Apects / FP system vs. roleplaying

[Jabberwocky]

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

Heh, you have just assessed one of my core aspects :-) Yeah, I may be thinking too much. On the other hand this conversation helped me to sort things out quite a lot. So it was really useful for me.

Lavecki121: I think we are on the same page. And I will definitely relate my experience.

[fantazero]

Okay read this
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?122138-Actual-Play-Sorcerer-Intrigue-in-Mu-s-Bed-%28Paula-and-Rob%29

In your example, the villain running away to fight another day, wouldnt be a kicker or boom.

The Villain eating it would be a kicker, the boom would be He dies and the wards be maintains on his "Evil Zoo" go down wrecking havoc on the city. Or the Villain dies, and HIS boss comes into town looking for him

Also
Shadowrun ≠ Dresden or Fate

You say you in Shadowrun you have your characters fill out a questionnaire, thats great. Whats better is the Aspect system Dresden has. Because "Question: Where are you from? Answer: Texas" isnt as awesome as Aspect "Dont Mess with Texas"

I'm sure you're a fine GM, but I think you need to watch some examples of Dresden, or listen to some Real Play Podcasts.

I don't know if it's possible but drop in or play in another Dresden game with a Fate Experienced GM


 

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.

[Richard_Chilton]

Here's an example of the difference between Shadowrun and FATE.

In Shadowrun you might draw a map of the target, complete with strong points and weak spots.  If the characters study the map they might notice that building Y blocks the line of sight from guard post G - finding the weak point that the GM inserted into the security plans.

In FATE, as the characters study the map (or approach the building) one of them can Declare that he finds a weak point right.   That is, he finds a flaw in the system that didn't exist until he introduced it to play.

Going from one to the other can require a mind shift from both GM and players.  Sometimes it can be harder for the players to accept that they are supposed to make declarations and assessments than for the GM to allow the players to add to the setting.

Richard

[fantazero]

Here's an example of the difference between Shadowrun and FATE.

In Shadowrun you might draw a map of the target, complete with strong points and weak spots.  If the characters study the map they might notice that building Y blocks the line of sight from guard post G - finding the weak point that the GM inserted into the security plans.

In FATE, as the characters study the map (or approach the building) one of them can Declare that he finds a weak point right.   That is, he finds a flaw in the system that didn't exist until he introduced it to play.

Going from one to the other can require a mind shift from both GM and players.  Sometimes it can be harder for the players to accept that they are supposed to make declarations and assessments than for the GM to allow the players to add to the setting.

Richard

This

[Jabberwocky]

I think some of the previous posts have summed it up very nicely. Thanks for them.

[Jabberwocky]

Hi, I'll revive this topic as my main question channel. So, we've finally started playing. The city creation phase was a bit different from what the core book describes because my players took it just for brainstorming and kept coming up with ideas. That was ok, I concentrated on the next few steps. And last week we entered the actual playing.

I have two questions now:
1) Enchanted items: One of the characters has an enchanted revolver that grants him a bonus when active. If he kills a human being with this item when it's active, is he breaking the First Law?
2) Another character is a werewolf. I'm a bit puzzled by the Catch. His Catch grants him a +3 discount on Toughness/Recovery abilities. Does that mean that he can buy Supernatural Toughness at a cost of -1? Or is the werewolf stuck with the Inhuman level of it, whatever the discount would be?

Thanks a lot!

[Deadmanwalking]

1. Up to you...though the way the Warden's Sword works implies it won't give Lawbreaker, since that's what they do and they are explicitly used so as not to get Lawbreaker.

2. Again, up to you (since the character's already off the official template...which is fine). Mechanically, there's certainly no reason he couldn't or shouldn't get Supernatural Toughness if that's what he wants.

A typical solution if that seems over the top is getting both Inhuman Toughness and Inhuman Recovery for a total of -1 since The Catch applies to both. That gives a good selection of powers (and full value on The Catch) without anything too overpowering on its own.

[JDK002]

1) As stated above it's debatable, thus up to the GM.  If it were my game and the express enchantment of the gun was to kill things, yes I would likely call Lawbreaker if he killed a human, BUT only if the player used the enchantment effect on the target.

Even if I didn't want to slap them with lawbreaker, their would still be hell to pay from a role playing standpoint.  Even if it was by mundain means. 

The real important thing is to avoid lawbreaker arguements with players.  The easiest way to do that is to condition your players to avoid killing humans as all costs haha.

[Deadmanwalking]

The real important thing is to avoid lawbreaker arguements with players. 

I agree with this.

The easiest way to do that is to condition your players to avoid killing humans as all costs haha.

I could not disagree with this more. The easiest way to avoid this is to make explicit what rules you are using. What degree of killing humans is acceptable should vary based on the nature of the game, and should be perfectly acceptable in most under combat conditions if you wish to mimic the source material.

[Jabberwocky]

Ok, thanks for your insights. I went with the turned-on enchanted item being magical and possibly law breaking. The player uses his gun turned off and is very happy when the inhuman nature of the opponent allows him to turn in on. Everyone is happy :-)