SHARE
TWEET

THF and the Fake Documents

Bigwood Feb 27th, 2013 (edited) 35 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. [05:43:08] <Agata> Speaking of which, would you prefer to playtest with or without the cutthroat compels optional rule?
  2. [05:43:32] <Agata> No cutthroat compels being Strands of Fate-style (compels cost nothing to refuse; you just miss out on interesting things and fate points).
  3. [05:43:52] <Agata> Cutthroat compels being Dresden Files-style (you get hit by the -1 fate point stick in addition to missing out on interesting things and fate points).
  4. [05:44:51] <Lorelei> I would have said something but I was busy and didn't feel like arguing; actually I STILL don't so I'll just say this and back off, but I think the idea of compels you lose nothing by refusing takes away from the point of FATE and leads to it being played in a totally different way than it otherwise would, which I'm really not a fan of.
  5. [05:45:28] <Lorelei> Furthermore, you're sliding far TOO hard along the "players always have the advantage" side of things, and I get a feeling you're just making everything easy instead of, you know, possible to be a challenge as a game at all.
  6. [05:45:33] <Lorelei> just my two cents though
  7. [05:48:21] <Agata> My own two cents is: all throughout Mirror Maiden and FATEwreck, I have never seen a reason to 12not accept a compel, because refusing simply costs too much.
  8. [05:48:43] <Agata> You miss out on interesting things.
  9. [05:48:47] <Agata> You do not gain a fate point.
  10. [05:48:54] <Agata> You 12lose a fate point.
  11. [05:48:55] <Nacht> FATEwreck?
  12. [05:49:10] <Agata> A very badly organized homebrew FATE game.
  13. [05:49:24] <Agata> In any case, that "you lose a fate point" comes off as a passive-aggressive means of ensuring players always take compels.
  14. [05:49:56] <castfromhp> I think it's silly to think that compels are somehow the only or even a primary source of interesting things happening in a game, and having it be costly to have a character avoid their characteristic pitfalls is more interesting than it being totally free to do so.
  15. [05:50:00] <Lorelei> Okay, I WILL say that sometimes it feels like accepting compels is overall more worthwhile mechanically, yes, but at the same time refusing one feels good because you know you were placed in a situation where your character is strong enough in their beliefs to have not accepted the rewards that would come with doing the action that the compel is.
  16. [05:50:48] <Lorelei> So, it's "to encourage roleplaying" first and "for mechanical benefits" second, if at all.  I really wouldn't ever look at it purely as the latter myself because that's just not a fun way to play.
  17. [05:51:10] <Agata> "and having it be costly to have a character avoid their characteristic pitfalls is more interesting than it being totally free to do so."
  18. [05:51:12] <Agata> ... why, exactly?
  19. [05:51:21] <castfromhp> Because it makes flaws meaningful
  20. [05:51:22] <Agata> There is a net loss involved here.
  21. [05:51:37] <castfromhp> Otherwise you don't even have to pay heed to the flaws you write in via aspects if you don't want.
  22. [05:51:54] <castfromhp> Which is fine if you want to play Mary Sue bullshit like Agata, but not fine if you want to play an interesting character.
  23. [05:51:57] <Agata> And if you do want to pay heed to them, then you accept the compels.
  24. [05:52:07] <Agata> ... I took a fair bit of compels as Agata :<
  25. [05:52:31] <Lorelei> (I also remember you conceding combat all the time for extra fate points)
  26. [05:52:36] <Agata> Yes.
  27. [05:52:43] <Agata> That is how the game works.
  28. [05:52:45] <castfromhp> Only so you could stock up fate points and do bulshit like intentionally lose conflicts or concede to stock even more fate points to minmax and powergame a system meant for narrative fun
  29. [05:52:50] <Lorelei> No, that's how a munchkin works.
  30. [05:52:59] <castfromhp> Which kind of ruins the point of playing FATE in the first place.
  31. [05:53:04] <Lorelei> ^, thank you
  32. [05:53:07] <Agata> And I am trying to rectify those mechanical issues.
  33. [05:53:09] <Lorelei> That summarized everything I wanted to say.
  34. [05:53:33] <Agata> Say, castfromhp, you would say that characters making Mary Sues with little to no flaws is a bad thing, right?
  35. [05:53:57] <castfromhp> I would say that writing in flaws purely for the mechanical benefit of accruing fate points is a bad thing.
  36. [05:54:08] <castfromhp> Or using compels as a means to get fate points. Or conceding conflicts to do so.
  37. [05:54:15] <Agata> Costly compels mechanically encourage that, because the more aspects with bad sides you take, the more you expose yourself to those costly compels.
  38. [05:54:20] <Lorelei> Anyway, the point is, without there being a notable penalty on compels, then players are ENCOURAGED to not roleplay or narrate because there's nothing pushing them to play to their characters' beliefs.
  39. [05:54:43] <Agata> ... except for extra fate points.
  40. [05:54:50] <Agata> Which are by no means negligible.
  41. [05:55:20] <Birdnise> Why aren't they, anyway?
  42. [05:55:32] <Birdnise> it's not like there's any compelling reason to use them in a system with no fear of failure
  43. [05:55:35] <Agata> I see no reason whatsoever for there to be both a carrot 12and a stick, when all that you really need is a carrot.
  44. [05:55:39] <Lorelei> Well, think on it this way: A fate point is just a subjective interpretation on a character's peace of mind for doing something they WANT to do.
  45. [05:55:55] <Agata> <Birdnise> it's not like there's any compelling reason to use them in a system with no fear of failure
  46. [05:55:59] <Agata> ... how is there no fear of failure?
  47. [05:56:02] <Lorelei> I should actually go up and look at shukuchan's arguments to make sure I don't step on any toes
  48. [05:56:16] <Birdnise> because failure doesn't penalize you
  49. [05:56:20] <Agata> It is a FATE default that "failures on skill rolls do not set you back" anyway.
  50. [05:56:22] <Lorelei> Since you still seem to be arguing this, though, apparently he didn't do good ENOUGH.
  51. [05:56:29] <castfromhp> [05:52:54] [Agata] It is a FATE default that "failures on skill rolls do not set you back" anyway.
  52. [05:56:30] <castfromhp> And that's horrible.
  53. [05:56:35] <Agata> Like, in Spirit of the Century/Legends of Anglerre/Kerberos Club, it is explicitly stated in the various knowledge skills that you will never gain wrong information for botching a knowledge roll unless you get compelled, and failing a social roll simply means you do not place a maneuver or inflict social/mental stress.
  54. [05:56:37] <castfromhp> There's no risk to committing to an action?
  55. [05:56:42] <castfromhp> There's no excitement or suspense in that.
  56. [05:57:19] <Agata> You fail, nothing bad happens (unless you get compelled to add on to your failure). But you do not succeed.
  57. [05:57:23] <Lorelei> Yeah, I'm going to raise a hand to that, the risk of failure is something that adds to the fun of playing games.
  58. [05:57:27] <Agata> This is more or less the default in FATE games, as far as I can tell.
  59. [05:57:40] <Birdnise> okay, so you never actually face penalties for failure
  60. [05:57:44] <Birdnise> then what are fate points for
  61. [05:57:46] <Agata> <Agata> For example, your doggirl fails a Finesse roll for stealth. Then I compel her via virtually any of her aspects that mentions dogginess, and go, "Hey, look, there is a housec
  62. [05:57:49] <Agata> <Agata> For example, your doggirl fails a Finesse roll for stealth. Then I compel her via virtually any of her aspects that mentions dogginess, and go, "Hey, look, there is a housecat over there! Wanna go chase it? :3"
  63. [05:57:50] <Agata> <Natalie> Yeah, that's pretty good (and you're hysterically cute)
  64. [05:57:56] <Agata> Why the change in opinion?
  65. [05:57:59] <Agata> <Birdnise> then what are fate points for
  66. [05:58:07] <Agata> To make yourself 12succeed.
  67. [05:58:10] <Lorelei> Sometimes it CAN be pretty bad, sure, like when I first got into tabletop my first D&D meatspace groups beat it into my head that if you rolled a nat 1 and didn't make a save your character would probably decapitate themselves, so RANC is something that happens all the time and failure is SCARY.
  68. [05:58:19] <Agata> If you fail, you cannot just try the same skill roll again.
  69. [05:58:20] <Lorelei> ... But that's not really true, it's not actually quite that bad.
  70. [05:58:35] <castfromhp> Look, you're creating a game that is at the core about trading in calculated losses to manage your future victories, and that is boring as all fuck.
  71. [05:58:46] <castfromhp> It doesn't even become about creating an interesting story anymore.
  72. [05:58:58] <castfromhp> It's about which compels you can strategically take to minimize losses and accrue fate points.
  73. [05:59:16] <Agata> ... I do not see how this is different from the FATE default.
  74. [05:59:23] <castfromhp> You play FATE wrong is why.
  75. [05:59:27] <Lorelei> ^ again
  76. [05:59:31] <Lorelei> That's VERY MUCH not what FATE is about.
  77. [05:59:43] <Lorelei> FATE's about narrating and roleplaying, and the system sets itself up to better do so.
  78. [05:59:48] <castfromhp> FATE is not a system that does well with full freedom. All FATE GMs should be forced to equip the hand of brightslapping +5 before committing to a game.
  79. [05:59:53] <castfromhp> Precisely to deal with players like you.
  80. [05:59:54] <Agata> Compels encourage you to emphasize your character's flaws in order to gain fate points.
  81. [06:00:19] <castfromhp> None of the shit you do would fly in a game that isn't run by someone who you've manipulated and psychologically abused to the point of quitting tabletop due to your drama and antics.
  82. [06:00:21] <Agata> Those fate points can then be used to back yourself up in case of failure, or to wield more narrative control.
  83. [06:00:27] <Birdnise> But why worry about succeeding if there's no incentive to worry about failure? So you fail a roll? There's no penalty, you can refuse to have there be a penalty, and 'you can't make a roll again' is a terrible 'stick' because the players can just go 'okay so we don't, now what'? And you can't penalize them for it.
  84. [06:00:28] <Agata> Is there an issue here?
  85. [06:00:54] <Agata> Anise, if you make a knowledge roll and fail, what happens?
  86. [06:00:59] <Agata> Do you suddenly get wrong information?
  87. [06:01:04] <castfromhp> which is exactly what you did in Mirror Maiden, in case your autism is making it impossible to understand non-direct references.
  88. [06:01:08] <Birdnise> not in your system
  89. [06:01:09] <Birdnise> nothing happens
  90. [06:01:12] <Birdnise> it's null
  91. [06:01:22] <Birdnise> everyone wasted those precious moments and oxygen for nothing
  92. [06:01:23] <Agata> And... neither in Spirit of the Century, or Legends of Anglerre, or Kerberos Club.
  93. [06:01:36] <Agata> When you fail a knowledge roll in, let us say, Pathfinder or 4e, do you gain wrong information?
  94. [06:01:51] <Birdnise> You can!
  95. [06:02:01] <Agata> ... under what rule?
  96. [06:02:17] <Birdnise> I'm not sure I understand the question
  97. [06:02:19] <castfromhp> Not all skill rolls have to be standardized to create exactly equal results first of all. Second of all, yes, you can in fact, especially if someone has set up a set of documents to be misleading.
  98. [06:02:43] <Agata> That is actually how the aforementioned FATE games handle it.
  99. [06:02:46] <castfromhp> But if you can make a stealth roll and then the failure is just "you don't think you can make it", then there is zero risk in attempting stealth at every possibility.
  100. [06:03:02] <Agata> You can set up an aspect like "false information," which then compels you to, well, get false information.
  101. [06:03:02] <castfromhp> Because if you only ever get set back by compels, then you either get compelled by the GM or you don't.
