My Group Hates the System

[luminos]

That I (as the GM) tricked or trapped them and they should do better next time.  My players are long time GURPS players and see Compels to the Aspects like they did Disadvantages on their old GURPS characters.  Something they had to take to get more points and then to mitigate as much as possible.

I'm working on this.  *sigh*

Try this solution:  Make compels cost nothing to refuse.  Make sure you don't offer any soft compels.  Still give out Fate points if the character does something self-compelling.  Then, just make things challenging enough and sooner or later, one of them is going to try accepting compels just to see what happens.  When that turns out to make things more fun, others will follow suit.  Then once they dig the mechanic, you can add back in the Fate point cost to refuse a compel.

[Wordmaker]

Kommisar, it sounds like you really want your players to buy into the spirit of how the FATE system works. I know myself how frustrating it can be when your players aren't on the same page as you, and even how bad it is when they're not on the same page as each other!

I'd take Luminos' suggestion and remove the cost for refusing a compel, at least for now. Maybe tell them you'll just let them know when opportunities come up for them to gain a Fate Point through a compel if they'd like to take one.

By the same token, maybe you should let them know when you're compelling your NPCs? Not while they're "off-camera" obviously, but make a point of showing how the NPCs helping them and opposing them are building up a reserve of Fate Points by allowing the story to disadvantage them. If they see a villain they want to take down stocking up on Fate Points they know are going to be used against them later, they should start to want to find more ways to get their own.

Unfortunately, unless your players learn that this system is not about beating the GM's bad guys, your group really won't get to fully appreciate the game. But like zenten said, not everyone wants to play like that. I've learned the hard way that you can't force your players to play how they don't want to, especially once the game has started. These days I make sure, before any game I run starts, that everyone knows what to expect and that everyone wants to play it the same way.

As for the games where there was a clash between what different people at the table wanted, well, those games didn't last.

[Shecky]

Seriously, have a sit-down with your group and explain just what you see in the FATE system... and then ask them how they could HELP you implement it and make it even cooler.

... yes, the GM has to be a master manipulator.

[luminos]

Seriously, have a sit-down with your group and explain just what you see in the FATE system... and then ask them how they could HELP you implement it and make it even cooler.

... yes, the GM has to be a master manipulator.

This sounds like better advice.  I'd go with this.

[Ophidimancer]

It can also help to use examples from TV or movies to illustrate the narrative nature of the FATE system.  Like when Malcolm Reynolds was immune to the Operative's nerve strike because he "had that nerve cluster moved" that was spending a Fate point.  When Indiana Jones has to run back into the booby trap infested temple because of his Aspect "My Hat!" that was a Compel and it got Indy's player a Fate point, but it was FUN for the player.

[Shecky]

This sounds like better advice.  I'd go with this.

That's not advice. It's just the most workable approach to ANY gaming group - whatever you do, do it together. That way, when you slaughter the whole group, they'll be less angry at you.

[Kommisar]

Thanks guys.  I'm doing all of that and then some.  I'm old-hat at this.  Plus, I've known my players for about 15 years now (wow... I feel old all of a sudden) and am married to one of them.  So, I know how they think and how to gently manipulate them.  My maneuver push is directly aimed at 3 of my players specifically.   Done many soft compels as well; they still think it's a trap!

But, as said, you can't force a group to play a way they do not want to.  And, unfortunately, one of my players will never get on board.  She is stubborn and set in her ways and wants her GURPS back.  So, I'm trying to meet them half way and hopefully develop something we all can enjoy.  But, at the end of the day, they're going to play.  LOL  I told them all, even before the game came out that I was really wanting to run this system and, if they did not like that, one of them was more than welcome to run a game themselves using whatever system they wanted.  In the last decade, only one of them has ever ran a game for the group; and that lasted 3 sessions before he got frustrated and quit.

So, it's a work in progress.

[toturi]

I have an idea that may work for your group, Kommisar. Give them positive Compels on their Aspects, not just soft Compels but go the other way and make them positive, their actions are still going to be constrained but in the direction that they are most likely to take anyway. Think of them as advantageous Disadvantages. Make it clear that such a Compel means that they actually auto-fail at losing.

Alternatively explain to them that accepting Compels are like getting limit breaks. If they don't take the damage (or "lose"), they don't get limit breaks. This approach may not work, I know some guys actually try to play FF games without relying/using a single limit break attack.

