What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aldarc]

Trimming your post a bit.

@Campbell... instead made the general claim that I was..vastly overestimating the narrowness of the designs of games outside of the mainstream

I would agree with that claim, at least based on your post that Campbell quoted and some of your comments before that.

and granting mainstream designs a flexibility that he had never experienced in the real world. whne you make a statement like that... yes I expect you to be able to expound on and explain those broad statements with more than... because I had more fun in Sorcerer.

You have also left out another key point of Campbell's quote in this section: "I have never had the same sort of fun that Sorcerer provides in a mainstream game for any significant measure of time." And I do think that persistence and consistency are important factors at play here. Yes, one could do this in D&D, but a game like Sorcerer can likely reproduce the particular fun he had more consistently and persistently over the long term than D&D or even other games. Sure, I could make Monopoly into a game that explores the themes of Settlers of Catan or I could just play Settlers of Catan, and I can rely upon Settlers to persistently replicate the sort of fun I have playing the game.

We could even play with this idea within the context of D&D's own editions. Why should I try to make 5E D&D into 1E D&D to recreate a type of consistent fun I had with 1E when I could just play 1E D&D? I would think that 1E could support certain styles of "D&D gameplay" better than either 3e, 4e, or 5e could. And if system did not matter for the sort of "fun" you could have or that the system supported, then why should h4ters get upset with 4e?

Maybe I am wrong and he's right... maybe not but what's wrong with actually looking at the games and trying to determine if the flexibility of mainstream games is being overstated or if the narrowness I attribute to many/most indie games is mistaken (though I've often seemed them praised by fans for exactly this)...

How you phrase or go about it?

I'm starting to think you're purposefully reading my posts in a negative light...

Then that you would be your reading of my character whereas I was talking about my reading of your post, particularly the subtext.

I get called out for challenging Campbell's statement with "unnecessary defensiveness" but you didn't do the same when he challenged my viewpoint.

Probably because Campbell had good reason IMO to challenge your viewpoint earlier, at least from my position. Sorry, but I do not think that all challenges of viewpoint are of equal worth or merit, nor should they be treated as such.

For me this isn't the subtext, it's the main text.

Oh that was quite clear.

It's easier, simpler, and all around more intuitive to tweak or kitbash an existing system to suit your tastes than to design a whole new one...assuming, of course, that said existing system is flexible enough to withstand said tweaking, which 0-1-2-5e D&D certainly are. Some think 3e and 4e can handle it too, though I'm not so sure on this.

This part perplexes me though, as this conclusion seems to jump the gun of what a system can or cannot handle, and it seemingly presumes that most of D&D can handle anything or be the appropriate system. But "tweaking," IMHO, has a purpose, a direction. You are tweaking or kitbashing towards something. But the presumed thing here appears to be tweaking D&D-style fantasy to be D&D-style fantasy. Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Imaro]

Trimming your post a bit.
I would agree with that claim, at least based on your post that Campbell quoted and some of your comments before that.

And that's fine since we can all have our opinions... Of course if you didn't agree with what I posted it might have been better to just address my argument and why you disagree with it as opposed to ascribing motivation, tone, emotional state, etc to my post which given the medium is probably hard to ascertain from words alone and more importantly since we've gone down this road before and you had to be corrected probably wrong... but since you put a qualifier at the beginning of your assumptions I guess that makes it all ok... especially since I've corrected you again on your mistaken reading of subtext in my posts again.

You have also left out another key point of Campbell's quote in this section: "I have never had the same sort of fun that Sorcerer provides in a mainstream game for any significant measure of time." And I do think that persistence and consistency are important factors at play here. Yes, one could do this in D&D, but a game like Sorcerer can likely reproduce the particular fun he had more consistently and persistently over the long term than D&D or even other games. Sure, I could make Monopoly into a game that explores the themes of Settlers of Catan or I could just play Settlers of Catan, and I can rely upon Settlers to persistently replicate the sort of fun I have playing the game.

Because that wasn't the part I was addressing. I'm not going to argue that Campbell didn't have more fun with Sorcerer for a significant amount of time ... that's a purely subjective realm that only he knows the answer to... so I have no reason to think he's being dishonest or disingenuous when he makes said claim. I'm interested in the statements I quoted however because, as I said in my previous post, they are outside the realm of personal preference and thus can be discussed from numerous points of view.

