At one point, I bought the Genesys book, which I understand is more or less the same system. It is the only gaming book I have ever returned. The custom dice were the biggest sticking point for me, as I remember.
Why Do You Hate An RPG System?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
At one point, I bought the Genesys book, which I understand is more or less the same system. It is the only gaming book I have ever returned. The custom dice were the biggest sticking point for me, as I remember.
No we're not. We're terrible at it. It's why we have such catastrophic diplomatic and intelligence failures throughout history.
Anyway, I guess we are getting pretty far afield of the discussion. I'll just say that I disagree with your reasoning behind not liking the system, but I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
@Blue, @prabe, others,
On the nature of how compels work in FATE vs D&D, I think a salient point is how the game itself structures narrative. Your typical D&D game structures narrative as either engage in the GM created content, which will usually be fixed fictional points (monsters, lairs, dungeons, this NPC, etc.) while FATE and similar games develop what the objects of play are during play (this player action leads the fiction in a new direction, which, in turn, leads to that new direction, etc.). These very different structures of how content is generated (before vs during) really go directly to how the behavior reinforcement mechanics work and how closely coupled to the action they need to be.
In D&D, experience and treasure can be somewhat decoupled from the immediate action because there's really only a limited set of immediate actions -- either engage with the DM's material or meander around until you do. Even in "sandbox" games, where there's no overarching plot being pushed by the DM, play still focuses on what the DM has created, just in a looser order. And this is fine, and good, and fun (underlined because I love D&D and this isn't a knock on D&D). Because of this, the reward mechanism (XP, lewt) is more a general reward for overcoming the DM's obstacles and don't need to be tightly coupled to actions because there's no need to drive specific actions when the game is already about engaging the DM's material. Play will happen with or without the reward mechanism. Here, the mechanism is to promote return play, not action in the moment.
FATE, on the other hand, plays much more loosely with content. DM content is usually just some location notes or a scene frame, maybe with a loose outline of anticipated plot to help with framing. Here, there's much less DM material to engage with, and play is more about following what happens rather than overcoming DM created obstacles. In other words, there may be a dungeon, like in D&D, but it's not mapped out and populated past the first room because the dungeon needs to follow play. In this framework, the game really needs to generate complication in play in order to fulfill it's promise. Hence, the game incentivizes play where the character's flaws cause complications. The reward mechanic must tightly couple with the action because the action is necessary to continue play. There's isn't play, or there is lackluster and unfun play, if actions do not generate more problems. Here, the mechanic is to promote action, not return play.
Both systems use reward mechanics to get players to do the thing the game's about. D&D can afford less tightly coupled rewards because it has less to no need to drive play as play revolves around DM created content anyway. FATE does need to drive play, because it doesn't exist without that drive. So, it tightly couples rewards to the play that's needed.
Now, all that said, I totally get how FATE isn't a system that appeals to people because of how it plays. That's cool. I'm not a huge fan of FATE myself, even though I enjoy games that have many similar attributes (Powered by the Apocalypse games, for instance, Blades in the Dark in specific). But, it's a mistake to assume objectives from a different style of play or game and then judge FATE as incoherent or broken or not doing what it says on the tin because it doesn't meet those objectives. FATE works awesomely, if you play it as FATE and not partially as a different game it's not. That doesn't mean it's the game for you.
On the nature of how compels work in FATE vs D&D, I think a salient point is how the game itself structures narrative. Your typical D&D game structures narrative as either engage in the GM created content, which will usually be fixed fictional points (monsters, lairs, dungeons, this NPC, etc.) while FATE and similar games develop what the objects of play are during play (this player action leads the fiction in a new direction, which, in turn, leads to that new direction, etc.). These very different structures of how content is generated (before vs during) really go directly to how the behavior reinforcement mechanics work and how closely coupled to the action they need to be.
In D&D, experience and treasure can be somewhat decoupled from the immediate action because there's really only a limited set of immediate actions -- either engage with the DM's material or meander around until you do. Even in "sandbox" games, where there's no overarching plot being pushed by the DM, play still focuses on what the DM has created, just in a looser order. And this is fine, and good, and fun (underlined because I love D&D and this isn't a knock on D&D). Because of this, the reward mechanism (XP, lewt) is more a general reward for overcoming the DM's obstacles and don't need to be tightly coupled to actions because there's no need to drive specific actions when the game is already about engaging the DM's material. Play will happen with or without the reward mechanism. Here, the mechanism is to promote return play, not action in the moment.