[Drachasor]

Thanks guys.  I'm doing all of that and then some.  I'm old-hat at this.  Plus, I've known my players for about 15 years now (wow... I feel old all of a sudden) and am married to one of them.  So, I know how they think and how to gently manipulate them.  My maneuver push is directly aimed at 3 of my players specifically.   Done many soft compels as well; they still think it's a trap!

But, as said, you can't force a group to play a way they do not want to.  And, unfortunately, one of my players will never get on board.  She is stubborn and set in her ways and wants her GURPS back.  So, I'm trying to meet them half way and hopefully develop something we all can enjoy.  But, at the end of the day, they're going to play.  LOL  I told them all, even before the game came out that I was really wanting to run this system and, if they did not like that, one of them was more than welcome to run a game themselves using whatever system they wanted.  In the last decade, only one of them has ever ran a game for the group; and that lasted 3 sessions before he got frustrated and quit.

So, it's a work in progress.

Do any of them typically do "dumb"/"suboptimal" stuff in other games?  Most players I know have flaws in how they like to play.  We have one guy who likes to loot stuff for instance -- in retrospect his character should have something related to looting (we've been finalizing characters this last week).  That way the stuff they'd do anyway gets compelled at least a good bit of the time.

[newtinmpls]

"All very good points. And after thinking about it, I think the DFRPG is just too much work for my players. And in a way, I can see it.  Fate points fuel everything and to get more fuel, they have to be clever storytellers ALL THE TIME. So I see them looking over their sheets trying to figure out what to do in a given scene, how to move the story forward, but also incorporate their aspects. This can get tiresome very quickly. If aspects were more of a guide line and flavor than an actual mechanic, I think they would have used it when they thought it appropriate."

On the other hand, I have players used to looking over the rules in ANY system to see how they can get the most advantage; I can see where calling it "aspects" can feel different; but it's the same principle.

"They're really good at character development. But when a game makes you do it to survive a combat, it seems... annoying."

To me that's a very negative conceptualization - and so I'd use a more positive one. In most systems, there are limits on "points" and "skills" and such. Potentially, in this game, the actual limit is  the PC's imagination in terms of using/declaring/creating/suggesting/self-compelling.

Along those lines, look for what they do utilize for their characters and find ways to reward them for it. Bribery works really well - especially when it's not framed as bribery.

Dian

[newtinmpls]

I was thinking about this.

unfortunately, one of my players will never get on board.  She is stubborn and set in her ways and wants her GURPS back.  So, I'm trying to meet them half way and hopefully develop something we all can enjoy.

What is it that she likes about GURPS? Specifically, I'd encourage you to find something she likes to do or to be able to do and find a way to make it better/easier/more effective in FATE - again, bribery, but not framed that way.

Dian

[Kommisar]

LOL

What she likes about GURPS is that it is GURPS.  That it is the game from the book that she has owned for 20 to 30 years.  It is purely emotional and not something one can rationally negotiate on.

To quote Stewie, "I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!"

[finarvyn]

I think that one problem that might plague many gamers is that the Dresden Files RPG is so huge. There is a lot of material packed in there and it's all designed to work together in a synergy, so you really need to see how all of the parts work together in order to really understand the game.

While the FATE system may be simple in concept, my players don't like to learn new rules and several of them feel like they just don't "get" this whole aspect thing, along with the vocabulary of "tagging" and so on. It's like speaking a different language and they aren't that interested in picking it up.

So, I can certainly sympathise with you when you say your players don't like the system. Mine don't know enough about the system to know if they like it or not, so they aren't really hooked yet.

This has gotten me wondering if it wouldn't be easier for me to scrap the existing rules and try to piece together something Dresden-like using d20 or Unisystem or some other rules that they would play, then after I get them hooked try to slip in FATE again on them sometime later.

[mostlyawake]

I agree with the ideas of modeling the system through bad guys.  What did it for my players was simply me telling them rules-wise what the bad-guys were doing. 

Concessions especially.  Set it up so that the bad guys have multiple objectives, and then have them concede out to only accomplish some of the objectives.

"It sounds like you all really want to save the princess, but Bowser is also concerned about the hammer. He's gonna concede and just take the hammer, leaving you the girl"

So the players learn that conceding isn't just failing.