To address the second part of your statement... My argument to begin with was that D&D could reproduce this experience... how well or how consistently are not things I've commented on yet because the fundamental idea that D&D could reproduce said experience (the what in my list of questions) was still in question so again that is what I have been addressing. Now if you agree that it can in fact produce said experience we can move on to the how and I can relate my thoughts om it... but has the "what" and whether D&D can produce it been satisfactorily established?

We could even play with this idea within the context of D&D's own editions. Why should I try to make 5E D&D into 1E D&D to recreate a type of consistent fun I had with 1E when I could just play 1E D&D? I would think that 1E could support certain styles of "D&D gameplay" better than either 3e, 4e, or 5e could. And if system did not matter for the sort of "fun" you could have or that the system supported, then why should h4ters get upset with 4e?

Because it was a more narrow design than what they had before? The reaction could happen if in fact 4e lost some/much of the flexibility of accommodating play styles that it's previous edition had (and let's be real with the OGL and the numerous products based on 3.x it was a very flexible game... especially if one was open to exploring variants). But again this is jumping the gun we haven't established the what or the how and now we're discussing @Lanefan 's #4 question.

How you phrase or go about it?

And how exactly is that? I haven't insulted anyone, I haven't ascribed anything to a poster... I've stated my thoughts and suggested a way to go about discussing it. This seems more based in the fact that you don't agreee with my thoughts then any actual "way" I've phrased or went about posting. But please if I have done any of these things show me an example...

Then that you would be your reading of my character whereas I was talking about my reading of your post, particularly the subtext.

Nope not reading your character asking about a pattern in your posting. I don't know you well enough to read your character but I know we've run into the issue of you mis-reading my "subtext" before and here we are again... at a certain point rather than write a long parargraph about what you thing I'm trying to say it might be better for you top take my posts at face value or actually ask me before posting what you think the "hidden" meaning of my words are.

Probably because Campbell had good reason IMO to challenge your viewpoint earlier, at least from my position. Sorry, but I do not think that all challenges of viewpoint are of equal worth or merit, nor should they be treated as such.

I thought this might be the case...So you don't agree with my thoughts but instead of addressing them directly in discussion you instead are ascribing subtext to my posts (something you've done before with incorrectly)... I guess that's a way to show your disdain for my viewpoint, but if that's the case why not just choose not to engage on a viewpoint you see no merit in? Me personally I'm open to seeing that I may be wrong in my assumptions but from this statement you're basically saying there's nothing worth discussing in my viewpoint for you... that's cool, to each their own but then why even engage on this topic with me?

 

[Aldarc]

Of course if you didn't agree with what I posted it might have been better to just address my argument and why you disagree with it as opposed to ascribing motivation, tone, emotional state, etc to my post which given the medium is probably hard to ascertain from words alone and more importantly since we've gone down this road before and you had to be corrected probably wrong... but since you put a qualifier at the beginning of your assumptions I guess that makes it all ok... especially since I've corrected you again on your mistaken reading of subtext in my posts again.

And how exactly is that? I haven't insulted anyone, I haven't ascribed anything to a poster... I've stated my thoughts and suggested a way to go about discussing it. This seems more based in the fact that you don't agreee with my thoughts then any actual "way" I've phrased or went about posting. But please if I have done any of these things show me an example...

Nope not reading your character asking about a pattern in your posting. I don't know you well enough to read your character but I know we've run into the issue of you mis-reading my "subtext" before and here we are again... at a certain point rather than write a long parargraph about what you thing I'm trying to say it might be better for you top take my posts at face value or actually ask me before posting what you think the "hidden" meaning of my words are.

I thought this might be the case...So you don't agree with my thoughts but instead of addressing them directly in discussion you instead are ascribing subtext to my posts (something you've done before with incorrectly)... I guess that's a way to show your disdain for my viewpoint,

Over half of your wall-of-text is just snide, passive aggressive bickering. These aren't the sort of "arguments" that one should even respond to. It's not helping anything. Please chill down.

