Fate Core Thought of the Day: Intent and Task
Okay, so I'm stealing a little Burning Wheel terminology here, forgive me. It still applies, honest!
One thing that I've seen as a stumbling block for people coming to Fate is that Fate handles rolls and actions slightly different than a lot of "mainstream" games.
In a lot of these games, you describe what you want to do, roll the dice, and then see what happens. So if you want to, say, throw somebody, the rules might say that he's not thrown, or that he is thrown, and how far he's thrown. I like to call these "task-based" games, as the player decides what task he's going to accomplish, and then sees what the result of that action is.
Fate's a bit different. Fate's in the bucket of what I like to call "intent-based" games. What that means is that a player starts with what they want the results of their action to be. Then they see if they can achieve that result.
For an intent-based system to work, you need to know two things for every action. The Intent - what it is you want to achieve, and the Task - how the heck you're going to go about doing that. Without those two pieces of information, you can't really determine how to roll for something in Fate.
For instance, let's say a PC is flying around and has an enemy plane On His Tail. This player then says "I want to fly through the canyons." Okay... that's probably a piloting roll, as the Task almost always determines the skill rolled, but... which of the four actions should it be?
The clearest case is an Overcome, and the Intent of hte player may be to get those pesky planes off of him!
Or, it could be an attempt to Create An Advantage on either those planes, or even other opponents, something like Lost Him In The Canyons. The player may want that to really ensure they get those planes off!
Or, he could be pulling a Han Solo and trying to get the planes to fly into the canyons and blow up - which sounds awfully like an Attack.
So without both the Intent and the Task, we can't really resolve an action. Several of the "classic" how does this work conundrums fall into this category. Handcuffing someone to a desk - well, is it intended to be permanent and effectively remove them from the fight? If so, it's Taking them Out, and is an Attack. Is it just supposed to slow them down? It's Creating an Advantage.
Same with the Hulk throwing someone over the horizon... if you're trying to throw them over the horizon and remove them from the Conflict, you're trying to Take Them Out, and it's therefore an Attack. If you're just trying to stun them, move them around, or whatever, it's Create An Advantage.
Getting players to say what their Intent is is often tricky, especially if they're coming from more traditional (task-based) games. I like to ask players when something is unclear "Okay, describe success. Let's say this works - what is it that you want to happen?"
Sometimes this isn't really necessary, of course. If the player says "I run him through with my sword!" you can pretty well assume that the Intent is to kill him.
Intent and Task also are important when discussing Fate Core builds and modifications/stunts. "How do I do cybernetics" is an unanswerable question, without understanding what it is you want cybernetics to do. If you want cybernetics to make people super-powered, that's one thing. If you want them to grant some other bonus, that's another. If they can reach the limit of human capability, that's fine, too.
But what kind of difficulties can cybernetics cause? Can they break down? Do they need maintenance? Could they even be hacked?
On the other hand, there's also the social aspects of cybernetics to consider - do cybernetics cause you to become removed from humanity? Do they cause others to react differently?
And really, cybernetics are a "Task". They're a means to an end. To figure out how to use them, you really need to start with what you want your game to be. If you want superheroes going around doing super stuff, then you're going to approach them one way. If you want part of the theme of your game to revolve around the loss of humanity, then you're going to approach them a very different way. All those questions combine to form the "Intent" of your cybernetics system. And depending on how you answer them, you may decide that they're nothing but descriptive fluff and have no narrative effect (people aren't against them, but you don't want them to grant superhuman abilities, and don't want them to really be troublesome, either).
And all of those are great, and can serve a particular goal. But the only way to judge the effectiveness of your cybernetics implementation is against a defined goal.
20130328 Fate Core Thought of the Day Intent a...
Shared to the community Fate Core - Public
+1'd by: Carla Lincoln (Clairefox), Shawn J, Sean McLaughlin, Mr. Wolfoyote, Neill Robson, Tara Zuber, Pete Darby, Artur Fiedorowicz, Alan Barclay, Cody Marbach, Chad Juehring, Ted Childers (Tedero), Adam Schwaninger, Jake Ön, Mike Thompson, Rob Meyers, Todd Grotenhuis, Matt Petruzzelli, Brian Takle, Brett Bowen, Christopher Ruthenbeck, John Moley, Chad Crayton, T. Franzke, Michael Pedersen, Christopher Allen, Mert Torun, Bowie Sessions, Jack Gulick
Reshared by: Sean McLaughlin, Mr. Wolfoyote, Erin “Eak” Kinser, Simon White, Matt Petruzzelli, Chad Crayton, T. Franzke
GMing Fate should never be about sussing out what the players wanted their action to result in, nor should playing Fate be about doing an action to "trick" out a result you didn't explicitly state.
Exposed Intent is how you determine what success or failure mean.
Skill or Approach is how you go about achieving your intent, but intent comes first.
A stunt's mechanics are how it enhances your ability to make your intent into game-reality. They aren't themselves an expression of game reality.
The pilot flying into the canyons to destroy his enemies is starting to stretch it (for me). That action may be sufficient to cause their destruction, but doesn't necessitate it, even when successful.
Maybe stretch an example more by, I dunno... using Burglary to steal a shield from an attacker (task) to cause that attacker to break their hand on the shield you just acquired (intent). So it's an Attack, but it assumes intermediary actions like the opponent attacking and failing to hit and doing it bad enough to harm themself.
Someone could try and stretch this even further presuming many actions listing to a ridiculous chain... Where would you draw the line in splitting up the intent into multiple tasks?
Probably just another style thing.
It's not a matter of automatic approval. It's the starting point of the conversation. In most cases, hopefully it's "sure, let's see what happens". In some cases it's a flat out no - if you try pulling some psychic whammy stuff in a straight espionage game, as a GM I'm going to just tell you "nice try." In general, I'm personally going to have bigger issues with people dictating the actions of another character, and so that's probably at least a reasonable start line.
For the canyons example, I'd probably offer the player that he can move into the canyons, and if they choose to respond that's their choice... but the canyons will do an attack on each player in the zone, each round, with their "Big Rocky Cliffs" skill that must be defended.
That's actually a good example, I think, in how clarifying Intent and Task can help to bring out a successful ending - "well, you can't get what you want with that type of roll, but here's how we can model it."
So "I want to do a series of feints so he'll become Flustered"
"I want to fly into the asteroids so those lesser pilots will follow me in and crash." (Don't forget to invoke Never Tell Me The Odds!)
But it's not "I want to open the door so he steps inside so I can hit him with this mallet." That's two steps. And so make the 2nd step your NEXT action.
Or, at least, not as written. Obviously, tables can rule some additional PC immunity in these areas, to their own levels of comfort with narrative manipulation and PC ownership.
So I'll point out that "I want to do X so he'll do/suffer/acquire Y" is the end statement of a negotiation with the other guy's controlling player (GM or other player). We negotiate, perhaps very quickly, to an acceptable definition of success before we roll the action.