  102. [06:03:09] <castfromhp> And if you do get compelled you just refuse for free.
  103. [06:03:18] <Birdnise> and if you don't think you can make it? Well better go back to playing checkers or something
  104. [06:03:19] <Agata> And now you are back at square one.
  105. [06:03:20] <castfromhp> And then you will go through an entire campaign without ever getting caught sneaking.
  106. [06:03:28] <Agata> Unless you get compelled.
  107. [06:03:33] <castfromhp> And then you refuse the compel for free.
  108. [06:03:36] <Birdnise> ^
  109. [06:03:38] <Agata> Yes, and...?
  110. [06:03:43] <Agata> You are not making any progress.
  111. [06:03:46] <castfromhp> Then you never ever fail at sneaking
  112. [06:03:55] <Birdnise> Then you never ever fail at anything
  113. [06:03:55] <castfromhp> You're creating a system where someone can choose to never fail.
  114. [06:03:58] <castfromhp> That is boring.
  115. [06:03:59] <Agata> And...? You never make it through and successfully sneak.
  116. [06:04:03] <Agata> <castfromhp> You're creating a system where someone can choose to never fail.
  117. [06:04:16] <Agata> If you do not succeed on your roll, you, well, do not succeed.
  118. [06:04:19] <Agata> That is non-negligible.
  119. [06:04:25] <Agata> You do not get to sneak through.
  120. [06:04:29] <castfromhp> So you're creating a game where the default state is stasis.
  121. [06:04:33] <castfromhp> That is boring as fuck.
  122. [06:04:37] <Birdnise> ^
  123. [06:04:37] <Agata> Short of compels.
  124. [06:04:43] <castfromhp> Which are neglibile.
  125. [06:04:47] <Birdnise> Which are effectively a null fact-
  126. [06:04:48] <Birdnise> dammit cast
  127. [06:04:57] <Agata> Only if the player wants to make them negligible.
  128. [06:05:02] <Agata> If the player does not want stasis, why not accept a compel?
  129. [06:05:15] <Birdnise> Why make stasis the default?
  130. [06:05:36] <Agata> It is your choice: if you want to accept the compel, bad things happen, and you get a fate point for it.
  131. [06:05:48] <Agata> If you do not accept the compel, things stay as they are, and you do not get a fate point.
  132. [06:05:57] <Agata> I do not see any reason to attach a -1 fate point stick to refusing a compel.
  133. [06:06:06] <Birdnise> I see no reason to ever accept a compel
  134. [06:06:15] <Agata> Fate points.
  135. [06:06:29] <Birdnise> which
  136. [06:06:30] <Birdnise> don't
  137. [06:06:31] <Birdnise> matter
  138. [06:06:37] <Agata> Why not?
  139. [06:06:42] <Birdnise> because there's no chance of ever suffering a setback where you will need them
  140. [06:06:50] <Birdnise> even the very worst setbacks are negligible
  141. [06:06:51] <Agata> Which is... the FATE default.
  142. [06:06:54] <castfromhp> Which you can get by without just fine. The reason you think they're so important is because you play this asinine game of calculated loss and accrue fate points like the point of the game is to stack them in stupid ways.
  143. [06:06:54] <castfromhp> That's dumb.
  144. [06:07:05] <castfromhp> That isn't playing out a fun story. It's just numbers wankery.
  145. [06:07:12] <castfromhp> AGAIN
  146. [06:07:13] <castfromhp> You're playing
  147. [06:07:14] <castfromhp> Fate
  148. [06:07:15] <castfromhp> wrong
  149. [06:07:19] <Agata> Unless there is an aspect there to compel you (like "False Information"), you do not get false information for failing a knowledge roll.
  150. [06:08:26] <castfromhp> And even then you can refuse to receive false information.
  151. [06:08:31] <castfromhp> Essentially, you can never be misled.
  152. [06:08:39] <Agata> Yes. You gain a carrot (fate point) for taking the false information though.
  153. [06:08:52] <Agata> Let us see now. How would you personally handle a failed knowledge roll?
  154. [06:09:46] <Birdnise> okay touhoufag seriously
  155. [06:09:47] <castfromhp> It kind of depends on the circumstance. If you're just recalling a historical fact? If you fail you just don't remember. If you're doing a knowledge check on a set of doctored documents and fail? You probably get mislead with whatever false information is contained within.
  156. [06:09:48] <Birdnise> listen to me
  157. [06:10:01] <castfromhp> And in that latter case, how does it NARRATIVELY make sense to not be mislead if you fail your check?
  158. [06:10:21] <castfromhp> How does it narratively make sense to refuse the compel there without some cost?
  159. [06:10:25] <Birdnise> your carrots are not effective as incentive when the alternative to using them is not using them and receiving no penalty
  160. [06:10:33] <Agata> You do not take the compel: You do not get the information you want, but you can tell that those doctored documents are fake.
  161. [06:10:48] <castfromhp> You realize the doctored documents are fake
  162. [06:10:50] <castfromhp> On a failed roll
  163. [06:10:53] <castfromhp> Excellent.
  164. [06:10:58] <Birdnise> you might as well be giving your characters pokeballs in great faerie wars
  165. [06:11:01] <castfromhp> I can see this will make for very exciting espionage adventures.
  166. [06:11:02] <Birdnise> because it would make just as much sense
  167. [06:11:08] * Shuku (SUPERshuku@sux-40B3B3EF.hsd1.il.comcast.net) has joined #MegucaIA
  168. [06:11:08] <Agata> ... hold on, castfromhp.
  169. [06:11:29] <Agata> Is the knowledge check to determine whether or not the documents are false?
  170. [06:11:44] <castfromhp> I will play a spy who will never ever get caught sneaking, and will also never ever get be fooled by fake documents.
  171. [06:11:59] <Agata> "As a general guideline, a failure on a skill roll never places you in a worse position than if you had not used the skill at all."
  172. [06:12:24] <castfromhp> Irrelevant. If that were the case, you would only ever have two states anyway - either you aren't sure whether the documents are fake, or you are sure they are. You are never in a state where you are mislead into thinking the false documents are in fact real.
  173. [06:12:26] <Agata> If you had not used the skill at all, then you would not have ever hoped to detect it as false information.
  174. [06:12:34] <castfromhp> There are only net-positive gains from your actions.
  175. [06:12:35] <Agata> "You are never in a state where you are mislead into thinking the false documents are in fact real."
  176. [06:12:37] <Agata> Compels.
  177. [06:12:44] <castfromhp> Which you refuse for free!
  178. [06:12:51] <Agata> Yes, you can refuse them. Yes, you will gain fate points if you succeed.
  179. [06:12:56] <Agata> Take the compel, I mean.
  180. [06:13:00] <Agata> <castfromhp> Which you refuse for free!
  181. [06:13:06] <Agata> So, now you are unsure if the documents are real or fake.
  182. [06:13:07] <Agata> Now what?
  183. [06:13:19] <Birdnise> good question, because there was no point in the entire exercise
  184. [06:13:39] <castfromhp> Then stasis. Or you do something else. There are always multiple approaches to a problem, and you can keep trying new ones without a risk of consequence until you stumble upon someting that works.
  185. [06:13:55] <Agata> And approaching a problem in multiple ways is a bad thing how, exactly?
  186. [06:14:01] <castfromhp> It isn't.
  187. [06:14:10] <Nacht> It's not bad, however.
  188. [06:14:12] <castfromhp> But in your system, you simply do that until you succeed and never face a consequence.
  189. [06:14:13] <castfromhp> That's bad.
  190. [06:14:33] <Nacht> I see a distinct parallel to this and the ye olde ase fucke dungeon checklists some people go through to make sure their character doesn't die.
  191. [06:14:45] <Nacht> ie: meticulously checking off things on a list to do
  192. [06:14:52] <Agata> <castfromhp> But in your system, you simply do that until you succeed and never face a consequence.
  193. [06:15:18] <Agata> As opposed to trying only the skill you have highest, because you are afraid that if you use your lower-rated skills, you have a greater chance of failing and therefore setting yourself back?
  194. [06:15:39] <castfromhp> It is interesting, when presented with a slate of options, to have to consider which one to take depending on relative chance of success compared to severity of consequence of failure.
  195. [06:15:55] <castfromhp> Your highest skill may not correspond to a scenario with the least consequence for failure.
  196. [06:16:08] <castfromhp> And your lower skills may not correspond to scenarios with greater consequences for failure.
  197. [06:16:09] <Nacht> anywho i've no horse in this race
  198. [06:16:13] <castfromhp> That kind of choice and weighing is interesting.
  199. [06:16:15] <Nacht> I actually have negative horses in this race
  200. [06:16:17] <castfromhp> Your system is not.
  201. [06:16:18] <Agata> "I might as well not use this skill; I might fail, and I might get set back."
  202. [06:17:07] <Agata> It is more or less default FATE (failures on skill rolls do not set you back; if you fail on a social roll during a social conflict, well, your turn is wasted, and that is it) with Strands of Fate (compels cost nothing to refuse).
  203. [06:17:19] <castfromhp> There are differences in setbacks, between loss of reputation from failure to use guile to talk your way into a location, vs getting caught attempting to break into the location and getting thrown in prison. Even if larceny is your better skill, you may choose the diplomatic option since it has a lesser consequence. Here, they are equal and you DO always choose your best skill.
  204. [06:18:14] <castfromhp> Which is boring. Essentially, in your system, you would always approach a problem with your best skill first because you can be guaranteed no consequence from failing at it. All other skills only exist for the purpose of making back up rolls.
  205. [06:18:30] <Agata> <castfromhp> Which is boring. Essentially, in your system, you would always approach a problem with your best skill first because you can be guaranteed no consequence from failing at it.
  206. [06:18:42] <Agata> But just as you said, they are not always applicable.
  207. [06:18:56] <Agata> If you do not have a guile skill and you do have a stealth skill, then you may as well opt for the latter.
  208. [06:19:30] <castfromhp> But the difference is in scenarios where you have both. In a system where you can face consequences for failure, there exist incentives to use lesser raised skills in a scenario where you have access to multiple skill options.
  209. [06:19:35] <castfromhp> In your system, that incentive is gone.
  210. [06:19:51] <castfromhp> You always use the highest skill regardless of your other options because there is no variety in consequence of failure.
  211. [06:20:16] <Agata> On the other hand, in a system where critical failures are built-in, then you are afraid to use your lower-rated skills, because hey, you might fail and get set back.
  212. [06:21:07] <castfromhp> Sure, but if the consequence for failure when rolling, say, a low guile skill is loss of reputation, and the consequence of failure for your comparatively higher larceny skill is thrown in fucking prison, then you might actually have to think hard about which to use.
  213. [06:21:11] <castfromhp> In your system, you always use larceny.
  214. [06:21:22] <castfromhp> Because there is no comparison between possible consequences.
  215. [06:21:40] <Agata> Loss of reputation when you are trying to break into a place?
  216. [06:21:49] <Agata> Using bluffs/disguises and whatnot.
  217. [06:22:26] <castfromhp> Yes? You want to get into the back room of a bar. You try to convince them that you should be granted access. You fail. You have suspicion cast upon you, and your future endeavors are more difficult.
  218. [06:22:38] <castfromhp> Compare to you're caught picking the lock to the backroom or sneaking there. They beat your ass.
  219. [06:23:29] <Agata> Character #1: High guile, low finesse.
  220. [06:23:39] <Agata> Character #2: Low guile, high finesse.
  221. [06:24:12] <Agata> Cutthroat compels: Character #1 uses guile because they are more likely to succeed, character #2 uses finesse.
  222. [06:24:17] <castfromhp> Shall I use a more germane and relatable example? You want to eat foie gras at a fancy diner, but you cannot afford it. You can attempt to sweettalk the chef into giving it to you for free due to your influence and social connections. You can fail, and then you look worse for having tried to manipulate him that way or ask for something in an untoward and socially unacceptable manner.