So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in meatbag communication I have found it extraordinarily helpful to let people know how the message of their speech come across, whether intentionally or not. Most people will say, "Oh, sorry about that. That is not my intention. Let me rephrase that." or "I guess that I am just frustrated by X / feeling Y." This is not about looking to purposefully misread anyone. It's about what I was hearing in your statement. This is even why I began what I wrote with "What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions..." Sometimes the subtext is the real "content" of the post rather than the text, and sometimes people don't realize how they are coming across, myself included. I have been instructed before that one should not simply listen to what is said at face value, but also what is unsaid or may be the "impulse" behind the words. You took this "mis-reading" as an attack, but it's not. And based on the "likes" I received to my subtextual "reading," I suspect that I was not the only person who walked away from your post with a similar impression.

but if that's the case why not just choose not to engage on a viewpoint you see no merit in?... that's cool, to each their own but then why even engage on this topic with me?

You know why I didn't "just address my argument and why you disagree with it"? Honestly, it's because I did not want to. I wanted to see how Campbell answered because I myself was curious, and I even said as much when I quoted you a page ago. I did not see it as my place to wade too deeply into this conversation between you and Campbell. I was content to stand and watch in the shallows by the shore. But I foolishly thought that I could just dip my toe into the water without being dragged down to the deepest depths of discussion. And now I know that my silence would have been a wiser course of action but instead my decision to speak made fools of us both.

To address the second part of your statement... My argument to begin with was that D&D could reproduce this experience... how well or how consistently are not things I've commented on yet because the fundamental idea that D&D could reproduce said experience (the what in my list of questions) was still in question so again that is what I have been addressing.

I am somewhat confused here. I thought that you initially were inquiring whether D&D could reproduce this experience, yet here you appear to have already landed at the conclusion that it can.

Now if you agree that it can in fact produce said experience we can move on to the how and I can relate my thoughts om it... but has the "what" and whether D&D can produce it been satisfactorily established?

I cannot answer about whether Sorcerer could be emulated in D&D, nor do I dare speak about Campbell's experience here. This lies outside of my ken. What sort of concrete "whats" are you looking for from Campbell? You say that you are looking for some concrete things but you are casting a fairly nebulous net here. If you have experience with both Sorcerer and D&D, then perhaps you could provide some concrete examples of your own to facilitate discussion?

 

[Imaro]

Over half of your wall-of-text is just snide, passive aggressive bickering. These aren't the sort of "arguments" that one should even respond to. It's not helping anything. Please chill down.

And again you are mis-reading... I'm not angry and I'm not being passive aggressive honestly this isn't serious enough for me to feel anger about... it's make believe games. I am stating how I saw your reply, nothing passive aggressive or bickering about it.

So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in meatbag communication I have found it extraordinarily helpful to let people know how the message of their speech come across, whether intentionally or not. Most people will say, "Oh, sorry about that. That is not my intention. Let me rephrase that." or "I guess that I am just frustrated by X / feeling Y." This is not about looking to purposefully misread anyone. It's about what I was hearing in your statement. This is even why I began what I wrote with "What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions..." Sometimes the subtext is the real "content" of the post rather than the text, and sometimes people don't realize how they are coming across, myself included. I have been instructed before that one should not simply listen to what is said at face value, but also what is unsaid or may be the "impulse" behind the words. You took this "mis-reading" as an attack, but it's not. And based on the "likes" I received to my subtextual "reading," I suspect that I was not the only person who walked away from your post with a similar impression.

The thing is you were only liked by 2 people who regularly disagree with my stance on indie games and one poster who has me on ignore yet passive aggressively comments on my posts through other people as well as the like and laugh buttons... so I don't really consider that evidence but ok stepping back, I'll ask... what exactly in my phrasing is causing the subtext you attributed to my posts to come across as such? Not being snarky, not being passive aggressive... asking for perspective.

You know why I didn't "just address my argument and why you disagree with it"? Honestly, it's because I did not want to. I wanted to see how Campbell answered because I myself was curious, and I even said as much when I quoted you a page ago. I did not see it as my place to wade too deeply into this conversation between you and Campbell. I was content to stand and watch in the shallows by the shore. But I foolishly thought that I could just dip my toe into the water without being dragged down to the deepest depths of discussion. And now I know that my silence would have been a wiser course of action but instead my decision to speak made fools of us both.

Yes but instead you attributed a stance or set of feelings to me... D&D is superior, D&D is mother and father, etc. when that is not what I said at all. Believing that D&D is flexible enough to offer an experience similar or in line with Sorcerer is not claiming it's superior or better in any way... and I've never claimed such in my posts.

I am somewhat confused here. I thought that you initially were inquiring whether D&D could reproduce this experience, yet here you appear to have already landed at the conclusion that it can.

