Apects / FP system vs. roleplaying

[Jabberwocky]

Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.

Edrac + Addicted2aa: Thanks, guys, your latest posts are very helpful to me. Yes, this is the way which would probably work for me. And it's not impossible that the game will gradually evolve towards a more cooperative approach over time. But I really have to start it easy.

[Taran]

Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.

Yeah.  We never pulled punches as DM's - the dice dictated the outcome.  We never tried to kill players, but sometimes the dice weren't going our way and a 20 got rolled at the wrong time.  There was a stretch for a while when we couldn't get our characters past 5th level.  It makes victory that much sweeter when you know what's on the line...but it's also very harsh.

[Addicted2aa]

Taran: Well, neither me nor my friends who also GM-ed in the past years have a long row of dead PCs. Not even in D&D (over four years of Greyhawk there was one PC dead), although my home field is more Shadowrun and Fuzion to be precise. The PCs had to be precautious but I can't remember any case of a broken story ark or the campaign reset. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that achieved goals matter.

Edrac + Addicted2aa: Thanks, guys, your latest posts are very helpful to me. Yes, this is the way which would probably work for me. And it's not impossible that the game will gradually evolve towards a more cooperative approach over time. But I really have to start it easy.

If you also are in the type of group that does one shots from time to time, look at Fiasco and Inspectres. Both games  take the shared narrative control alot farther. Great for one sessions jaunts to really flex creative muscle, try new things, and see what it can do for you.

I think you'll find some parts of FATE and some attitudes of the newer Indie Story Games are really worth adopting, even if the whole system doesn't end up working for your group.

Yeah.  We never pulled punches as DM's - the dice dictated the outcome.  We never tried to kill players, but sometimes the dice weren't going our way and a 20 got rolled at the wrong time.  There was a stretch for a while when we couldn't get our characters past 5th level.  It makes victory that much sweeter when you know what's on the line...but it's also very harsh.

If I play D&D again, I want it to be like this. Old School Gygax style. Anything and everything will kill you. Roll 3d6 straight down. no stat swaping.

[Tedronai]

uhg
that'll show me for responding too quickly without checking whether the the conversation has progressed

[JDK002]

I consider Concessions a means to drive it home that characters dying (PC's and major NPC's) is a very big deal and shouldn't be taken lightly.  Concessions gives you an actual mechanic to get around accidental deaths when their doesn't seem to be any other choice but to kill the character.  This can be a godsend for GM's, there are several threads that talk about how major villain npc's that the GM planned to use for the next several months of play got utterly stomped dead by the players in 2 rounds of combat.  Concessions give you an out when the players are about to throw months of planning down the drain.

On the player side, it gives you some flexibility in your encounters.  Nothing is less fun than figuring out halfway through a fight that you grossly overpowered your mooks and your players are getting torn apart.  Also other than mild consequences, they stick around for a long time causing problems for the players.  Without concessions you're basically fighting until one side has taken every possible consequence.  This could absolutely cripple your entire group of players for several sessions, severe and moderate consequences stick around for quite awhile, making it that much harder for players to soak up damage they take in the future.  Without Concessions you could easily find all your players failing even the mildest of challenges in the long run.

EDIT: Forgot to add, Concessions also let you plan deaths in your campaign.  You can set up some very dramatic moments, if/when I do decided if I want to off a PC, I'll likely ask the player ahead of time and let them in on it.  I think It's fun to have little secrets with some of the players that the rest of the group doesn't know about.

[Jabberwocky]

JDK002: I have already come to terms with this rule and I am going to start it the way we discussed earlier in this thread but just a bunch of thoughts: I agree that PCs are able to wreak havoc and destroy all GM's plans. We all probably know it and have lived through it personally. On the other hand I wouldn't tell my players "Well, Mr. Villain has just conceded so let's say it happened so and so." We aren't used to such meta conversation so if I really wanted to save the villain I would just change the path of planned events without ever mentioning a concession. And I would have done it before I even knew about the concession rule – in fact I have already done it a few times. The story mustn't be more important than the PCs but if the PCs are going to tear it apart completely the GM is there for saving the fun for all. In my opinion the GM is fully entitled to cheat on behalf of the players' fun.
As for the second paragraph: Again, I, as a GM, am entitled to modify the scene and even my rolls as the scene needs. So if the thugs designed as a minor hindrance came out killing the party off, let's just weaken them a bit, worsen their rolls, make them less able. If they, on the other hand, are ridiculously weak, ok, let there be, for instance, a sniper on the roof. The PCs have to take cover and possibly a more indirect route to their goals. Nothing is more variable in my combat than the opposition. In my opinion improvisation is one of the biggest powers of the GM and should be applied constantly for creating tension and fun. And of course the players shouldn't know about it :-)
That said, this applies to my table and others may favour different approaches.

[UmbraLux]

Concessions should be a negotiation, not an arbitrary decision by any one individual.  They also don't need to be accepted. 

In my experience, NPC concessions were accepted by the players when a) it's the only way to get what they want (such as information) or b) continuing the conflict has significant risk to the PCs as well as the NPC. 