  223. [06:24:29] <Agata> Non-cutthroat compels: Character #1 uses guile because they are more likely to succeed, character #2 uses finesse.
  224. [06:24:32] <castfromhp> You can, alternatively, steal the foie gras, and then you would land yourself in prison if you fail.
  225. [06:24:35] <Agata> I am not seeing the difference here.
  226. [06:25:04] <castfromhp> Character 2 might use guile instead because they decide the consequence of failure upon using finesse is too great, compared to what they might gain from succeeding.
  227. [06:25:28] <Agata> On the other hand, if they use guile, they have a much greater chance of actually failing.
  228. [06:25:31] <castfromhp> Sure.
  229. [06:25:45] <castfromhp> But they might be willing to accept that higher risk of failure with a comparatively smaller consequence.
  230. [06:25:57] <castfromhp> Rather than the severe consequence with a lower risk of failure.
  231. [06:26:04] <Agata> Compromise: Cutthroat compels is default, non-cutthroat compels (my personal preference) is the optional rule in the sidebar.
  232. [06:26:15] <Birdnise> oh boy, it's the foie gras analogy again
  233. [06:26:32] <Agata> Shazam, you can have your sticks built into all failures.
  234. [06:26:51] <Agata> <castfromhp> But they might be willing to accept that higher risk of failure with a comparatively smaller consequence.
  235. [06:26:51] <Agata> <castfromhp> Rather than the severe consequence with a lower risk of failure.
  236. [06:27:10] <Agata> I am not sure that would be the case when you are looking at, say, a 10% chance of failure versus a 60% chance of failure.
  237. [06:27:14] <castfromhp> Sure, but only if you label your preferred method "sissyboy can't-touch-my-mary-sue GM-with-no-balls compels"
  238. [06:27:36] <castfromhp> It's not always like that though. It might be 30% vs 50%.
  239. [06:28:07] <Agata> Not quite; even a difference of 2 in FATE can spell the difference between an 18% chance of success and a 61% chance of success.
  240. [06:28:09] <castfromhp> But in any case, the point is there exist scenarios in which that interesting choice can be brought up if compels are more costly to refuse and even impossible in some cases (0 fate points).
  241. [06:30:26] <Agata> I do not think it is all that interesting when it still leads to "Well, this skill is an entire 2 higher..." effect, which means you would wind up using your highest skill anyway.
  242. [06:30:44] <castfromhp> Though I really think you should just make it so that attempting certain actions will cause a risk of negative consequence, regardless of compels.
  243. [06:30:52] <Birdnise> not everyone does that, thf
  244. [06:31:05] <Birdnise> not everyone CAN, because they don't have houserules to let them use their highest skill for everything
  245. [06:31:11] <castfromhp> Seriously it is the most facile and boring thing ever for the failure to make a stealth check to be "I don't think I can make it" vs being detected.
  246. [06:31:36] <Agata> ... the Dresden Files RPG recommends doing that even with Athletics.
  247. [06:31:54] <castfromhp> Yeah, when did we ever say we follow DFRPG like gospel though?
  248. [06:32:11] <castfromhp> I don't approve of that idea in DFRPG either, and it isn't the case when I run games.
  249. [06:32:35] <Agata> 3>“You missed the roll by two? Well, it’s clear to you that it’s too far. You’ll have to find another way around, or get someone to throw you a rope.”
  250. [06:32:42] <castfromhp> If you attempt something like jumping from one building to another, and you fail, it's not "whoa man I don't think I can make that jump", it's "guess I better hope there's a convenient AC style haystack down there"
  251. [06:32:54] <castfromhp> Yeah, but that's so boring
  252. [06:33:09] <castfromhp> You can basically make that roll then for every single possible ravine, gap between buildings, etc.
  253. [06:33:22] <castfromhp> And never face the prospect of attempting a jump you're not sure you'll make.
  254. [06:33:32] <Agata> I disagree; I do not think players should get hit with the stick for making a valiant effort. I do think that built-in compels for critical failures are a good idea though.
  255. [06:33:41] <castfromhp> There's excitement in committing to an action and then having to watch where the dice fall.
  256. [06:33:58] <castfromhp> [06:30:06] [Agata] I disagree; I do not think players should get hit with the stick for making a valiant effort.
  257. [06:34:11] <castfromhp> Wow that is the most boring statement I've seen all night.
  258. [06:34:21] <castfromhp> And that includes dealing with Tree's bad humor in Cards Against Humanity.
  259. [06:34:34] <Lorelei> I RESENT THAT
  260. [06:35:00] <castfromhp> I think players should be rewarded with actual suspense when they choose to commit to an action that is risky.
  261. [06:35:08] <Agata> Speaking of which, why the sudden change in opinion from:
  262. [06:35:18] <Agata> <Agata> For example, your doggirl fails a Finesse roll for stealth. Then I compel her via virtually any of her aspects that mentions dogginess, and go, "Hey, look, there is a housecat over there! Wanna go chase it? :3"
  263. [06:35:18] <Agata> <Natalie> Yeah, that's pretty good (and you're hysterically cute)
  264. [06:35:19] <Agata> ?
  265. [06:35:22] <castfromhp> Rather than having all skill checks also include an in-built risk assessmenthat tells them when they can't make it.
  266. [06:35:39] <castfromhp> He was complimenting your humor there with the nature of the compel.
  267. [06:35:45] <Lorelei> ^
  268. [06:35:50] <Agata> <castfromhp> Rather than having all skill checks also include an in-built risk assessmenthat tells them when they can't make it.
  269. [06:36:01] <Lorelei> Also I often say things that I know won't lead to an argument because I don't have time for them, shurg, what can you do
  270. [06:36:12] <Agata> I am of the opinion that critical failures should be the exception rather than the rule, really.
  271. [06:36:37] <castfromhp> I don't think "I fail to jump across the building and then fall" is a "critical failure". That sounds like the normal consequence of attempting to jump and not making it.
  272. [06:36:40] <Agata> If you abruptly make a knowledge roll to see what you know about a topic an NPC just brought up, you should not be faced with a significant chance of having glaringly wrong information.
  273. [06:36:43] <Agata> That is the domain of compels.
  274. [06:37:15] <castfromhp> Knowledge checks generally don't carry that kind of consequence, but that's because the action involved is different. You can't apply that notion to all skill checks.
  275. [06:38:44] <castfromhp> I don't think it's fun to tug back on the player every time they can screw up and just go "hey a voice in your head says you might not want to try this".
  276. [06:38:59] <Agata> Should being set back by failed skill checks be more or less common than being back at square one, then?
  277. [06:39:06] <castfromhp> In high tension scenarios characters often do things knowing they might not make it.
  278. [06:39:17] <castfromhp> It should depend on the scenario. There shouldn't be a guideline for this.
  279. [06:39:27] <castfromhp> The very fact you're trying to make one is absurd.
  280. [06:40:27] <castfromhp> Trying to jump the gap between two buildings - probably a pretty bad consequence on failure. You splat yourself. Trying to jump a fence - probably not much of a consequence on failure. Maybe you bruise your ass. Trying to do cartwheels on the sidewalk - probably no consequence of note on failure aside from looking like a clown.
  281. [06:40:35] <castfromhp> God how hard is this to understand?
  282. [06:40:50] <castfromhp> Different actions innately have different consequences associated with them.
  283. [06:41:06] <castfromhp> One PC might do a lot more of the type of action that could result in severe consequences.
  284. [06:41:10] <castfromhp> Other PCs may be more risk-averse.
  285. [06:41:21] <castfromhp> People vary in their preferences and actions! Shocking, isn't it?
  286. [06:41:22] <Agata> <castfromhp> It should depend on the scenario. There shouldn't be a guideline for this.
  287. [06:41:28] <Agata> I disagree. There can be a guideline.
  288. [06:41:38] <castfromhp> Sure. The guideline is "it should depend on the scenario".
  289. [06:41:38] <Agata> Let me try one right here, right now.
  290. [06:42:04] <castfromhp> You shouldn't force the same proportion of set-back vs no-change-from-status-quo for two PCs with radically different approaches.
  291. [06:42:24] <castfromhp> Let's say you want for skill failures to result in a negative consequence 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time result in you being where you started.
  292. [06:42:26] <castfromhp> Now you have two PCs
  293. [06:42:39] <castfromhp> One is a lunatic parkour dude who jumps from building to building giving no fucks.
  294. [06:42:52] <castfromhp> The other guy takes careful meticulously planned routes that involve maybe climbing a fence or two once in a while.
  295. [06:42:59] <castfromhp> Would both of them face those same ratios? Hell no.
  296. [06:43:01] <castfromhp> That doesn't make sense.
  297. [06:43:25] <castfromhp> Don't try to proportion it. Any guideline beyond "it should depend on the scenario" is useless and in fact actively harmful.
  298. [06:45:48] <Agata> "By default, a failure on a skill roll never places you in a worse position than if you had not used the skill at all. However, if the circumstances are appropriate, the GM can threaten you with a setback: you misjudge the patrols' routes and get yourself caught sneaking, you offend someone with a poorly-worded threat or lie, you attempt to verify the legitimacy of the documents in front of you and believe that they are true (when they are ac
  299. [06:46:07] <Agata> "If you accept the setback, you gain a single fate point, regardless of how bad the setback is; some circumstances have dire consequences for failure. If you refuse the setback, you lose a single fate point; you avoided the setback at the cost of some of your future luck. Even if you are using the Non-Cutthroat Compels optional rule, refusing a setback still makes you lose a fate point."
  300. [06:46:20] <castfromhp> Whoa whoa no. No free fate points for failing rolls man.
  301. [06:46:23] <castfromhp> Are you serious?
  302. [06:46:44] <Agata> ... only you get caught, you believe the documents are real, and so on.
  303. [06:47:19] <castfromhp> Sometimes there just shouldn't be an option for refusing a setback like that. Compels are different from failing skill rolls, you know.
  304. [06:47:35] <castfromhp> Look, there shouldn't be a "By default, X"
  305. [06:47:43] <castfromhp> The default is whatever the scenario comforms best to.
  306. [06:47:50] <castfromhp> *conforms
  307. [06:48:07] <castfromhp> And you shouldn't get rewarded with a fate point every single time something negative happens to your characters.
  308. [06:48:10] <castfromhp> -s
  309. [06:48:16] <Agata> Someone is hiding in the bushes away from a series of guard patrols.
  310. [06:48:25] <Agata> They are formulating plans to try to sneak past those guard patrols.
  311. [06:48:52] <Agata> They fail their stealth roll. What happens? Do they judge that they cannot make it, or do they think they can make it and then get caught?
  312. [06:49:47] <castfromhp> They attempt to sneak and then get caught.
  313. [06:50:06] <castfromhp> If you want the outcome of "they don't think they can make it" then have them make perception rolls while hidden in the bushes to judge the situation.
  314. [06:50:24] <castfromhp> But that is also subject to the risk, or SHOULD be rather, that some guard spots them regardless as they spend time thinking on that.
  315. [06:50:37] <castfromhp> After all, guards are supposed to do things like find suspicious people in bushes.
  316. [06:51:00] <Agata> Someone makes a knowledge roll to determine the veracity of suspicious documents. They fail. What happens?
  317. [06:51:02] <castfromhp> There is a trade-off between spending time assessing a situation and acting immediately and reducing your chance of being detected before even beginning your task.
  318. [06:52:00] <castfromhp> They fail to find any indication that the document is fake.
  319. [06:52:34] <castfromhp> As you can see, different scenarios result in different consequences for failure.
  320. [06:52:46] <Agata> Hold on, hold on.