FATE, on the other hand, plays much more loosely with content. DM content is usually just some location notes or a scene frame, maybe with a loose outline of anticipated plot to help with framing. Here, there's much less DM material to engage with, and play is more about following what happens rather than overcoming DM created obstacles. In other words, there may be a dungeon, like in D&D, but it's not mapped out and populated past the first room because the dungeon needs to follow play. In this framework, the game really needs to generate complication in play in order to fulfill it's promise. Hence, the game incentivizes play where the character's flaws cause complications. The reward mechanic must tightly couple with the action because the action is necessary to continue play. There's isn't play, or there is lackluster and unfun play, if actions do not generate more problems. Here, the mechanic is to promote action, not return play.
Both systems use reward mechanics to get players to do the thing the game's about. D&D can afford less tightly coupled rewards because it has less to no need to drive play as play revolves around DM created content anyway. FATE does need to drive play, because it doesn't exist without that drive. So, it tightly couples rewards to the play that's needed.
Now, all that said, I totally get how FATE isn't a system that appeals to people because of how it plays. That's cool. I'm not a huge fan of FATE myself, even though I enjoy games that have many similar attributes (Powered by the Apocalypse games, for instance, Blades in the Dark in specific). But, it's a mistake to assume objectives from a different style of play or game and then judge FATE as incoherent or broken or not doing what it says on the tin because it doesn't meet those objectives. FATE works awesomely, if you play it as FATE and not partially as a different game it's not. That doesn't mean it's the game for you.
@Ovinomancer That's not unreasonable, if not an exact description of how I ran FATE (or how I run D&D). I think what gets my back up a little is when people who like FATE act as though those of us who don't haven't played the game or read the rules. I think I'm a better DM for having run FATE, but I probably wouldn't do the latter again without a gun to my head.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
For sure. Defending the other side, though, it's a bit frustrating when FATE is held up to scrutiny by it's rules not as FATE intends them but as read through a different set of assumptions. I think there are valid frustrations on both sides.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
On topic, the system I love to hate is RIFTS. I adore the setting, and there are soooo many cool notes, but the Palladium system is awash in varied specificity. Some task resolutions are very high level, some are meticulously details, but you can't judge which it will be until you read the rules for an action. Still, adore so much about the game that I suffered with the system for ages.
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
Likewise. I think playing RIFTS for so many years is what gave me my compulsion to "fix" game systems.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Heh, I did, too, but then I realized that most of my 'fixes' to other systems to trying to make them play against their goals and according to mine. So, I swapped from 'fixing' systems to finding systems that work and playing them they way they are designed. Frex, my 5e houserules from the last few campaigns haven't been to fix rules (which I don't), but instead add things that create the kind of feel I want for that game. In one, a hexcrawl exploration game, I tightened up rest requirements so that you needed things like water and food to take a short rest, fire for a long rest (which didn't restore hp, but did all the other things long rests do), and added full rests, which must be taken in a safe space. This made the game stress that long excursions into the wilderness were tiring (because you slowly ran out of hit die for healing) and made establishing basecamps important. This fit the theme I was going for, the exploration and taming of wilderness, and weren't attempts to 'fix' resting (which has been unchanged in my other games).
In my current game, it's Sigil based, and I wanted Sigil to be a star player, so I expanded downtime activities to add fun new options that tie into Sigil landmarks and factions so that the city becomes a focal point that keeps it's relevance after planar jaunts. This game is much more episodic that most of mine, so downtime is a big part of play -- what you do in downtime affects many things. Right now, I have a PC gearing up for a big championship pit fighting match against a long-term rival (established in play) that's also a ruse to help lure in a wanted criminal (associated with the rival) to another PC can capture him, all of which is pulling in favors from three different factions to pull off a grand caper style event. And, about 75% of this was established using the downtime rules (the faction favor earns, the pit-fighting position, the intel on the criminal, etc.). So, all in all, seems to be working as hoped.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I'm coming a little late to this thread, so I apologize if this has already been said.
I think what is being argued by @Saelorn is not that the freedom to do whatever makes whatever choices "in character," but rather that the freedom to do whatever allows me the freedom to come up with whatever personality(character) I want for my PCs.
If the game incentivizes only 3 of the 2 billion(arbitrarily large number to show that the number is large) ways to play a character, then the player has essentially 3 choices. 1) pick one of the few character personalities that the game rewards so as to be able to get the incentives and stay in character. 2) pick whatever personality I like and miss out on the incentives, gimping myself in the process. 3) pick whatever personality I like and play out of character in order to get the incentives. None of those are attractive options.
In my opinion, a game should take one of two paths when it comes to this sort of thing. The first path is to incentivize playing the character you come up with. This enables the player to come up with any personality type with quirks and such, inform the DM about it, and then use the system to reward the player for playing in character. The second path is not to have incentives at all, and let the players come up with and play their characters' personalities themselves.
Similar Threads