If the NPC doesn't have anything to offer and is facing almost certain take out with little chance of taking one or more PCs out there's simply no reason to negotiate. 

[noclue]

If the player concedes in a room full of RC vamps and you can't think of anything other than killing the PC, I recommend roleplaying more creative vampires

[noclue]

In a game designed to create player fun, rather than simulate reality or present challenges with objective neutrality, the GM shouldn't find themselves in a position where cheating is necessary to achieve player fun.

The game has lots of options available for a creative GM. NPC too powerful? Look fir a way to Self compel and take a fate point for later.

[fantazero]

I consider Concessions a means to drive it home that characters dying (PC's and major NPC's) is a very big deal and shouldn't be taken lightly.  Concessions gives you an actual mechanic to get around accidental deaths when their doesn't seem to be any other choice but to kill the character.  This can be a godsend for GM's, there are several threads that talk about how major villain npc's that the GM planned to use for the next several months of play got utterly stomped dead by the players in 2 rounds of combat.  Concessions give you an out when the players are about to throw months of planning down the drain.

On the player side, it gives you some flexibility in your encounters.  Nothing is less fun than figuring out halfway through a fight that you grossly overpowered your mooks and your players are getting torn apart.  Also other than mild consequences, they stick around for a long time causing problems for the players.  Without concessions you're basically fighting until one side has taken every possible consequence.  This could absolutely cripple your entire group of players for several sessions, severe and moderate consequences stick around for quite awhile, making it that much harder for players to soak up damage they take in the future.  Without Concessions you could easily find all your players failing even the mildest of challenges in the long run.

EDIT: Forgot to add, Concessions also let you plan deaths in your campaign.  You can set up some very dramatic moments, if/when I do decided if I want to off a PC, I'll likely ask the player ahead of time and let them in on it.  I think It's fun to have little secrets with some of the players that the rest of the group doesn't know about.

This, this and almost this only.

I've had GMs in Dresden in Fate who are just running it like Shadowrun or D&D. Which is like driving a Racecar off road. Possible but not adviced. The basics are the same Wheel (Dice) Engine (Mechanics) and Pcs (wheels) but how they are laid out and what they do are totally different.

I mean this with no malice, but if you've been running Shadowrun or "Classic" or "Traditional" RPGs, Fate/Dresden may need you to take a step back and learn how to drive again.

Instead of dealing with "Chaotic Good" and whatever the heck that means (I still can't get a straight answer out of DnD players, I've been told everything from Batman , Superman, Spiderman, Punisher, and Jesus T Christ (no joke)))  you get simpler and more versatile things like "Trouble: No One calls me chicken" or "Red Court Infected", that get your player in trouble.
Trouble is fun.
Safe is boring

And THIS!

Dear god, I love you guys

JDK002: I have already come to terms with this rule and I am going to start it the way we discussed earlier in this thread but just a bunch of thoughts: I agree that PCs are able to wreak havoc and destroy all GM's plans. We all probably know it and have lived through it personally. On the other hand I wouldn't tell my players "Well, Mr. Villain has just conceded so let's say it happened so and so." We aren't used to such meta conversation so if I really wanted to save the villain I would just change the path of planned events without ever mentioning a concession. And I would have done it before I even knew about the concession rule – in fact I have already done it a few times. The story mustn't be more important than the PCs but if the PCs are going to tear it apart completely the GM is there for saving the fun for all. In my opinion the GM is fully entitled to cheat on behalf of the players' fun.
Or you need to role with the flow and be more creative
As for the second paragraph: Again, I, as a GM, am entitled to modify the scene and even my rolls as the scene needs. Then why even role? Spend Fate points, thats why they are there So if the thugs designed as a minor hindrance came out killing the party off, let's just weaken them a bit, worsen their rolls, make them less able. If they, on the other hand, are ridiculously weak, ok, let there be, for instance, a sniper on the roof. The PCs have to take cover and possibly a more indirect route to their goals. Nothing is more variable in my combat than the opposition. In my opinion improvisation is one of the biggest powers of the GM and should be applied constantly for creating tension and fun. And of course the players shouldn't know about it :-)
That said, this applies to my table and others may favour different approaches.

If the player concedes in a room full of RC vamps and you can't think of anything other than killing the PC, I recommend roleplaying more creative vampires

[Jabberwocky]

I mean this with no malice, but if you've been running Shadowrun or "Classic" or "Traditional" RPGs, Fate/Dresden may need you to take a step back and learn how to drive again.

Which is why I'm here in the first place :-) But there is also some power of habit and even taste, both on my side and on side of my players. We have been gaming together for twenty years already. There is a Czech proverb: "An old dog won't learn any new tricks." Well, I think we will learn them but the change has to be gradual and I'll have to find a compromise between "new ways of gaming" and "old ways of having fun".

As for alignments and such things we have been ignoring these for a long time. The PC has to have detailed background information and that defines some of his motivations. The difference from DFRPG is we have been doing this on a different level - just as pure roleplaying and decision of the player. Not as a game mechanics which could be invoked or compelled.