  321. [06:52:46] <castfromhp> Because reality doesn't conform to set rules about what consequences for skill rolls should be.
  322. [06:52:51] <Agata> <castfromhp> They fail to find any indication that the document is fake.
  323. [06:52:57] <Agata> But do they believe that the document is real?
  324. [06:53:03] <castfromhp> That's up to them.
  325. [06:53:28] <Agata> Then will there ever be a situation where they wholeheartedly believe that the document is real?
  326. [06:53:29] <castfromhp> I'm not in the business of telling players how their characters think, outside of fetishy mind control ERP sessions, of course.
  327. [06:53:35] <Agata> (When they are, in fact, fake?)
  328. [06:54:54] <castfromhp> I will relay to the player what their character finds. Likely, if there is something in the document like a serial number or a certain watermark pattern which normally indicates authenticity that they fail to recognize as fake, they will be liable to think wholeheartedly that the document is real. However, I would not tell them what to think. A paranoid character may still suspect otherwise, while a more laid back one would simpl
  329. [06:54:55] <castfromhp> y accept what they see.
  330. [06:55:08] <Agata> The way I see the two situations above, each one is a sliding scale.
  331. [06:55:38] <Agata> You think you can make it, but you actually cannot, and you get caught <-> You do not think you can make it, and you are going to have to try another approach <-> You are confident that you can make it, and you indeed make it.
  332. [06:56:01] <Agata> You wholeheartedly believe that the fake documents are in fact real <-> You are not sure if they are real or fake <-> You see through the forgery and identify them as fake.
  333. [06:56:04] <castfromhp> Like, let's take a forged letter. The PC fails on examining it. They miss details such as slip ups in the signature, differences in the typical syntax used by the purported writer, etc. They are not, however, given positive indications the letter is real.
  334. [06:56:34] <Agata> Is there no situation where the sliding scale is moved towards "You wholeheartedly believe that the fake documents are in fact real," then?
  335. [06:56:37] <castfromhp> A second scenario - a 100 dollar bill. They see on it the watermarks they expect and fail to recognize their inauthenticity. Much more likely in this case to jump to the conclusion that it's real.
  336. [06:56:50] <castfromhp> BELIEF is not something that should be the result of a skill roll.
  337. [06:56:55] <castfromhp> Belief is up to the PCs.
  338. [06:56:57] <castfromhp> You convey to them information.
  339. [06:57:10] <castfromhp> And that information may strongly swing them one way or another, as in the dollar bill case I outlined above.
  340. [07:00:05] <Agata> So... what, you would have the skill rolls cover only pure perception?
  341. [07:01:05] <Agata> What about knowledge rolls, which do influence what the character knows and believes to be true about this and that?
  342. [07:01:07] <castfromhp> Um. Yes? I mean, if the player really wants more guidance, you can point them at the conclusion their observations tend toward.
  343. [07:01:53] <castfromhp> Well, that really depends. Recalling a historical fact? That's something that's pretty easy to put in remember correctly vs don't remember. Recalling a safe combination? Well then, you can easily recall a wrong set of numbers there.
  344. [07:02:12] <castfromhp> You can decide depending on what's dramatically appropriate and what kind of information it is.
  345. [07:02:27] <castfromhp> You don't need to make tables and charts of guidelines for everything small like this as a GM.
  346. [07:03:30] <Agata> Why are you against the "setback vs. no setback" guideline, wherein a character receives a fate point for a setback, regardless of how severe?
  347. [07:04:01] <castfromhp> Because "gain a fate point whenever something bad happens to you" is for babies and powergamers.
  348. [07:05:15] <castfromhp> It creates the same game of taking calculated losses wherein you attempt skill rolls you know you likely can't make in hopes that you can cope with the consequences and stock up points for a later victory.
  349. [07:05:20] <castfromhp> Except even WORSE.
  350. [07:05:50] <castfromhp> Because you can concoct scenarios wherein not having a setback be possible is nonsensical and force the GM to play this game with you, whereas the GM would be more in control of compels alone.
  351. [07:06:05] <castfromhp> Not every failure needs to be rewarded with a fate point.
  352. [07:06:14] <Agata> <castfromhp> Because "gain a fate point whenever something bad happens to you" is for babies and powergamers.
  353. [07:06:31] <Agata> It is not so much "whenever something bad happens to you" as it is "when your failure is magnified."
  354. [07:06:53] <castfromhp> I try to jump between buildings and fall in the gap. Do I get a fate point?
  355. [07:07:22] <Agata> Yes; if you pay up a fate point to refuse the setback, then you do not think you can make it just as you are about to jump.
  356. [07:07:40] <castfromhp> You have just recreated the compel system under a different name then. Congrats.
  357. [07:08:24] <castfromhp> I don't think all negative consequences and skill rolls should be tied into the fate point economy like that.
  358. [07:08:43] <castfromhp> If there's always an option to spend a fate point to negate a failure, then the potential for suspense and excitement in a game is significantly lessened.
  359. [07:08:55] <Agata> <castfromhp> You have just recreated the compel system under a different name then. Congrats.
  360. [07:09:00] <castfromhp> There is excitement to be found in committing to a jump and not knowing the result nor having the means to avert a failure.
  361. [07:09:05] <Agata> ... I thought you took no issue with compels that costed fate points.
  362. [07:09:40] <castfromhp> You're right, I don't. But I take issue with every possible failure being made into a compel and thus offering the option of averting the failure with a fate point.
  363. [07:10:07] <castfromhp> Compels tend to be specific to the characterization of a character, and thus they don't crop up all the time, and when they do they present interesting choices.
  364. [07:10:25] <castfromhp> Making every single roll subject to "pay a fate point, don't have a negative consequence" just makes things super bland and boring.
  365. [07:10:31] <castfromhp> There's no excitement there.
  366. [07:10:40] <Agata> <castfromhp> You're right, I don't. But I take issue with every possible failure being made into a compel and thus offering the option of averting the failure with a fate point.
  367. [07:10:53] <Agata> As opposed to wrapping it right back around to a success with a fate point?
  368. [07:10:55] <castfromhp> Unless you're at 0 fate points, there is literally no scenario in which you are unable to avert a negative consequence from your failure.
  369. [07:11:20] <Agata> <castfromhp> Making every single roll subject to "pay a fate point, don't have a negative consequence" just makes things super bland and boring.
  370. [07:11:28] <castfromhp> Read what I just said. You're turning all fate points into get out of jail free cards on any roll.
  371. [07:11:34] <castfromhp> Which is insanely dull.
  372. [07:11:35] <Agata> Last I checked, losing fate points was a significant consequence.
  373. [07:11:55] <Agata> <castfromhp> Read what I just said. You're turning all fate points into get out of jail free cards on any roll.
  374. [07:11:59] <castfromhp> Wow, you're turning the game into a calculated play of gaining and losing fate points then, instead of telling interesting stories and having exciting things happen.
  375. [07:12:14] <Agata> Which they can be; fate point for a bonus, turn that failure into a success.
  376. [07:12:53] <castfromhp> Only if an aspect of yours applies to the roll, and even then, some scenarios are just so difficult to overcome you might need multiple points.
  377. [07:13:02] <castfromhp> YOU might enjoy that, but that isn't the point of FATE, and you're going to create a game that only caters to your particular kind of player.
  378. [07:13:14] <Agata> That is sophistry; there is nothing that says, "Hey, you can use fate points to turn critical failures into not-so-bad failures," suddenly makes the game no longer about "telling interesting stories and having exciting things happen."
  379. [07:13:23] <castfromhp> Or, more likely, if anyone plays this at all, they'll simply houserule out all your asinine guidelines and you might as well save yourself the effort of not writing them.
  380. [07:13:31] <castfromhp> Incorrect.
  381. [07:13:40] <castfromhp> Your fate point expenditures are limited by your aspects you can invoke.
  382. [07:14:06] <Agata> And whatever fate points you can bring up for +1s. Remember when I proposed, "fate point = refuse a setback"?
  383. [07:14:10] <castfromhp> Not to mention there isn't a strict 1 to 1 trade of fate point to negating a failure in most cases.
  384. [07:14:21] <Agata> If anything, spending two fate points for +1s would be better off, since you are gaining a success out of it as well.
  385. [07:15:29] <Agata> There are situations where your fate points cannot cover you, of course, but then you have to spend a fate point just to turn a critically bad failure into a not-so-bad failure.
  386. [07:17:29] <castfromhp> Ugh, look, not everyone wants to play a game where they have this super safe buffer that prevents them from having to deal with severe or lasting consequences if they don't want to. There are simply going to be scenarios in which it would be an extremely high cost to improve a roll with fate points enough to make a success, and that's cool. Adding the additional option of negating negative consequences for one fate point goes too
  387. [07:17:29] <castfromhp>  far in making things safe and boring.
  388. [07:18:40] <castfromhp> If you fail to make the jump across the building, you either invoke aspects or add +1s until you have enough to make the jump, or you fall. Under your system someone could attempt multiple building jumps in different places and negate failure for all of them by paying one fate point apiece, which allows too much safety and is boring.
  389. [07:20:52] <Agata> If you miss with an attack in combat, do you get yourself hurt?
  390. [07:21:11] <Birdnise> are you really saying that combat is the same as everything else?
  391. [07:21:15] <castfromhp> Different scenarios have different consequences.
  392. [07:21:21] <castfromhp> This is not a difficult concept.
  393. [07:21:23] * Blast (baka@sux-2229B4D0.cable.virginmedia.com) has joined #MegucaIA
  394. [07:21:36] <Agata> Hold on, hold on; I am trying to gauge your standards here.
  395. [07:21:56] <Agata> If you miss with a social attack using Deceit in a social conflict, do you lose traction in the conflict?
  396. [07:22:22] <castfromhp> I don't know how your social conflict system works man.
  397. [07:22:31] <castfromhp> So I don't even know where to start with assessing that question.
  398. [07:22:44] <castfromhp> But I think I can answer all of these with "different scenarios have different consequences".
  399. [07:22:48] <Agata> Let us assume Dresden Files RPG-style social conflict for the sake of this argument.
  400. [07:23:19] <castfromhp> It sure is possible that you could do something in combat like try to activate a close proximity bomb and get away before it explodes where you might hurt yourself if you fail to get away quickly enough.
  401. [07:23:29] <Agata> How do players determine those? How does a player know whether or not to risk rolling a knowledge skill to see what their character knows? After all, the GM might suddenly spring on them, "You failed. You get false information."
  402. [07:23:31] <castfromhp> It also sure is possible you just swing your sword and simply miss if you fail.
  403. [07:24:48] <castfromhp> By using common sense? If I'm jumping a building, if I fail that'll probably be bad. If I'm jumping a fence, not so much. If I'm recalling a safe combination under duress and an incorrect entry may result in the safe exploding? Man I'd better be careful. If I'm just trying to remember who was king during a war someone brought up in conversation? Eh, not so much.
  404. [07:25:04] <castfromhp> Or, you know, the GM can be open with communicating the stakes for a given action.
  405. [07:25:21] <castfromhp> "You're aware you're 5 stories up and if you miss this jump you're gonna fall and hurt yourself badly, right?"
  406. [07:25:40] <castfromhp> Communication does wonders in a hobby based around...oh, communication.
  407. [07:27:20] <Agata> And my original question?
  408. [07:27:24] <Agata> How does a player know whether or not to risk rolling a knowledge skill to see what their character knows? After all, the GM might suddenly spring on them, "You failed. You get false information."
  409. [07:29:23] <castfromhp> I outlined that above. It generally is not too hard to know when you might mix up something easily, like the position of two letters in a combination, and when whether or not you know something is largely subject to the rule of knowing it or not knowing it.
  410. [07:29:34] <Agata> There is always the potential to misremember.
