Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Beleriphon]

Arguably, though, in D&D the DM can't make you pick the lock, which is possible in FATE.

They also can't make you pick the lock in FATE either. They can say failing to pick the lock results in Nazi busting through the door and trying to shoot you. To use an oddly specific example.

 

[Blue]

Hate? There are systems I hate, usually because they are poorly designed at delivering fun.

Mechwarrior is the first one that leaps to mind. The version I played (in the 90s) had a single pool of character creation currency that would determine all of the things about how you could handle yourself inside, and outside a mech. Which were very different sub-games. I remember playing a game and two of use had well rounded characters, and the remaining players all built mech-gods who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time outside a mech. So everything not on the 30m hex map was boring for 3 of the 5 players, and the challenge appicable to them on the mech battlefield was overwhelming and lethal for the two of us with regular skill levels in smaller mechs so our only hope of survival was to hide from all action because of how high the bar had been raised.

Twilight 2000 in the 80s I could hate. Character creation was so crunchy that it would take multiple hours for the simplest of characters, and the system was just so heavy that it bogged down play. We quickly returned to Star Frontiers and other games.

 

[prabe]

As long as you describe XP and loot in D&D as a player being bribed. Because it's the same thing. You're getting rewarded for playing the character like you intentional said you want to play the character, instead of because you killed a creature.

XP (for those who use it) and treasure are rewards, given after the fact, not part of an explicit transaction, and they're pretty explicit that they expect you to go looking for ways to compel your own aspects and that they expect you to need an arbitrarily large number of fate points later in the adventure and you probably shouldn't refuse a compel (which leaves you with two fewer than accepting the compel).

They also can't make you pick the lock in FATE either. They can say failing to pick the lock results in Nazi busting through the door and trying to shoot you. To use an oddly specific example.

If you don't have any fate points, and you have an aspect the GM thinks means you should want to pick the lock, the GM can give you a fate point and you pick the lock. No need to be oddly specific or absurd.

 

[Blue]

I don't mean "literally" in the figurative sense. I mean that it literally says exactly that.

And you literally misunderstand what it is saying. It is giving you a reminder about the Fate point economy. Which not something familiar from many other games.

 

[Blue]

XP (for those who use it) and treasure are rewards, given after the fact, not part of an explicit transaction,

You are telling me that in D&D, if you attack a foe you are not expecting to get XP? Go ahead, pull the other one. If the DM is using standard XP, the choice to attack a foe or avoid them you explicitly know beforehand that you will get XP for the combat.

This is just sophistry trying to make you point.

and they're pretty explicit that they expect you to go looking for ways to compel your own aspects and that they expect you to need an arbitrarily large number of fate points later in the adventure and you probably shouldn't refuse a compel (which leaves you with two fewer than accepting the compel).

Compelling your own aspects does not automatically give you a Fate point. That's for the GM to decide. And it's explictily because it's caused trouble/consequences - which may take one or more Fate points to get out of.

So, no, this isn't correct either. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of a compel. Yes, you can act on your flaw, but if it's not a serious case that gets you in trouble and the GM agrees, it's not worth a Fate point.

If you don't have any fate points, and you have an aspect the GM thinks means you should want to pick the lock, the GM can give you a fate point and you pick the lock. No need to be oddly specific or absurd.

ONLY in the case where you have intentionally created your character that one of the five major aspects of their personality is that they WOULD PICK THAT LOCK. So let's break that down. In the corner case where you are out of Fate points, your GM can, if they wish, require you to act on a character's flaw that you have said is one of their defining characteristics.

Seems good to me.

 

[Beleriphon]

If you don't have any fate points, and you have an aspect the GM thinks means you should want to pick the lock, the GM can give you a fate point and you pick the lock. No need to be oddly specific or absurd.

I think I'm maybe missing what you're saying. the GM in FATE cannot force a player to apply skills to a situation. But they can bring character's Trouble into any situation.

For example, Harry Dresden has an aspect in the official DFRPG of "Everything is on Fire". Its a consistent problem in novels, Harry has a bad habit of unintentionally (usually) setting pretty much everything on fire at some point.

So, the Trouble here means the GM says to Harry's player Jim ,"So, that spell totally set the warehouse on fire, if you take a Fate point." Jim can say to the GM, "Not today, Harry has better aim than usual because he's trying to keep a low profile, here's a Fate point back to you." Or, Jim can say , "Yep, sounds like something that would happen to Harry, guess the warehouse is burning down now and those demon monkeys are throwing flaming poop."