No I've been pretty clear with my earlier posts that I think traditional games (D&D included) can often be used to replicate the experience found in more narrow games . Tying this back to my original line of thought we were speaking to player types and I commented that more narrow designed games like FATE put an emphasis on the fun of say a player who enjoys storytelling but not a player whose into tactical combat while a game like D&D has the tools to accommodate both in the same game. This wasn't claiming one was superior just stating my observations.

I cannot answer about whether Sorcerer could be emulated in D&D, nor do I dare speak about Campbell's experience here. This lies outside of my ken. What sort of concrete "whats" are you looking for from Campbell? You say that you are looking for some concrete things but you are casting a fairly nebulous net here. If you have experience with both Sorcerer and D&D, then perhaps you could provide some concrete examples of your own to facilitate discussion?

Well if the claim is made that it can't emulate the play of Sorcerer (which was not made by myself) then i am looking for what can't be emulated. I am familiar with Sorcerer in passing, I have read it and ran a game years ago with it but from my recollections it was a pretty standard dice pool system whose real innovation was the GM advice, non-mechanical aspects of character creation and suggestions around gameplay as opposed to anything hardcoded in the actual rules... but as I admitted earlier in the thread i could be mistaken.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me this isn't the subtext, it's the main text.

Thanks for your honesty!

It's easier, simpler, and all around more intuitive to tweak or kitbash an existing system to suit your tastes than to design a whole new one...assuming, of course, that said existing system is flexible enough to withstand said tweaking, which 0-1-2-5e D&D certainly are. Some think 3e and 4e can handle it too, though I'm not so sure on this.

Some systems require more adjustment to get a different experience or handle a different genre than others, of course. Games like FUDGE/Fate, Fuzion (or Hero), or GURPS are designed to readily be used in multiple genres or for different purposes. GURPS, for instance, has world books that address a property or genre and go to town with it, you don't even have to do the tweaking yourself, and it's all still the same underlying system. d20 - like BRP, Interlock, d6, and many others from the 80s and 90s - is essentially a 'core system' that can be fleshed out and adapted to build different games, and it leverages the decades that amateurs like ourselves spent kitbashing D&D without benefit of any such considerations in its initial design.

D&D, itself, though, as a ruleset has a pretty limited range, and while a lot of us have modded it a whole heck of a lot, and, arguably, you have to tweak it some just get it running, some of what limits that range is pretty problematic...

That way the DM doesn't have to buy and learn a new system as she already knows it inside out, having just rebuilt some of it based on materials she already has. And the players don't have to learn (and-or buy!) a whole new system, they need only brush up on the bits that have been changed from what they already know (based on D&D being the most common entry product).

Yep, and that makes up for a multitude of sins. Once you know a system well, once you have kitbashed it from a fantasy game to science fiction game and back again, say, you can prettymuch make it do tricks. You could probably all but write your own system - that's where 'Fantasy Heartbreakers' come from!

And, since most of us come to the hobby from D&D, far more often than not, that system that we mastered to that degree was, of course, D&D. So it has a rep for being adapted to many uses that does not actually correspond it's suitability for such adaption. Campbell may have noticed that. ;(

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Did you ever follow up on this? Just curious... since I don't think the fact that you haven't experienced something personally to be anywhere near ample evidence to discount its possibility.

EDIT: To further clarify where I am coming from... what is the "fun" that Sorcerer provides and have you ever been in a mainstream game where the GM/Dm was actually trying to provide this experience? From what I can remember Sorcerer is a game about bartering away one's humanity to attain power. Why would a game centered around this theme not be possible in D&D? I'm not claiming it is, but at first glance it certainly seems possible. What about D&D makes it impossible to explore this theme? Also what type of gameplay besides this theme of humanity for power does Sorcerer support?

D&D focuses on exploring exotic locales in search of treasure and the gaining of experience which advances characters on a power curve, giving access to ever greater supernatural reserves of durability, magic, etc.

It isn't so much that you couldn't graft some sort of 'humanity' concept onto the core of D&D. Its that you'd have to also ditch many of the elements that make D&D what it is. XP would have to go for sure, and the whole idea of gathering loot and magic items would be secondary at best, and mostly a distraction from the main theme. The paradigms of dungeon exploration would be meaningless in a game focused on 'humanity', and the utter lack of mechanics to support things outside of, basically, combat and exploration, would weigh large.