  411. [07:29:38] <Agata> How do you adjudicate that?
  412. [07:29:38] <castfromhp> Or if the GM chooses it can be a matter of failure by degrees.
  413. [07:30:27] <castfromhp> Well, sometimes you just don't know for sure! and that's fine. But generally I think GMs don't tend to make their PCs misremember unless it's clearly a probable outcome or if they fail rather badly.
  414. [07:30:48] <Agata> Then why not use the standard guideline for "Fail by this much: a critical failure that actually sets you back, compared to if you had not rolled at all" for most skill rolls?
  415. [07:30:50] <castfromhp> You act as if there should be gudielines for every single thing a GM does.
  416. [07:30:52] <castfromhp> And that's wrong.
  417. [07:31:01] <Agata> I mean, you could even apply that to the jumping a building example above.
  418. [07:31:15] <castfromhp> Because when it comes to certain scenarios, sometimes it just makes sense for the failure to be bad.
  419. [07:31:28] <castfromhp> And in other scenarios it doesn't make sense for even the worst of rolls to result in a "critical failure".
  420. [07:31:49] <castfromhp> GMs have to be flexible, and you're trying to create guidelines that ultimately will be useless compared to just saying "judge it based on the scenario".
  421. [07:32:09] <Agata> <castfromhp> You act as if there should be gudielines for every single thing a GM does.
  422. [07:32:15] <Agata> Apocalypse World does, actually.
  423. [07:32:28] <castfromhp> And?
  424. [07:32:30] <Agata> And it has spawned several spinoffs such as Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week, and so on.
  425. [07:32:40] <castfromhp> Okay.
  426. [07:32:45] <Agata> Why not implement such a guideline for adjudicating failures?
  427. [07:32:47] <castfromhp> FATAL also exists. Let's emulate that, shall we?
  428. [07:32:57] <Agata> That is not quite a shining star of narrative games, on the other hand.
  429. [07:33:01] <castfromhp> What does a fate point add to my anal circumfrence roll?
  430. [07:33:17] <castfromhp> Can I be compelled to take the loose vagina trait?
  431. [07:33:29] <Agata> You do not have access to fate points during character creation itself.
  432. [07:34:44] <castfromhp> In other news, I actually don't like Dungeon World much from what I've seen of it, and that's the only one of those systems I'm familiar with, I'm afraid. But instead of making arguments from authority, why not simply assess these ideas on their own merits?
  433. [07:34:54] <castfromhp> "It was done in Apocalypse World" does nothing to tell me why this is a good idea.
  434. [07:35:54] <Agata> Let us have a look at how Dungeon World handles a fairly simple task: shooting something.
  435. [07:36:08] <Agata> Volley
  436. [07:36:08] <Agata> When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. On a 10+ you have a clear shot—deal your damage. On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
  437. [07:36:08] <Agata> *You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger of the GM’s choice
  438. [07:36:08] <Agata> *You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
  439. [07:36:08] <Agata> *You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one.
  440. [07:36:31] <Agata> If you roll 6 or below, that is considered a miss. As is the standard rule for such things, the GM can respond with a GM move, a dungeon move, or a monster move.
  441. [07:37:14] <Agata> Clear guidelines on what a success does, on what a failure does (or, depending on how you look at it, a costly success), and what an extreme failure does.
  442. [07:38:23] <Agata> Why should it be so difficult to set guidelines on what sort of roll results in failures that set you back with the GM springing something on you?
  443. [07:38:28] <castfromhp> I think GMs should feel more free to decide that particular scenarios give different results.
  444. [07:38:40] <castfromhp> I don't think all instances of shooting something are the same, for instance.
  445. [07:39:06] <castfromhp> I shouldn't expect the same consequences for different actions is why, or the same relative level of risk for different actions.
  446. [07:39:10] <Agata> Fail by X, you do not succeed, but you do not get significantly set back either. Fail by Y, if the circumstance allows it, the GM is free to spring a setback onto you.
  447. [07:39:23] <castfromhp> I find games like Dungeon World approach the level of being board games far too much.
  448. [07:39:44] <castfromhp> Because sometimes the value for Y must change between scenarios and rolls.
  449. [07:39:59] <castfromhp> So you might as well just say that it depends on the scenario wheher or not a significant consequence is possible.
  450. [07:40:12] <Agata> That is what "If the circumstance allows it" is for.
  451. [07:40:29] <Agata> If the circumstance does not really allow for a failure with a significant setback, then a failure... does not result in a significant setback.
  452. [07:41:13] <castfromhp> Right, but what about two scenarios that allow for a significant setback as you'd put it but logically should have different levels of risk for causing that?
  453. [07:41:49] <castfromhp> Point is, let the GMs set their DCs and decide consequences. If they cannot do that much, then they shoudln't be in the GMing business anyhow.
  454. [07:42:10] <Agata> <castfromhp> Right, but what about two scenarios that allow for a significant setback as you'd put it but logically should have different levels of risk for causing that?
  455. [07:42:12] <Agata> Such as...?
  456. [07:42:29] <castfromhp> Hahaha are you fucking serious?
  457. [07:42:30] <Birdnise> leaping a building and leaping off a cliff
  458. [07:42:42] <Agata> Fail by X, you do not think you can make it.
  459. [07:42:49] <Agata> Fail by Y, you leap off and do not make it.
  460. [07:42:57] <Agata> Where is the issue here?
  461. [07:43:00] <castfromhp> Scaling a building with rope and hook, scaling a building through acrobatics and grabbing ledges.
  462. [07:43:25] <castfromhp> Remove "you do not think you can make it" as a result from skill checks that aren't "I assess whether or not I can do X"
  463. [07:43:44] <castfromhp> If you're making an athletics check, you are doing something athletic. You are not assessing the situation.
  464. [07:44:03] <castfromhp> Assessment is its own skill and has its own costs of time and should have its own check accordingly.
  465. [07:44:07] <castfromhp> Sometimes you go into an action blindly.
  466. [07:44:08] <Agata> ... not necessarily? For the same reason that Art also covers art knowledge, Weapons also covers Weapons knowledge, etc.
  467. [07:44:28] <Agata> I do not see why perception with regards to a skill's purview should not fall under that skill.
  468. [07:44:41] <Agata> <castfromhp> Scaling a building with rope and hook, scaling a building through acrobatics and grabbing ledges.
  469. [07:44:43] <castfromhp> Okay, but if you're being chased, you don't usually have the time to assess whether or not you can make a jump. You just do it and hope for the best.
  470. [07:45:02] <Agata> The former does not have a circumstance that justifies a significant setback for the most part; the latter does.
  471. [07:45:53] <castfromhp> REALLY?
  472. [07:46:04] <Agata> I do not see how there is no room for the "You are about to make a jump, but you hesitate--you do not think you can make it" scenario there.
  473. [07:46:04] <castfromhp> You mean it's impossible to slip and fall if you have a hook and rope?
  474. [07:46:08] <castfromhp> No, it is merely less likely.
  475. [07:46:32] <castfromhp> You'd make that check separate from the check to actually jump, I'd say.
  476. [07:46:38] <castfromhp> Regardless of whether they use the same skill or not.
  477. [07:47:00] <castfromhp> You could assess that as you approach the jump, but then you commit to attempting it or not attempting it, and you accept the consequences thereof.
  478. [07:47:13] <castfromhp> There are no takebacksies to save your character from suffering consequences.
  479. [07:49:09] <Agata> <castfromhp> No, it is merely less likely.
  480. [07:49:26] <Agata> That is a fair point, but in that case, why not just set a threshold for critical failures then?
  481. [07:49:44] <Agata> <castfromhp> You could assess that as you approach the jump, but then you commit to attempting it or not attempting it, and you accept the consequences thereof.
  482. [07:49:44] <Agata> <castfromhp> There are no takebacksies to save your character from suffering consequences.
  483. [07:50:05] <Agata> I do not see how "You do not think you can make the jump; but you are being chased, so you are probably getting caught" is not a valid consequence.
  484. [07:50:05] <castfromhp> Because GMs should just set degress of failure and their consequences depending on the scenario for the skill check.
  485. [07:50:17] <castfromhp> If they cannot do this without guidelines telling them exactly what numbers to use, they should not GM.
  486. [07:50:40] <Agata> I do not see what is so unreasonable about a critical failure threshold.
  487. [07:50:43] <castfromhp> It's not an appropriate consequence for that character's action. The action is jumping.
  488. [07:51:02] <castfromhp> Sure, you can write one in, but saying that's the ONLY way a failure ever results in a negative consequence is dumb.
  489. [07:51:09] <castfromhp> You might fall particularly badly in that case.
  490. [07:51:22] <castfromhp> But if you don't fail by that one same threshold that you set, I don't see why that would preclude you from falling.
  491. [07:51:41] <Agata> <castfromhp> It's not an appropriate consequence for that character's action. The action is jumping.
  492. [07:51:59] <Agata> You jump and do not make it <-> You do not think you can make it <-> You jump and make it.
  493. [07:52:20] <castfromhp> Look man, if they're jumping, the player made a conscious decision to say their character is taking that leap and accepting the chance and consequences of failure.
  494. [07:52:38] <castfromhp> It is downright disrespectful of you to tell them "no you don't actually try to jump, because you don't think you'll make it".
  495. [07:52:44] <Lorelei> I think I might scroll up and count how many times that point was blatantly explained, actually.
  496. [07:52:58] <Lorelei> Just so we can get a good estimate on how many times it needs to be repeated to be smashed in.
  497. [07:53:07] <Agata> <castfromhp> Look man, if they're jumping, the player made a conscious decision to say their character is taking that leap and accepting the chance and consequences of failure.
  498. [07:53:10] <castfromhp> They did not roll to ask you to decide for them if their character jumps.
  499. [07:53:14] <castfromhp> They rolled to see how well they jumped.
  500. [07:53:41] <Agata> "Make an Athletics roll to see if you can jump."
  501. [07:53:51] <Agata> "Oh, you failed by 1. Well, you do not think you can make the jump. Do you want to jump anyway?"
  502. [07:54:09] <Lorelei> How... Why are you still trying to argue this?  The point was just clearly explained right there.
  503. [07:54:19] <Lorelei> Once they've rolled, they HAVE jumped.  The decision to complete.
  504. [07:54:25] <Lorelei> It's done.  They're mid-jump.
  505. [07:54:39] <castfromhp> You shouldn't even tell me that I don't think I can make it. Unless you're saying I realize that mid-jump as I'm watching the ground quickly approach my face.
  506. [07:54:48] <castfromhp> I have made the decision to jump.
  507. [07:55:02] <Lorelei> ... And to be fair narrating it that way would actually be pretty hilarious!
  508. [07:55:02] <castfromhp> You are disrespecting that decision by giving me the chance to retcon it.
  509. [07:55:10] <castfromhp> And creating a boring safety net for me in the process.
  510. [07:55:34] <Agata> So you are saying that in this case, you would rather have all-or-nothing success, with nothing in between?
  511. [07:55:40] <castfromhp> Once an action is committed to, it is exciting to not know what the outcome will be for a moment. Going back in time and saying "well, you can choose not to have done that" is dull.
  512. [07:55:55] <Lorelei> Uh, if that's the way you want to phrase it, YES?
  513. [07:56:19] <castfromhp> Not really, no. If I fail to jump between buildings, I can fail by a small amount and grab something on the way down. Or I can fail by a larger amount and splat. But it IS all or nothing in the sense that I either make it to the other side, or I don't.
  514. [07:56:27] <castfromhp> But the key there is either way, I have jumped.
  515. [07:56:39] <castfromhp> And there is no logical outcome to the skill roll that results in having reverted that choice to jump.
  516. [07:57:03] <Agata> Let us see how Dungeon World handles this, for the sake of checking alternatives.