[fantazero]

I'd suggest picking up a Fate core book then.
Really, you as the GM are just their as a referee. The main p,OT and story should come from city creation (which IS a group thing) and character creation (which should be done as a group)
There's this whole concept of kickers and bangs,
Kickers are the back story.
bangs are the complications that follow it.

Example
Kicker: Harry's Mom had an affair with a White Court Vampire
bang: that vampire Harrys been working with, turns out to be his half brother

Try and use those as "plot points" during character and city creation.
Oh this is where the Giant was buried, his brothers in town for the funeral.

You're PC used to be in a Vampire Biker Gang, well the rest of them rode into town

A lot of older games are pregen adventures or are the GMs failed novel ( I got stuck in a game where the GM used the plot of his failed novel and tried to make our characters do what our secrect novel counterparts would do. So far as making players take powers they didn't want and rail reading us through his masterpiece )
So the "story" you have to tell is not as important as what the players are doing. If I kill your big bad guy in the 1st session, you should just deal with it and move on. You shouldn't cheat dice rolls because you can't Handel him losing story wise

[Jabberwocky]

I've already downloaded the core rules but I'm still busy reading DFRPG between necessary excursions to real life (work, for instance :-) I'm not that quick.

Besides that I think that there's some misunderstanding between us, based on this imperfect medium of a webforum – if we were to meet and/or even game together we would find common ground very quickly I think. I agree with most of what you have said, especially with that "failed novel" concept. This is exactly what happens when the story becomes more important than the PCs. Maybe it doesn't seem so from my previous posts but I'm really not that kind of GM. Or I hope at least :-) You presented the kicker/bang concept – but that's exactly what I'm doing, believe me. If you know Shadowrun, there (at least in the 2nd edition) were those 20 questions every player had to answer about his character. We have been using these (plus an at least page long text on the character's background) for many many years. In many systems and settings. And of course that I, as a GM, make use of this information extensively. Nothing hooks a PC into a story better than incorporating elements from his background. No story is better than a story based either on previous game events or facts important to the PC. Preferably both.

On the other hand I see no problem with using pregen adventures or my own story ideas, either. A good GM, I am convinced, should be able to weave ideas from a pregen adventure with loose ends of PCs' background information to create fun for the whole table. There are many approaches, and again, I'm for using them, combining them. There's nothing bad in pushing the game sometimes in one or another direction, if it is done sparingly and in a discreet and unobtrusive way (now I had to consult my dictionary for expressions, so I hope I chose the right words).

As for the Big Bad Guy example from your last paragraph – I think, it again depends on how and how often the GM does this. There are extremes and there are decent and fun-friendly ways. If the PCs are going to kill BBG, you have to react in any case – either modify (read: cheat) the story now and let him escape (thus creating a kicker) only to harass the PCs later (bang) or let the action take its course now, with BBG possibly dying (kicker), and letting BBG's henchmen harass the PCs later (bang). This is an example but I hope you undestand me. There's nothing about any competition between the GM and the players or about making the "failed novel" be more important than the PCs, really. It can be done both ways and both ways may provide good fun if done properly. This is, at least, my experience, both as a GM and a player.

There are really some issues with FATE I'm trying to solve here but they are on a different level, I think. The first one is blurring the line between "narrator" and "stars". We have already addressed that in previous posts and I'm starting to be curious how this change will work out for us. And the other are some meta elements or meta GM-player conversations in those parts of the game that have been solved in our group on the level of role-playing and in-character interaction. Again, I'm not saying that it's bad per se. It's just very different from what we are used to and I'm a bit worried what impact this will have on people (including me) who have already done it in a different way for years.

Please, don't take this post amiss. Your insights are very appreciated, thanks a lot! I'm just trying to clarify the situation and my point of view.

[Lavecki121]

I think I understand where you are comming from. When I used to play games I was mostly there for the "smash and grab" feel of it. I didnt care much for story but I developed my character and such as you have described. Only recently have I started to branch out and play games that are more story focused and require more narative thought on my part as the PC. I find it is a good thing to try out and I would love for you to let us know how it goes for you.

It may take a little while for you and your group to get used to the concept, but until then you can run it the same way you are used to running games. Its only recently that the group that I play with have started to understand the rules better and have taken narative control a little bit. But even with this our GM still has final say over what happens.

[JDK002]

Based on what you have been saying on this thread, my one biggest suggestion is this: you keep talking about the way you and your players are "used to playing", so my advice is to ignore all of that.  Accept that this will be something very different and let your players know that ahead of time.  Forget the way you've been playing and take it as a new experience.

Once you and your players get used to the core system of the game, then start pulling on past experiences as inspiration to enhance the game for both you and your players.

As for the meta-interaction between players and GM, you can mostly keep this in game if you want.  All you really need to do is announce Concession, then continue to roleplay.  Just let players know before you start your game is that what happens in your "Concession phases" must stand.  This should work fairly well since you said you have played with your group for years, so you should have a good idea of what they would accept as a good Concession and vice-versa.

I honestly feel you're just over thinking the whole situtation instead of just rolling with it.