Declaration help

[Ranma1558]

OK, I'm running a game in an hour or so and during the last session my players began making a ton of declarations in combat, I wasn't too sure what kind of action this was and let them have it as a "free action" limiting it to once per turn. Looking back this seems a bit off, anyone able to tell me what it should be. And how liberally should I let the declarations run, they were changing the flow of combat something amazing with their declarations. Thanks for you time.

[MijRai]

For one, you can make them roll for declarations. They want to announce there is a convenient propane tank to explode (not real, but it IS a game)? Have them roll Investigation or Alertness for it. Don't you have to spend a Fate Point for most declarations anyways?

Finally, as the GM you can say that declaration doesn't work. Don't charge them anything if it doesn't, but just say No.

[Ranma1558]

I was making them roll, the problem came in what kind of action it was, is it a free action in combat or something else?

[Bruce Coulson]

As I understand it, it's a free action (limiting them to one per turn is good idea for your sanity, btw).

Remember, though, players aren't the only ones who get to make declarations.  "Hey, I'm saying there's a propane tank nearby! I roll +3 to put it there!"  "Okay, it's there."  "Allright, I'm using my fire blast to make it explode!"  "The tank melts and flames shoot out a little ways; apparently the tank was leaky and drained out."

Also, you're within your right to disallow declarations that 'don't fit' the aspects of the scene or zone.  Not too many propane tanks in high-class residential districts, for example.

Ultimately, you have to manage the declarations so that combat ebbs and flows, and is challenging without being overwhelming.

[Ranma1558]

Nice thanks

[mostlyawake]

Overusing declarations can kind of lessen the importance of maneuvers (using your turn to create an aspect); so I think it's more than fine to limit people to one declaration OR assessment per turn.  This lets you declare (guns skill to declare that the old shotgun the farmer pulled shoots high and right, which he is unaware of since he hasn't shot it in forever), OR assess (guns skill again to see if he really knows about combat, trying to uncover an aspect) in the same round that you maneuver (athletics, dive for cover), getting two aspects hopefully to use for defense... instead of three (declare, assess, maneuver).  

The reason I say this is that I found my players only wanting 2 aspects, so if they can declare and assess, then they never bother to maneuver.

Also, it makes sense to really watch what should be a declaration and what should be a maneuver: Declaring cover into existence shouldn't automatically hide you (saving you a turn).   It does kind of neatly let you do a maneuver that gets you 2 tags instead of one (because you declare the cover, which can be tagged, then get behind it as a maneuver, to tag that as well).

I searched all for declarations and the only comment I found was that they "take no time in game", which i think lends itself well to being a free action.  Assessments seem to be occasionally part of a longer action (casing the joint), but occasionally free actions... it really depends on what is being assessed.

[JustinS]

Remember, declarations are based off the rule of cool. When it becomes laundry lists and not neat things to work with, it gets harder...

[sinker]

Agreed. Declarations are free because they are supposed to make your job easier. When they stop doing that it's time to say no.

[Arcteryx]

Check out the 'Running The Game' section, p313.

From the book:
The difficulties for declarations should, honestly, be based on how interesting the proposed fact or aspect is. Ideas that would disrupt the game or are just unreasonable should simply be vetoed. These are the questions to ask yourself when determining difficulty:

1. Is the declaration interesting (or funny)?
2. Will the declaration have interesting consequences if it’s acted upon, whether it’s right or wrong?
3. Does the declaration propose a specifc and interesting course of action?

Each “no” adds 2 to the base difficulty of Mediocre.

edited: typo. clarify source.

[DFJunkie]

God, I wish my PCs would abuse declarations.  They're mostly veteran gamers, and as such aren't comfortable with the "something for nothing" aspect of declarations, and seem to believe that I will screw them if they ever try them.

P.S. That's why I would not have a leaky propane tank.  If they find their declarations never actually work the way they intend they'll stop making them, meaning that things slow down (assessments take actions IIRC) and the fights get less interesting (barbecuing someone with magic is cool, but a massive propane explosion is cooler). 

On the less good for the players side, remember that the declaration stands, so whatever aspect they just created can be tagged by opponents as well.  Take the propane tank example.  Assuming the fire blast goes off, Propane Tank scene aspect is gone, but is probably replaced by Oh My God Everything Is Burning, and you as the GM can definitely have fun with that.

[Arcteryx]

I'm noticing the game depends a lot on mutual trust - GM / player, player/player, player/group as a whole. It also depends a lot on everybody in it to tell a mutual story of awesomeness. Declarations are an extension of that, but they're just one of them. Consequences, concessions, the whole thing is geared towards that.

As a GM its been interesting to give up setting control and invite players to actively play in the world creation sandbox - not just in the creation setting step but during play.

[luminos]

For a group that isn't familiar with declarations, I'd let it be a free action, just to encourage them to make them.  For groups that are experienced, I'd start treating it like a full action.  Its not that hard for a creative player to come up with a difficulty 2 or 0 declaration.  If you get a free +2 to every action, why wouldn't you take it? 

[DFJunkie]

Personally I'd try talking it out with your player(s) first. "Everybody is impressed with your creativity and skill at improvisation, but you're slowing the game down and hogging the spotlight. Maybe you could restrict your declarations to really consequential actions?" If that doesn't work you could also institute a Prima Donna tax, and add +2 to each successive declaration a player makes without a different PC making one.

Further, make a point of compelling these new declared aspects and having NPCs invoke them. Players might be less inclined to add new wrinkles to a conflict if the opposition can take advantage of them as well.

Or, alternatively, you could sit back and enjoy super-interesting conflicts that would make the fight scenes from Rumble in the Bronx look simple and amateurish.

[Falar]

Maybe you could restrict your declarations to really consequential actions?" If that doesn't work you could also institute a Prima Donna tax, and add +2 to each successive declaration a player makes without a different PC making one.

+1

[Becq]

For abusive players, you could always use what I will refer to as the "No" method.

Player: "Oh, so the farmer is shooting at me?  Well, I suspect that that old shotgun pulls high and to the right."  [Starts to make his Guns roll.]
GM: "No, actually, his gun appears to be surprisingly well maintained.  Perhaps he's a closet gun nut while not plowing fields..."

It's also particularly powerful against declarations that are just silly to begin with.

Player: "I'll bet there's a propane tank on one of the nearby shelves; I'll shoot it to create an explosion."  [Starts to make an Awareness roll.]
GM: "No, I'm afraid that this particular toddler clothing store is fresh out of propane tanks.

The key, I think, is to balance between encouraging creative use of declarations and letting players step all over the scene with declarations made solely to rack up an extra +12 in bonuses for each roll.