  517. [07:57:16] <Agata> Defy Danger
  518. [07:57:16] <Agata> When you act despite an imminent threat or suffer a calamity, say how you deal with it and roll. If you do it…
  519. [07:57:16] <Agata> …by powering through, +Str
  520. [07:57:16] <Agata> …by getting out of the way or acting fast, +Dex
  521. [07:57:16] <Agata> …by enduring, +Con
  522. [07:57:16] <Agata> …with quick thinking, +Int
  523. [07:57:16] <Agata> …through mental fortitude, +Wis
  524. [07:57:16] <Agata> …using charm and social grace, +Cha
  525. [07:57:16] <Agata> On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.
  526. [07:57:47] <Agata> Jumping from one building to another to avoid pursuers is probably going to be +Str or +Dex. So, on a 10+, you succeed.
  527. [07:58:03] <Agata> On a 6+, you fail, and the GM is probably responding with the "deal damage" move with a significant amount of damage.
  528. [07:58:04] <castfromhp> See, that's the problem here.
  529. [07:58:09] <Agata> On a 6-, rather.
  530. [07:58:09] <castfromhp> I think that way of resolving it is dumb.
  531. [07:58:17] <castfromhp> Referring to it, or saying that another system does it, is not gonna change that.
  532. [07:58:30] <castfromhp> I don't like the idea that a possible outcome is "you hesitate and don't do what you said you did".
  533. [07:58:54] <castfromhp> Or that it plays out in a boardgame-like manner of "your GM offers you these concrete choices".
  534. [07:59:00] <Agata> And I likewise disapprove of the notion that such a situation would be all-or-nothing; surely there has to be some middle ground in what can happen.
  535. [07:59:14] <castfromhp> Sure, the middle ground though depends on the player's agency.
  536. [07:59:20] <castfromhp> Or rather, the other possibilites do.
  537. [07:59:25] <castfromhp> If they choose to assess their jump, then they do so.
  538. [07:59:35] <castfromhp> If they choose not to assess the jump and make it blindly regardless, then that's their choice as well.
  539. [07:59:45] <castfromhp> FORCING them to take the action in the steps you outline is just bad design.
  540. [07:59:52] <castfromhp> There is still room for degrees of failure, like I've noted above.
  541. [08:00:19] <castfromhp> Someone can aim their fall at an awning, or grab something on the way down. They could fail terribly and splat on the ground. There are manifold possiblities there.
  542. [08:00:19] <Agata> (Remind me to run Monsterhearts for this channel one day; it is high school vampires/angels/demons using Apocalypse World's ruleset and ethos, and I think it would be interesting for me to try GMing under that style.)
  543. [08:01:26] <Agata> <castfromhp> If they choose not to assess the jump and make it blindly regardless, then that's their choice as well.
  544. [08:01:26] <Agata> <castfromhp> FORCING them to take the action in the steps you outline is just bad design.
  545. [08:01:34] <castfromhp> If you want an outcome of hesitating to be an option, well, the player can roll for assessment. Sometimes though, it's very in-character to make a jump blindly. If you're under duress, sometimes you don't think things through.
  546. [08:01:39] <Agata> "Hard bargains" and "ugly choices" does not quite seem like forcing things to me.
  547. [08:01:42] <castfromhp> I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
  548. [08:01:48] <castfromhp> No.
  549. [08:02:16] <castfromhp> You are forcing them to back down from their action, or you are forcing them to have assessed an action that they wished to undertake blindly, likely for the effect of suspense or excitement.
  550. [08:02:38] <castfromhp> So you're basically interfering with someone's fun for the sake of wankery and being trendy with your fancy storygame mechanics.
  551. [08:03:08] * Botherer (Botherer@13DF692.FAEA8C38.1A1318BB.IP) has joined #MegucaIA
  552. [08:03:29] <Agata> Offering a choice of "You can make it across, but it is going to cost you" is worse than saying, "Well, you do not make it across, so you fall"?
  553. [08:03:58] <Birdnise> No, saying 'you don't actually make the jump, you decide to sit on your ass and think about it for a while' is
  554. [08:04:41] <castfromhp> In addition to what Anise said, I'm actually going to say yes that is worse.
  555. [08:04:44] <Agata> It is not so much "sitting on your ass and thinking about it for a while" as it is flinching and realizing that you cannot make it. Sure, you can go ahead with it anyway.
  556. [08:05:00] <castfromhp> Because I think that goes too far in the direction of giving players narrative control, if they always have the option of paying a price to make themselves succeed.
  557. [08:05:56] <castfromhp> But then we're getting into a little bit more sujective territory in design, but I think if you're designing things in a very GURPS/Strands/whatever toolkit system kind of way, but then you include that kind of narrative control, you're going to alienate one crowd of players or another.
  558. [08:06:00] <Agata> I think it is significantly more interesting than just a straight-up "You fail spectacularly."
  559. [08:06:20] <castfromhp> I don't! I like the idea that I can commit to an action that will then be totally out of my control after I commit.
  560. [08:06:35] <castfromhp> If every action came with the caveat that I could then pay a cost to succeed anyway, then things can get dull.
  561. [08:06:53] <Agata> I would think that they have to be costly, and the more you fail your roll by, the costlier they have to be.
  562. [08:07:20] <Birdnise> Then it's back to the game of calculated risks and stockpiling fate points
  563. [08:07:25] <castfromhp> ^
  564. [08:07:42] <Agata> I do not quite see how.
  565. [08:08:45] <castfromhp> Because instead of approaching challenges in the vein of...well, challenges, you're gonna start seeing them as a measured way of spending a scarce resource to manage failures and successes and still reach your desired outcome.
  566. [08:09:28] <Agata> What are fate points for, if not gaining bonuses to things you want to gain bonuses to, and to influence the narrative as you see fit?
  567. [08:09:46] <castfromhp> There's that, where your bonuses are largely tied to character aspects.
  568. [08:10:11] <castfromhp> And then there's playing a game of weighing costs and benefits for every single skill roll you make that carries potential negative consequences.
  569. [08:10:41] <Agata> Did you not say that it would be more interesting if players had to weigh costs and benefits depending on the method used?
  570. [08:10:45] <castfromhp> One is restrained and the other is not.
  571. [08:10:51] <castfromhp> Yes, but that is an IC choice.
  572. [08:11:16] <Agata> It extends out of game as well, as with the guile/finesse example you were using above.
  573. [08:11:20] <castfromhp> This is an entirely OOC choice of where you can afford to give yourself consequences and choosing scenarios in a very meta way.
  574. [08:11:27] <castfromhp> How so?
  575. [08:11:32] <castfromhp> That example is entirely IC.
  576. [08:11:52] <castfromhp> I'm good at lockpicking, but I don't wanna go to jail. I'll risk what I know is gonna be a worse chance of getting in by just trying to sweet talk.
  577. [08:11:54] <castfromhp> Entirely IC
  578. [08:12:15] <Agata> And... that extends out of character as well. You know your character has high finesse and so on.
  579. [08:12:37] <castfromhp> Vs I rolled badly, but now I can choose to fall or I can choose to pay a cost to still get across. Well, this is entirely OOC but let me weigh my costs and benefits of taking the fall now or paying the cost and going forward.
  580. [08:12:45] <castfromhp> No, see, in the former case it is POSSIBLE to make that choice IC.
  581. [08:12:48] <castfromhp> In the latter it is IMPOSSIBLE.
  582. [08:12:59] <castfromhp> You never have the IC choice of "do I fall or do I make it across with a cost?"
  583. [08:13:04] <castfromhp> That is ENTIRELY OOC and meta.
  584. [08:13:06] <Agata> I do not quite see the issue with paying significant costs in exchange for succeeding.
  585. [08:13:07] <castfromhp> And it breaks immersion.
  586. [08:13:18] <castfromhp> The choice of whether or not to pay that cost is entirely meta is the problem.
  587. [08:13:26] <Agata> It is an interesting method of keeping a story going, particularly in segments wherein your character 12has to succeed.
  588. [08:13:46] <castfromhp> FATE does a very good job of being actually rather restrained with player control of narrative, but your method is entirely whack and injects player control of narrative where it shouldn't be.
  589. [08:14:09] <Agata> ... FATE actually suggests this in the Dresden Files RPG.
  590. [08:14:13] <Agata> 3>We call this “Success, but…” because it takes the form of “You succeed, but here’s a complication you have to deal with because you failed the roll.”
  591. [08:14:14] <castfromhp> You aren't entitled to success, no matter how much you might have gotten used to that in Mirror Maiden.
  592. [08:14:19] <castfromhp> Again, argument from authority.
  593. [08:14:20] <castfromhp> Fuck that.
  594. [08:14:29] <castfromhp> I don't do every single thing the DFRPG pdf tells me to do.
  595. [08:14:32] <Agata> <castfromhp> FATE does a very good job of being actually rather restrained with player control of narrative, but your method is entirely whack and injects player control of narrative where it shouldn't be.
  596. [08:14:42] <castfromhp> That can happen in select circumstances sure, but it shouldn't be a STANDARD.
  597. [08:14:55] <Agata> So it "does a very good job of being actually rather restrained with player control of narrative," only... it does not?
  598. [08:15:59] <Birdnise> not in the hands of someone who's determined to turn it into a numbers game where they have no chance of suffering lasting consequences
  599. [08:16:33] <castfromhp> Uh, >implying DFRPG is the only FATE implementation >implying all suggestions like that have to be part of a FATE game >implying that is used as a standard  for all skill rolls >implying the pdf authors meant for that to be an option in literally every case etc etc etc
  600. [08:16:45] <castfromhp> I think that's a special case thing man.
  601. [08:16:57] <castfromhp> Not something to be available on every roll.
  602. [08:17:08] <castfromhp> And it's boring if it's available on every roll.
  603. [08:17:14] <Agata> I am not saying a player should always be entitled to "success at a cost."
  604. [08:17:24] <Agata> If the GM can think of one, then the GM should certainly present the option.
  605. [08:18:16] <castfromhp> Sure
  606. [08:18:17] <castfromhp> Just
  607. [08:18:22] <castfromhp> Don't make that a standard part of skill checks pls
  608. [08:18:25] <castfromhp> It's an option
  609. [08:18:28] <castfromhp> Not a default
  610. [08:18:38] <castfromhp> And one to be exercised rarely, lest it lose its impact
  611. [08:18:48] <Agata> If the GM can think of one, I do not see why it should not be offered.
  612. [08:18:51] <Agata> <Birdnise> not in the hands of someone who's determined to turn it into a numbers game where they have no chance of suffering lasting consequences
  613. [08:19:05] <Agata> I also do not see how it becomes a numbers game when the possibility for success at a cost arises.
  614. [08:19:55] <castfromhp> If it's offered every time, then it's just boring.
  615. [08:20:09] <castfromhp> It should be offered up occasionally, when it's a truly devious sort of choice the player has to make.
  616. [08:22:14] <Agata> <castfromhp> If it's offered every time, then it's just boring.
  617. [08:22:15] <Agata> How is making difficult choices on a regular basis boring?
  618. [08:23:15] <castfromhp> Because at some point they become routine.
  619. [08:23:22] <castfromhp> It's like adding too much of a spice to a dish.
  620. [08:23:31] <castfromhp> Or eating foie gras everyday instead of on special occasions.
  621. [08:24:21] <Agata> As opposed to... just plain failing every time instead, with no option to influence the story towards a different outcome?
  622. [08:25:00] <Birdnise> again
  623. [08:25:08] <Birdnise> is your system built to ensure failure on skill rolls
  624. [08:25:47] <Agata> No.
  625. [08:25:52] <Agata> Why do you ask that?