In effect, by the time you were done, you would have to create humanity rules and everything associated with them, mechanics for relating to other people in 'humane' and 'inhumane' ways, a whole new character class (because you wouldn't have D&D's 'big 4' paradigm to regulate who gets what functions, and you wouldn't really need non-casters). The whole spell list would probably not work for this game, though some specific spells might. You'd probably want an entirely different set of magic rules in fact.

This wouldn't even be remotely D&D anymore. It would be a whole new game, which Sorcerer in point of fact is! So, why would you want to force D&D to be the vehicle for this? I guess you could use the 'GURPS argument' that somehow having all games be built on one chassis has some sort of systematic advantage, but that argument hasn't worked at all well for GURPS, which is now pretty much an obscure system that attracts almost no attention and is barely even supported by SJG anymore (probably because they realize it doesn't offer much in the marketplace).

Thus the argument is cogent IMHO. D&D provides a certain 'mainstream' RPG experience. It isn't well-adapted to anything else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I always find it interesting when the argument that D&D hasn't evolved is made... I look at OD&D and IMO it's nothing like 5e in play or in much of it's design. Usually I find this argument to mean D&D hasn't evolved in the way I would like it to have done... or specific editions are used to create a "road" that supports this assertion are cited while those that don't are conveniently forgotten, and even then the argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

At the risk of sounding like I'm reversing what I said before, there IS a fundamental sense in which, 4e aside, D&D has stuck to its original premise rather closely. The GM generates a world as a sort of 'challenge' or 'puzzle' to the players, who have NO input into its particulars (at least formally). The players assume persona and direct them based entirely on in-game knowledge and without any recourse to the exterior logic of the game system itself (again formally and ideally). NOTHING has changed one iota in this formula since 1974.

Nor has the essential 'formula' of the game varied (here even 4e is pretty much in line with the rest of D&D editions). Characters explore exotic locales, which act as challenging situations for them to overcome, receiving loot and XP as a reward for survival and overcoming said challenges. XP accumulates, driving the characters to advance on a steep power curve, where they then face proportionately more powerful creatures and situations, wash, rinse, repeat.

There are significant variations in some of the thematics, and obvious differences in mechanics, but the 'core' really is fairly stable. You can quite easily and straightforwardly translate any 1970's vintage TSR module into 5e and run practically unchanged, simply substituting the modern stat blocks and maybe exchanging a monster or two where for some reason their power levels have been altered somewhat. Again, 4e is the exception, and that is the game we talk about when we talk about narrative focus of play in D&D, for a reason!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me this isn't the subtext, it's the main text.

It's easier, simpler, and all around more intuitive to tweak or kitbash an existing system to suit your tastes than to design a whole new one...assuming, of course, that said existing system is flexible enough to withstand said tweaking, which 0-1-2-5e D&D certainly are. Some think 3e and 4e can handle it too, though I'm not so sure on this.

That way the DM doesn't have to buy and learn a new system as she already knows it inside out, having just rebuilt some of it based on materials she already has. And the players don't have to learn (and-or buy!) a whole new system, they need only brush up on the bits that have been changed from what they already know (based on D&D being the most common entry product).

Lanefan

At the risk of sounding like I'm accusing you of lacking a deep understanding of games, which I don't really intend this to convey...

I once thought as you do. At that time, back in the early 80's and even up into the days of 2e's release, I just thought that the magic was to crack the nut of producing a truly good universal system. None of us really appreciated the limitations of the paradigm in which we were judging game designs. Deeper analysis, particularly after using 4e, shows me that there are a lot more dimensions to RPG design and that no one system will ever be adequate.

So, I fundamentally disagree that D&D can 'do it all', it cannot, and it shouldn't be attempted, and it won't be attempted! Furthermore if you try to play 'Sorcerer' with any flavor of D&D, you will, AT BEST, have to do much more work for a second-rate experience vs actually just running the real thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No I've been pretty clear with my earlier posts that I think traditional games (D&D included) can often be used to replicate the experience found in more narrow games . Tying this back to my original line of thought we were speaking to player types and I commented that more narrow designed games like FATE put an emphasis on the fun of say a player who enjoys storytelling but not a player whose into tactical combat while a game like D&D has the tools to accommodate both in the same game. This wasn't claiming one was superior just stating my observations.

OK, this is a concrete claim. How would you address the sorts of styles of play which are typically addressed by the signature mechanics of FATE? (I would take these to be character aspects primarily, and how they are tied into the mechanics, I know this varies to some extent between incarnations of FATE-based games).

