meant by "valid". I can use a different word if you want, like "accepted" or "compensated" or whatever term the official system calls it. But when I wrote "valid" I didn't mean in some ontological metaphysical sense, just in the sense that it does actually result in a complication being introduced and a Fate point being gained.

 

[Umbran]

That's what I have meant by "valid". I can use a different word if you want, like "accepted" or "compensated" or whatever term the official system calls it. But when I wrote "valid" I didn't mean in some ontological metaphysical sense, just in the sense that it does actually result in a complication being introduced and a Fate point being gained.

"Accepted," would probably the right word (not that Fate is hung up on specific words much).

 

[pemerton]

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 don't know a RPG where this is done by trait/fate point expenditure.

But in Burning Wheel this is done by way of a player making a successful check on Circles or Wises. It's a key way that play is driven.