  626. [08:26:12] <Birdnise> because every time you argue against these things you keep on saying 'failing every time'
  627. [08:26:22] <castfromhp> You have fate points to spend
  628. [08:26:22] <Birdnise> as if that's the default assumption in dresdens
  629. [08:26:25] <castfromhp> If you want to increase your roll
  630. [08:26:29] <Birdnise> that you won't succeed unless you spend to do it
  631. [08:26:30] <castfromhp> And if you have the aspects to call upon to do so
  632. [08:26:41] <castfromhp> You don't need to add even more in the way of mechanics to give yourself hard choices.
  633. [08:26:53] <castfromhp> In fact, if fate points are so so so valuable as you say, isn't spending them that hard choice that you want already?
  634. [08:26:57] <castfromhp> There's no need to add more.
  635. [08:27:07] <Agata> <castfromhp> You have fate points to spend
  636. [08:27:08] <Agata> <Birdnise> as if that's the default assumption in dresdens
  637. [08:27:08] <Agata> <castfromhp> If you want to increase your roll
  638. [08:27:08] <Agata> <Birdnise> that you won't succeed unless you spend to do it
  639. [08:27:12] <castfromhp> And they're restrained enough in use that you can only use them efficiently if you have the aspects to do so.
  640. [08:27:20] <Agata> It is not the default assumption in the Dresden Files RPG, and it is not the default assumption here either.
  641. [08:27:25] <Birdnise> then why
  642. [08:27:26] <Birdnise> every
  643. [08:27:27] <Birdnise> single
  644. [08:27:27] <Birdnise> time
  645. [08:27:41] <Birdnise> you argue against these things it's in the context of complete failure
  646. [08:27:52] <Birdnise> you burn down the house and poison the guest every time
  647. [08:27:59] <Birdnise> you just plain fail every time
  648. [08:28:02] <Agata> ... those are examples of extreme compels.
  649. [08:28:05] <Agata> Not failures.
  650. [08:28:17] <Agata> Different topic entirely.
  651. [08:28:22] <Birdnise> [09:20:41] <Agata> As opposed to... just plain failing every time instead, with no option to influence the story towards a different outcome?
  652. [08:28:27] <Birdnise> we're not talking about compels here
  653. [08:28:31] <Agata> Context:
  654. [08:28:41] <Agata> <castfromhp> If it's offered every time, then it's just boring.
  655. [08:29:13] <Agata> If anything, by this logic, castfromhp is the one saying that you fail every time and thus you are presented with "success, but at a cost."
  656. [08:29:19] <Agata> Which is not the case in this conversation.
  657. [08:29:22] <castfromhp> What?
  658. [08:29:33] <castfromhp> I'm saying if it's offered every time you fail that's bad, not that you WILL fail every time.
  659. [08:29:37] <castfromhp> That's quite a very clear difference.
  660. [08:29:41] <Agata> You are not.
  661. [08:29:44] <Agata> I was saying that you were not.
  662. [08:29:44] <castfromhp> You HAVE the fate points mechanic.
  663. [08:29:53] <Agata> Anise is saying that I was saying that characters fail all the time.
  664. [08:29:54] <castfromhp> Why do you need ANOTHER mechanic for this?
  665. [08:30:08] <Agata> Another mechanic for... what now?
  666. [08:30:13] <Agata> I believe we have lost the train of conversation here.
  667. [08:30:17] <castfromhp> Why do you insist on making some horrifying Frankenstein monster of trendy game mechanics instead of something streamlined that works?
  668. [08:30:32] <castfromhp> Another mechanic for ensuring players have an influence on the narrative.
  669. [08:31:04] <Agata> Would you say that the Dresden Files RPG's mechanics for fate points and skill rolls work?
  670. [08:32:07] <castfromhp> I'm not gonna commit to an absolute answer here, cause you're just gonna dig up some technicality or small detail and try to have a "gotcha!" moment if I do. But I think that in general a fate point economy tied to aspects is sufficient narrative control, and may even be too much at times.
  671. [08:32:50] <castfromhp> Adding on top of that Apocalypse World/Dungeon World mechanics only overcomplicates things and sends the amount of narrative control over acceptable fun levels.
  672. [08:34:30] <Agata> I have to disagree; clear guidelines on degrees of success and failure tend to be a good thing, and offering players choices between failure or success at a great cost tends to be more interesting than handing out only failure.
  673. [08:35:16] <castfromhp> I think degrees of success and failure are variable depending on the situation, and if you make guidelines they will be unable to cover the full gamut of situations that come up in a game.
  674. [08:35:34] <castfromhp> Furthermore, you really dilute the effectiveness of forcing hard choices if every single skill failure results in that kind of choice.
  675. [08:40:35] <castfromhp> You really are just cobbling together a bunch of ideas from different games without seeing how the reason these ideas work is due to their contexts and the way they mesh with other mechanics in those games. Simply putting a ton of good ideas together in one place does not create a good game system, and you're just gonna end up with a mess.
  676. [08:48:06] <Agata> "What happens when you fail a skill roll?
  677. [08:48:06] <Agata> "In most cases, you will not get to accomplish what you set out to do. You do not recall any additional information about the topic the NPC brought up, you cannot tell if the documents are real or fake, you do not sway the mood of the room with your song, you do not find any clues in the chamber.
  678. [08:48:06] <Agata> "Sometimes, the GM will decide that the failure sets you back, and bad things will befall you because of your failure. This happens when the circumstances make failure have harsh consequences, when you roll severely low, or both; the GM is the one who decides if the current situation make your failure set you back.
  679. [08:48:18] <Agata> "You get caught sneaking or stealing, your attempt at charming words falls flat and offends an NPC, your bluff gets called and the NPC is extremely displeased, you recall the wrong combination of highly confusing and visually similar glyphs.
  680. [08:48:18] <Agata> "On rarer occasions, the GM might offer you a tough choice: fail as usual (perhaps with substantial consequences given pressing circumstances and/or a very low roll), or succeed at a grave cost.
  681. [08:48:21] <Agata> "The GM usually the one who makes such an offer, but if you have an idea for what kind of dire cost your character might pay in order to succeed, feel free to voice it out. The GM can always veto it if it is unreasonable, and you should come up with such an offer only as sporadically as the GM does.
  682. [08:48:21] <Agata> "Alternatively, if you have fate points to spend and perhaps an aspect to invoke, you can turn your failure into a success if you can boost the skill roll result to meet or exceed the difficulty. This is one of the prime usages of fate points, and you should definitely consider keeping some in store to bail yourself out of a failure when you really need to."
  683. [08:50:06] <Agata> If this extreme compromise does not satiate your sensibilities, I do not know what will.
  684. [08:50:49] <Agata> Also:
  685. [08:50:51] <Agata> <castfromhp> Furthermore, you really dilute the effectiveness of forcing hard choices if every single skill failure results in that kind of choice.
  686. [08:51:14] <Agata> <Agata> I am not saying a player should always be entitled to "success at a cost."
  687. [08:51:14] <Agata> <Agata> If the GM can think of one, then the GM should certainly present the option.
  688. [08:52:06] <Agata> <castfromhp> I think degrees of success and failure are variable depending on the situation, and if you make guidelines they will be unable to cover the full gamut of situations that come up in a game.
  689. [08:52:06] <castfromhp> That looks pretty reasonable now yeah.
  690. [08:52:52] <Agata> Guidelines: The more you fail by, the more likely the GM is going to say that causes a setback.
  691. [08:53:20] <Agata> The more you succeed by, well, degrees of success are not anywhere as hard to adjudicate as degrees of failure; succeeding by a significant amount just means you did the action superlatively.
  692. [08:53:29] <Agata> (Which does have direct effects in combat, at least.)
  693. [08:55:01] <Agata> I do think that there is room for a "You do not think you can pull it off" mechanic, however.
  694. [08:55:31] <Agata> Perhaps a power for having an uncanny ability to judge your own abilities and circumstances.
  695. [08:55:36] <castfromhp> I mean, that just means making a skill check for assessment most of the time.
  696. [08:56:09] <castfromhp> Which people tend to do, even if not labeled explicitly as such. "How big is that gap?" "How slippery does the ice look?" etc
  697. [08:56:13] <Agata> Not... really? I am speaking more of the safety net to start with.
  698. [08:56:49] <Agata> This would make it built into certain types of actions.
  699. [08:57:02] <castfromhp> I mean, sure some sort of supernatural power if you want.
  700. [08:57:45] <Agata> You get an automatic assessment that you cannot pull it off if you... let us say, fail by only 1 or 2. It would be a potent power for sure, so, more of a specialized version of one of those common sense-type powers that some games offer.
  701. [09:01:15] <Agata> So, with this in mind?
  702. [09:01:55] <Agata> Fate points are probably going back to "no cost to refuse by default," since now there is potential for penalties for failure by default.
  703. [09:02:19] <castfromhp> For compels?
  704. [09:02:27] <castfromhp> Compels are totally separate from skill checks man.
  705. [09:02:40] <castfromhp> I don't see the connection here.
  706. [09:03:05] <Agata> Then let us go back: What are your arguments in favor of making compels cost a fate point to refuse?
  707. [09:04:03] <castfromhp> So the problems that would come up for a character due to their aspects can't summarily be dismissed in every case ever?
  708. [09:04:46] <Agata> And... if you do not dismiss them, you gain fate points for it.
  709. [09:04:49] <Agata> What is the issue here?
  710. [09:05:07] <castfromhp> If fate points are the currency by which players influence narrative to go differently than it would without their influence, then the cost of resisting a compel is the cost paid to force the narrative to away from the natural direction the character's aspects would take it.
  711. [09:06:01] <castfromhp> If a character is constantly resisting compels, it should not only not add to their fate pool count but actively drain it over time so they cannot maintain that resistance indefinitely.
  712. [09:06:18] <Agata> Well, in that case, why give a fate point for accepting a compel to start with?
  713. [09:06:27] <Agata> After all, they are flaws, right?
  714. [09:08:18] <castfromhp> And generally in RPGs flaws give some reward when they come up or when they're taken. I don't see how this is strange. By going along with the narrative in a way that inconveniences your character you get a fate point.
  715. [09:09:26] <Agata> Okay, and should going along with the narrative to get a fate point not be good enough a reward?
  716. [09:10:56] <castfromhp> What do you mean? That IS what happens. You take a compel and get a fate point. I simply also think that resisting compels should COST one, as a player shouldn't be able to stave off the complications from their character's aspects indefinitely. And the only way to do that is to make it have an actual cost on their current resources, not simply giving up a future reward.
  717. [09:12:25] <Agata> So there should be not only a carrot, but a stick as well?
  718. [09:12:47] <Agata> The stick is making the option to resist the compel severely less appealing, to the point wherein it is a poor choice most of th time.
  719. [09:12:50] <Agata> Most of the time, rather.
  720. [09:13:22] <castfromhp> More practically speaking, it creates a finite limit on how often one can resist a compel.
  721. [09:14:18] <castfromhp> I don't really differentiate here. They're both forms of incentives. I would say it's carrot vs stick only if one were a mechanism for punishing a player after the fact. but I think that's semantics.
  722. [09:14:45] <Agata> Under the "no cost to refuse a compel" style ala Strands of Fate, sure, you can resist compels. However, you do not gain those precious fate points in exchange.
  723. [09:14:50] <castfromhp> The crux of the issue is whether or not it's possible to indefinitely stave off compels.
  724. [09:15:03] <Agata> I consider it a stick because it makes resisting a compel cause a net loss.
  725. [09:15:26] <castfromhp> Does that make everything that expends scarce resources a stick?
  726. [09:15:45] <castfromhp> I fail to see why a stick is bad in and of itself anyway.
  727. [09:15:52] <Agata> <castfromhp> Does that make everything that expends scarce resources a stick?
  728. [09:15:55] <Agata> No, not quite.