There's a reason that aspects are phrased a particular way to be action oriented. In Fate if my rogue had the Troulbe aspect, "Opens Every Damn Lock I See" I'd only get Fate points when that is actively detrimental, and I can point that out, or the GM can find a reason to make it detrimental. But the way the game is structured is that chosen Aspects are supposed to come into play often, otherwise the players wouldn't have picked them. So, not only do I want my compels, but I'm picking things that I think would be fun to have be compelled, they aren't being played as gotchas by the GM, and since I want to play a character that opens every damn lock.

Also, if I'm not mistaken you can trade stress for not taking a compel if there are no Fate points. That might be one of the FATE variants and not core though.

 

[prabe]

You are telling me that in D&D, if you attack a foe you are not expecting to get XP? Go ahead, pull the other one. If the DM is using standard XP, the choice to attack a foe or avoid them you explicitly know beforehand that you will get XP for the combat.

This is just sophistry trying to make you point.

If I'm playing D&D, I'm expecting to play a character who solves problems, and who advances in level. If I can solve the problem/s without killing things, that's fine. If the GM uses something other than XP, that's also fine.

Am I pulling the other one hard enough?

Compelling your own aspects does not automatically give you a Fate point. That's for the GM to decide. And it's explictily because it's caused trouble - which may take one or more Fate points to get out of.

So, no, this isn't correct either. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of a compel. Yes, you can act on your flaw, but if it's not a serious case that gets you in trouble and the GM agrees, it's not worth a Fate point.

Fair enough. They are, however, pretty clear about recommending that you not decline compels, and that they're expecting you to need those fate points later on.

ONLY in the case where you have intentionally created your character that one of the five major aspects of their personality is that they WOULD PICK THAT LOCK. So let's break that down. In the corner case where you are out of Fate points, your GM can, if they wish, require you to act on a character's flaw that you have said is one of their defining characteristics.

Seems good to me.

Or in the case that the GM thinks one of your aspects means you should. Then you have to stop the game and negotiate, or let the GM screw your character because he can't figure out another way to make a decent story. Same-same, I guess.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And you literally misunderstand what it is saying. It is giving you a reminder about the Fate point economy. Which not something familiar from many other games.

No, that was my entire point. It's telling you to take the fate point economy into consideration, because most games don't have that, and you need to be mindful of it when playing this game. But I don't want to take the fate point economy into consideration, because that would be using out-of-character information to make an in-character decision, which goes against the basic tenet of role-playing.

 

[Blue]

My own major problem with FATE (and the other "narrative" games I've played, and probably the ones I haven't) is that as a player you want your character to fail, or accept a Compel, or otherwise be unsuccessful or suboptimal, so that you can power up. No character wants to fail or be suboptimal. There is a misalignment of the player's and the character's priorities and desires.

The way that Compels in FATE seem like the GM stealing character agency is probably different.

That said, I don't hate FATE. I wouldn't choose it to run or play, but I'd probably join a game.

Oh gods, this is a can of worms.

You see, one thing I actively try to educate is people who conflate character and player goals. They are very separate things. The player's goal is to have fun. This could be by the character succeeding, a common mode of play in games like D&D. But if a player goes into a game like Paranoia or Toon with that as their attitude, they will not have fun, and therefore "lose". Fate is a game for people who enjoy a good story. Like a novel or movie, the protagonists have a series of ups and down. Those downs can be a huge amount of fun for the player. Captured and need to escape. A twist where a trusted ally betrays you and suddenly past events fall into place.

I've played RPG like a tactical squad to get the right result. I've played RPGs like a soap opera, with more time spent on RP within the team than on combat. I've played silly games. I've played dead serious drama. The idea that a character and a player need or should have the same goals and priorities is false. It can happen, but it need not. And in many types of RPGs, it's a detriment to play.

 

[prabe]

I think I'm maybe missing what you're saying. the GM in FATE cannot force a player to apply skills to a situation. But they can bring character's Trouble into any situation.

It's my understanding from a quick scan of the rules that they can force you to do ... something. From reading Fate Core, it's not clear what the limitations are, but it's clear that you can end up needing to make a roll as a result and that you can't use the Fate Point to modify that situation or that roll. I have the Dresden rules, Spirit of the Century, and Fate Core, only looked at the last because it was the one most likely to be relevant.

Also, if I'm not mistaken you can trade stress for not taking a compel if there are no Fate points. That might be one of the FATE variants and not core though.

I did a quick spin then some sort of weird gravity slingshot thing as the ruleset started to give me metaphorical hives. I don't remember seeing that, but it's plausible and seems pretty reasonable.