For my part I see nothing in D&D which provides anything like the dynamics of compelling an aspect in FATE, or the mechanics of scene framing which it expects. 'classic' D&D is entirely bereft of anything here. I will note certain exceptions which help to prove this assertion:

1. D&D in general has classes, which are pretty good at defining characters, but they are very generic and offer no mechanics or framework for leveraging them. At best DMs might do things like take account of a character's class in determining how NPCs interact with them (IE offering an army command to a fighter, and an advisor role to a wizard).
2. Fighters specifically have 'domain mechanics' at high level which DO verge on something close to an 'aspect' in a sense. However, they are generic to all fighters and don't provide any mechanism to compel, nor any direct tie into structuring the plot. At best they act as guides to DMs and players, at worst as a simple resource system (a class feature).
3. Ability scores, particularly in early D&D, could be seen as largely something akin to aspects. Again, there's little to tie them to plot, though they COULD govern character's options in play (but there are few formal rules for this, only scattered subsystems like BBLG).
4. Paladins have specific restrictions. These are pretty strong, and enforced with a big stick, so they do produce some results, but not in a way very similar to FATE!
5. Alignment, depending on how the DM interprets it, might perform some of this work.
6. Race could be sort of an aspect, but this is similar to the case with class, very generic and lacking any sort of ties to mechanics that would shape the plot.

Specific editions sometimes have other little tidbits. 2e's XP rules are a bit of a way for the DM to compel certain things from the PLAYERS, but nothing works the other way at all. 5e has the optional Inspiration rule and associated 'character traits', but they are really kind of just tacked-on to the existing game paradigm.

 

[Imaro]

OK, this is a concrete claim. How would you address the sorts of styles of play which are typically addressed by the signature mechanics of FATE? (I would take these to be character aspects primarily, and how they are tied into the mechanics, I know this varies to some extent between incarnations of FATE-based games).

For my part I see nothing in D&D which provides anything like the dynamics of compelling an aspect in FATE, or the mechanics of scene framing which it expects. 'classic' D&D is entirely bereft of anything here. I will note certain exceptions which help to prove this assertion:

1. D&D in general has classes, which are pretty good at defining characters, but they are very generic and offer no mechanics or framework for leveraging them. At best DMs might do things like take account of a character's class in determining how NPCs interact with them (IE offering an army command to a fighter, and an advisor role to a wizard).
2. Fighters specifically have 'domain mechanics' at high level which DO verge on something close to an 'aspect' in a sense. However, they are generic to all fighters and don't provide any mechanism to compel, nor any direct tie into structuring the plot. At best they act as guides to DMs and players, at worst as a simple resource system (a class feature).
3. Ability scores, particularly in early D&D, could be seen as largely something akin to aspects. Again, there's little to tie them to plot, though they COULD govern character's options in play (but there are few formal rules for this, only scattered subsystems like BBLG).
4. Paladins have specific restrictions. These are pretty strong, and enforced with a big stick, so they do produce some results, but not in a way very similar to FATE!
5. Alignment, depending on how the DM interprets it, might perform some of this work.
6. Race could be sort of an aspect, but this is similar to the case with class, very generic and lacking any sort of ties to mechanics that would shape the plot.

Specific editions sometimes have other little tidbits. 2e's XP rules are a bit of a way for the DM to compel certain things from the PLAYERS, but nothing works the other way at all. 5e has the optional Inspiration rule and associated 'character traits', but they are really kind of just tacked-on to the existing game paradigm.

I think I already addressed this with 5e and inspiration. Compelling an aspect at it's most basic form is being rewarded with mechanical effectiveness for bringing into play the traits of your character... either through a bonus to/reroll of... your roll or through the awarding of a FATE point for a complication. 5e's inspiration mechanic works in the same way... especially if one uses the optional rules from the DMG to flesh it out more. Now I'm not sure how it being optional in any way changes the fact that it does perform the function of aspect compels since it only strengthens my argument that while not necessary (I don't have nay players who like that playstyle) it is there for those who do want to engage with it.

Now as far as scene framing goes... what exactly are the mechanics for that in FATE? I'm a little confused by this statement as I don't remember there being any specific mechanics around scene framing or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by mechanics in this instance... so I'll refrain from answering that until I get a clearer understanding if you are willing to expound...