  729. [09:16:05] <castfromhp> GMs routinely threaten PCs with consequences.
  730. [09:16:07] <Agata> Refusing a compel causes a net loss though, which is certainly a stick.
  731. [09:16:48] <Agata> It creates a "profitable" option and a "not so profitable" option, which I feel is bad when you are trying to present options and one is better than the other in the vast majority of cases.
  732. [09:16:59] <Agata> And by "not so profitable," I mean "actually causes a net loss."
  733. [09:17:42] <castfromhp> Isn't the point of compels supposed to be that you take them most of the time sicne they're in line with your character concept, and you choose to resist them only occasionally when it really matters that you can?
  734. [09:18:00] <castfromhp> I see compels as inherently asymmetrical in nature, so there's no problem there.
  735. [09:18:20] <castfromhp> You SHOULD have a harder time acting out of line with your aspects than acting in line with them.
  736. [09:18:25] <castfromhp> Otherwise, why even bother with aspects?
  737. [09:18:54] <castfromhp> Why define a character if it's so trivial to act outside the narrative that's guided by the traits of that character?
  738. [09:19:01] <Agata> <castfromhp> Isn't the point of compels supposed to be that you take them most of the time sicne they're in line with your character concept, and you choose to resist them only occasionally when it really matters that you can?
  739. [09:19:34] <Agata> Not... exactly? I feel that taking a compel and not taking a compel should both be perfectly valid choices, with neither being, how to put it, "better than the other in the vast majority of cases."
  740. [09:20:27] <Agata> <castfromhp> Why define a character if it's so trivial to act outside the narrative that's guided by the traits of that character?
  741. [09:20:32] <castfromhp> I disagree. Resisting a compel is essentially acting against a character's defined nature, and so it should inherently be more difficult. You're defining a character with your aspects. Making it trivial to ignore them is bad.
  742. [09:20:34] <castfromhp> This is simple.
  743. [09:20:57] <Agata> Because then you have the guidelines for what flaws you can highlight and gain character resources for it.
  744. [09:21:32] <castfromhp> The point of flaws isn't to treat them as a means of gaining resources though. You're confusing means and end here.
  745. [09:21:56] <castfromhp> The end is an interesting narrative. The mechanics are means toward that. You don't shape things in a way to make it so you can use your flaws to strategically gain fate points.
  746. [09:22:11] <castfromhp> Or else you're playing that dumb game of taking calculated risks to accrue points.
  747. [09:23:17] <Agata> I am not quite seeing the issue with taking calculated risks to accrue points; that is what accepting compels does. You take the compels, you highlight your character's flaws, you gain fate points, you use those points to amplify successes and turn failures into successes.
  748. [09:23:55] <castfromhp> Because that isn't the point of FATE. The point isn't to play a numbers game like that and powergame your fate point economy.
  749. [09:24:23] <Agata> 3>“How about you miss and that flame of yours ends up being another Building Was on Fire situation?”
  750. [09:24:23] <Agata> 3>Harry’s player, Jim, considers: he’s pretty light on fate points due to his low refresh, and the warehouse is otherwise empty of people—no worries about killing anyone. It’s early in the session, so there’s plenty more story to come, and he knows he’ll need those fate points when it does. Plus, the vampires haven’t killed this girl yet, so he’s betting they’re keeping her alive for a reason.
  751. [09:24:25] <castfromhp> They exist to facilitate interesting narratives, not so you can munchkin them like you would if you were playing 4e or something.
  752. [09:24:29] <Agata> It seems in line with how this is being written.
  753. [09:25:18] <castfromhp> Are you using argument from authority again? :|
  754. [09:27:17] <Agata> To counter "that isn't the point of FATE"? Yes.
  755. [09:28:11] <Agata> Most of your arguments so far have been, "The way this FATE game does it sucks. This is how you do FATE 12properly."
  756. [09:28:44] <castfromhp> I also really don't think that excerpt serves to show that you should be thinking about the entire fate point economy in that manner.
  757. [09:31:49] <castfromhp> I'd really rather discuss the merits of individual mechanics and whether they're fun on their own terms instead of making reference to singular excerpts from singular FATE game pdfs. Seems to make more sense to me.
  758. [09:32:00] <Agata> "Do I feel like highlighting my character's flaws and gaining fate points? Then I will go along with the compel. Would I rather have my character avoid getting into such a bad situation, at the cost of not gaining fate points? Then I will refuse the compel."
  759. [09:32:03] <Agata> Where is the issue here?
  760. [09:32:12] <castfromhp> As it is, that excerpt doesn't actually present an argument for why that practice is good or fun.
  761. [09:33:00] <castfromhp> Because you can refuse the compel repeatedly and defy your written character aspects to a degree I don't think should be encouraged in such a system.
  762. [09:33:10] <castfromhp> Aspects lose meaning if you're able to so easily ignore them.
  763. [09:34:38] <Agata> <castfromhp> As it is, that excerpt doesn't actually present an argument for why that practice is good or fun.
  764. [09:34:50] <Agata> I presented it to counter "that isn't the point of FATE," mainly.
  765. [09:34:59] <Agata> <castfromhp> Because you can refuse the compel repeatedly and defy your written character aspects to a degree I don't think should be encouraged in such a system.
  766. [09:35:17] <Agata> You are not gaining fate points for it, so, you are refusing rewards. Why should that not be its own downside?
  767. [09:36:14] <castfromhp> Because it can still be done indefinitely? You can cherrypick when you want to ignore your aspects or be inconvenienced by them in a manner that trivializes them.
  768. [09:38:57] <Agata> Would that not encourage picking out aspects that are not so inconvenient to start with?
  769. [09:39:08] <Agata> Since, well, you would not have to worry about those costly compels.
  770. [09:40:30] <castfromhp> I think that's a better outcome than picking out a lot of inconvenient aspects and then cherry picking the compels you take to optimize fate point gain. In that scenario you end up with a character that ends up playing in practice not at all like they are on the sheet aspect-wise because their large number of inconvenient aspects only get brought up in limited and minimized ways so as to gain FP.
  771. [09:41:06] <castfromhp> I still think people will pick out interesting and troublesome aspects for their characters, especially if there is a scale of how much compels pay out.
  772. [09:41:18] <castfromhp> Escalation, as it was in DFRPG, for example.
  773. [09:42:01] <Agata> <castfromhp> I think that's a better outcome than picking out a lot of inconvenient aspects and then cherry picking the compels you take to optimize fate point gain. In that scenario you end up with a character that ends up playing in practice not at all like they are on the sheet aspect-wise because their large number of inconvenient aspects only get brought up in limited and minimized ways so as to gain FP.
  774. [09:42:28] <Agata> If that is what the player wants to do, then... why not? It is their option. Does that player need to be punished with the -1 fate point stick?
  775. [09:42:43] <Agata> Meanwhile, the player who wants to highlight character flaws via compels, in exchange for fate points, still goes about doing that.
  776. [09:42:50] <castfromhp> It's gaming the system, and it creates a character incongruent with their aspects.
  777. [09:42:57] <Agata> <castfromhp> Escalation, as it was in DFRPG, for example.
  778. [09:43:02] <castfromhp> So basically, what you did with Agata.
  779. [09:43:06] <castfromhp> Which was terrible, I should remind you.
  780. [09:43:13] <castfromhp> The gaming the system part I mean.
  781. [09:43:24] <Agata> Escalation worked out a tad wonkily since, to trigger it, you had to refuse the compel initially.
  782. [09:43:46] <Agata> <castfromhp> So basically, what you did with Agata.
  783. [09:43:47] <castfromhp> Not that example in particular then, but I did see above you had scaling payouts for compels.
  784. [09:43:53] <Agata> I did accept compels every time.
  785. [09:44:14] <Agata> Refusing compels caused a net loss in most cases, so why refuse them, then?
  786. [09:44:15] <castfromhp> You intentionally gave up on conflicts in a calculated way to gain FP payouts so you could stockpile them to game the system.
  787. [09:44:35] <castfromhp> I don't think you should expand that to an entire approach to the game and deem it acceptable.
  788. [09:45:46] <Agata> Gaining fate points from conceding or being taken out is a rather silly rule to begin with; it should not even be in the game by default, since it encourages weird gameplay.
  789. [09:46:00] <Agata> Such as what I performed, because, well, if that is what the system encourages...
  790. [09:46:02] <castfromhp> This is exactly what you're doing here, you realize.
  791. [09:46:38] <castfromhp> You're encouraging weird gameplay by having lots of inconvenient aspects that will come up often in compels such that you can filter through them and have them occur only at your whim to gain FP in an efficient manner.
  792. [09:47:10] <castfromhp> Ultimately, what ends up happening is an inconsistent portrayal of the character and the aspects that represent them because they've been transformed into an engine for FP rather than a tool for interesting narrative.
  793. [09:47:27] <castfromhp> The problem I have here is the ease of cherrypicking, and the lack of a limit on being able to do so.
  794. [09:47:44] <Agata> <castfromhp> You're encouraging weird gameplay by having lots of inconvenient aspects that will come up often in compels such that you can filter through them and have them occur only at your whim to gain FP in an efficient manner.
  795. [09:48:25] <Agata> Not necessarily; when "accept the compel" and "refuse the compel" are both valid options (particularly when they are scaling compels), then you are not quite gaining or losing anything one way or another by accepting or confusing.
  796. [09:49:19] <castfromhp> What I mean is someone will write a character with aspects such that they'd logically get compelled many many times a session - and then they simply pick the least inconvenient compels to take for easy FP and ignore the rest.
  797. [09:50:07] <castfromhp> Which means the aspects themselves don't really get presented in a consistent light because the choice to accept or refuse is done in that way and towards those ends.
  798. [09:51:22] <Agata> <castfromhp> What I mean is someone will write a character with aspects such that they'd logically get compelled many many times a session - and then they simply pick the least inconvenient compels to take for easy FP and ignore the rest.
  799. [09:51:40] <Agata> With scaling compels, more inconvenient aspects will produce greater fate points.
  800. [09:52:34] <castfromhp> Well, then they choose the more manageable among those then. The point is, it deemphasizes compels for the sake of portraying aspects and turns them into just FP engine.
  801. [09:52:51] <Agata> Let us try to find the underlying problem here, then.
  802. [09:53:01] <Agata> Your problem: Costless compels make it too easy to cherrypick, correct?
  803. [09:53:50] <castfromhp> The underlying problem is that the only reason the compel system works is because there is a finite limit to how often it can be ignored. Because ignoring a compel is inherently deviating from the aspect the compel originated from, it is necessarily an act that is to be minimized to create consistency of character.
  804. [09:54:01] <Agata> My problem: Cutthroat compels make the choice between "accept compel" and "refuse compel" far too mechanically slanted towards "accept compel."
  805. [09:54:11] <castfromhp> It SHOULD be.
  806. [09:54:18] <castfromhp> Because NARRATIVELY that is how it should be as well.
  807. [09:54:38] <castfromhp> Refusing a compel is a deviation from a character's core nature, something that should be difficult. It should be an asymmetric choice.
  808. [09:55:39] <Agata> Why not make the first... let us say, [one or two] refused compels in a session cost nothing, then? That institutes a finite limit for refusing compels, while still making it such that "accept compel" is not an overwhelmingly better choice than "refuse compel."
  809. [09:56:50] <Agata> While still making it such that "accept compel" is not an overwhelmingly better choice than "refuse compel" 12all the time, I mean.
  810. [09:57:13] <castfromhp> Better, but lacking in elegance as a core system thing. Would work better as a character advantage.
  811. [09:58:34] <Agata> "If this is your first time refusing a compel during a session, it costs you nothing. If it is not your first time, you have to lose a fate point in order to deny the compel; if you have no fate points to spend, then you simply cannot refuse the compel."
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top