Author Topic: Situational Modifiers and Fate Points  (Read 7398 times)

Offline noclue

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: Situational Modifiers and Fate Points
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2011, 07:01:02 PM »
Let me preface my comments with, it's your game and you should play however floats your boat. These are just my POV.

As I said in my first post here my problem isn't physics it's fiction, my limiting tactical choices solely to the availability of fate chips you negate the sometimes very interesting story of the tense stand-off where neither party in a conflict can overcome the obstacles between them. 

If you can't overcome the obstacles between you, those aren't Aspects. You're not in a conflict. You're safe.

EDIT: Like this...

GM: So, you're pinned down behind this wagon. Their bullets can't reach you, but you know if you break cover you'll expose yourself to danger. What do you do?

Quote
You're disincentivising the brilliant tactician or the experienced combatant from having an interesting story roll.

Not sure how. Why would the brilliant tactician prefer camping behind a wagon from brilliantly tacticianing again? The game basically says "If you would like a mechanical advantage in a conflict either 1) do something active or 2) spend a Fate Point (or both). There's tons of room for tactics and brilliance within those parameters.
Quote
Finally, and most importantly I think you're pulling the players out of the story by saying that while logically that wagon between you and the other guy would still be relevant here, you're out of this game resource so you're SOL.

Hmm...lets look a that a sec.

GM: Okay, you’re on the street outside the Saloon. I’m placing the aspect “Big sturdy wagon” on the scene, cuz there’s this wagon nearby that could provide cover.
Player: “Wyatt clears leather and opens up on Jesse fanning his gun. Bang, Bang, Bang!” (rolls Weapons).
GM: “Okay Jesse is evading, reaching for his guns (rolls Athletics). Success!”
Player: Miss? I think not. I tag my Angry Ex-Boyfriend aspect.  He stole my girl! Get ready for the pain. Take three stress.”
GM: “Looks like I need that cover. He dives behind the wagon and his guns up near his head (Tags the Wagon for a +2).” Then he returns fire, but misses.


Okay, I assume we're okay so far. Wyatt fires. He's mad so his Aspect is relevant. Jesse dives behind cover so he can spend Fate on that aspect. But in the next exchange nothing has changed in the fiction. Wyatt is still mad and Jesse is still behind the Wagon. Still, repeatedly playing Wyatt anger rapidly loses interest. But if the game said as long as you roleplay being angry you get your +2 it would incentivize that behavior. Instead the game says it doesn't cost you any more to look around for something else. You pay the same amount of FP, maybe less if you can find a free Tag or if someone can set up one with a Maneuver (hey cooperative play, fancy that!).

It's even more telling with Jesse. He's behind the wagon. In most games there would be a mechanical disincentive for him to break cover and do anything, unless Wyatt's player could negate the cover. Diving for cover is cool. But sitting behind a wagon for multiple rounds is usually boring. Fate says if you want to sit there, pay up. Or, do something else and either pay the same amount or if a free Tag is available maybe make out better. But, you're already incurring the cost, you might as well take action.

But, it’s breaking my mind that the wagon is no longer blocking bullets as effectively, you say? Let’s look at this.

Player: “Okay, that would be a miss, but I’m spending Fate. This dude stole my best girl. I’m pissed. I draw a bead on him (Invokes his “Angry, Ex-Boyfriend” aspect again).”
GM rolls Athletics.
GM: “Not good enough. I’m spending Jesse’s last Fate Point on that Wagon. He hunkers down behind that big ol’ wheel and your bullets are just plunking off of it.”
Player: “I’m invoking my “Deadeye aim” aspect for the win! My bullets find a weak spot in the wagon and rip through the boards
.”

How is that any different than if the GM never spent FP on the wagon? It would just be.

Player: “Okay, that would be a miss, but I’m spending Fate. This dude stole my best girl. I’m pissed. I draw a bead on him (Invokes his “Angry, Ex-Boyfriend” aspect again).”
GM “I’m trying not to get shot (rolls Athletics).”
Player: “My bullets find a weak spot in the wagon and rip through the boards.”

In both cases Jesse is behind the wagon and Wyatt’s bullets rip through it. The wagon’s fictional effectiveness at stopping fictional bullets is the same. I’m having a good deal of trouble finding the mind breaking/game distancing part.
Quote
Personally I'm in favor of any ruling that allows players for at least a couple of rounds forget that their playing a game but not requiring them to constantly try to work around the resource system.

It's hard for me to respond to that one. Fate doesn't really fade into the background very well, but I see that as a feature. I have never been in a conflict invoking aspects and accepting compels and thought, I wish I could just not engage the system. I'm usually looking for a way to achieve my goals and bring my character's aspects into the fiction. When I am in the mood for a game to do that, I don't reach for DFRPG. Just a YMMV moment, I guess.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 07:42:44 PM by noclue »

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Situational Modifiers and Fate Points
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2011, 09:11:52 PM »
That's not true at all, you have the preconceived idea that the story should be dynamic, that situations should change every round, and that a character should not be able to be defensively protected while acting offensively (as only one declaration can be made per round).
You have a point here.  I do tend to think repetition makes for a boring story.

Quote
You seem to be taking this discussion personally (in the way that you're adding exclamation points, quotes and italicized emphases to your responses), understand that I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game.  This conversation, from my perspective, only exists to inform the OP (any anyone else interested) of the relative merits of our styles.
Wow.  Emphasis equates to taking something personally?  Ok...

Quote
I disagree with your assessment that your way of ruling gives the players more narrative control.
Either the player(s) decide what's important at the moment or I as GM do...if I'm making the decision I've taken narrative control.  It's that simple.

I don't think we're going to come to any shared conclusion though.  Good thing is, there's no need for anyone outside a given group to agree.  As long as the group shares a consensus on how to play, games tend to go well! 
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline InFerrumVeritas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 813
    • View Profile
Re: Situational Modifiers and Fate Points
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2011, 12:24:57 AM »
One thing our GM does is allow us to make a declaration, like "Behind Cover."  We then tag this for effect.  He determines how good of cover it is and treats it as a block. 

Offline noclue

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: Situational Modifiers and Fate Points
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2011, 04:21:23 AM »
I was just thinking that the block mechanic works well here. Roll Alertness or Athletics or whatever to establish a block against being shot that they have to overcome to hit you.