Apr 12, 2015 Fate Core Thought of the Day Fate is...
Fate Core Thought of the Day: Fate is not abstract
One of the criticisms I frequently hear of Fate is that it's a very abstract system. This is understandable. It certainly looks like an abstract system - I mean, there's like no concrete actions except Attack in there at all! And aspects are pretty abstract, right?
I can understand this view. I also disagree with it. A lot.
The key for me is really, truly grasping "Fiction First". In a lot of games, the basic sequence might look something like this:
1) I choose Power Attack
2) I describe "I swing my sword down with all my might!"
3) The GM rolls the dice and says the mechanical result
4) The GM describes what happens
Now, the key here is really that steps 2 and 4 are kinda really optional. The "meat" of what's happening is in steps 1 and 3. And that, to me, is pretty key in understanding why some people find Fate super abstract, and others don't.
Here's how I view Fate's resolution system
1) I say "I bring down my axe on the orc's head with all my might!"
2) The GM translates this as one of the four actions, and ties it to a skill or approach
3) Dice are rolled, which give some mechanical impact and constrain the narrative
4)The GM and/or player describe the outcome.
There's a bunch of main differences I note here.
The order of the first two steps changes between the examples. In the first example, we're choosing a game mechanic directly, and then throwing on some description. In the second, the description drives the choice of game mechanic.
Secondly, in Fate, I usually have the GM be responsible for choosing the mechanical bits - especially in FAE. This isn't 100% of course, as someone saying "I drive the axe down at the orc's head with all my power" is clearly angling for a Forceful Attack. But in Fate, you're not actually choosing a mechanical action directly most of the time.
Third, and I think most importantly, there are optional steps in each example. However, they're not the same steps. In the first example, it's the description that's optional - it's totally valid to just do the mechanics. However, in Fate, it's really the mechanical bits that are optional. If it's totally clear what's happening, we can just skip them. If I'm behind a totally unaware enemy, and do the aforementioned axe-to-the-head maneuver, it'd be totally legitimate to say it just cleaves his skull. I wouldn't blink for a second at a GM that did that.
So in Fate, it's the descriptions that are mandatory. They're the "meat" of the game, not just the decoration. The mechanics exist solely to help us get past the parts where what happens isn't obvious. This is mirrored all over the place - 'if you can't think of something interesting for both success and failure, don't roll'.
To put it another way, let's look at a Create Advantage roll to trip someone. Pretty typical, right?
Let's look at how that works:
1) "I lash out my foot and take the enemy's leg from underneath him!"
2) "Okay, Roll CA with Physique"
3) <roll roll> "Yay, you made it! Put Tripped on the bad guy!"
4) "The bad guy falls face first in the dirt."
So, what's really happening here? What's important?
If you view steps 2 and 3 as the 'real' game, then, yes, it's ridiculously abstract.
I view steps 1 and 4 as the important bits. My character isn't "Creating Advantage" - he's tripping someone. The bad guy doesn't end up with an aspect, he ends up face down in the dirt. The mechanical bits are just there to help us figure out what happens, and to give us future mechanical reinforcement. They're not the "real" thing.
So from my view, I really look at the sequence as:
1) "I lash out my foot and take the enemy's leg from underneath him!"
4) "The bad guy falls face first in the dirt."
There is nothing abstract about this whatsoever. This works because I'm putting the "reality" of the situation above the mechanical representation.
However, many people will look at the 'real' sequence as being:
2) "Okay, Roll CA with Physique"
3) <roll roll> "Yay, you made it! Put Tripped on the bad guy!"
This is ridiculously abstract, especially if coming from a system like GURPS, where the system itself will tell you exactly what happens.
But the rules in Fate aren't like that. They're not a "physics engine". They're not even rules, really - they're more like 'rule templates' to be used by the GM when adjudicating actions. This is a pretty big shift from many games where the rules are concrete things, and are intended to be used very directly by players. It's a shift that took me quite a while to make, personally.
So yeah, I can see how some people think Fate is abstract. I certainly did when I started playing. But I think that's mostly due to a misunderstanding of how the rules are meant to be used in Fate, and an expectation that they do things that they intentionally do not do.
One of the criticisms I frequently hear of Fate is that it's a very abstract system. This is understandable. It certainly looks like an abstract system - I mean, there's like no concrete actions except Attack in there at all! And aspects are pretty abstract, right?
I can understand this view. I also disagree with it. A lot.
The key for me is really, truly grasping "Fiction First". In a lot of games, the basic sequence might look something like this:
1) I choose Power Attack
2) I describe "I swing my sword down with all my might!"
3) The GM rolls the dice and says the mechanical result
4) The GM describes what happens
Now, the key here is really that steps 2 and 4 are kinda really optional. The "meat" of what's happening is in steps 1 and 3. And that, to me, is pretty key in understanding why some people find Fate super abstract, and others don't.
Here's how I view Fate's resolution system
1) I say "I bring down my axe on the orc's head with all my might!"
2) The GM translates this as one of the four actions, and ties it to a skill or approach
3) Dice are rolled, which give some mechanical impact and constrain the narrative
4)The GM and/or player describe the outcome.
There's a bunch of main differences I note here.
The order of the first two steps changes between the examples. In the first example, we're choosing a game mechanic directly, and then throwing on some description. In the second, the description drives the choice of game mechanic.
Secondly, in Fate, I usually have the GM be responsible for choosing the mechanical bits - especially in FAE. This isn't 100% of course, as someone saying "I drive the axe down at the orc's head with all my power" is clearly angling for a Forceful Attack. But in Fate, you're not actually choosing a mechanical action directly most of the time.
Third, and I think most importantly, there are optional steps in each example. However, they're not the same steps. In the first example, it's the description that's optional - it's totally valid to just do the mechanics. However, in Fate, it's really the mechanical bits that are optional. If it's totally clear what's happening, we can just skip them. If I'm behind a totally unaware enemy, and do the aforementioned axe-to-the-head maneuver, it'd be totally legitimate to say it just cleaves his skull. I wouldn't blink for a second at a GM that did that.
So in Fate, it's the descriptions that are mandatory. They're the "meat" of the game, not just the decoration. The mechanics exist solely to help us get past the parts where what happens isn't obvious. This is mirrored all over the place - 'if you can't think of something interesting for both success and failure, don't roll'.
To put it another way, let's look at a Create Advantage roll to trip someone. Pretty typical, right?
Let's look at how that works:
1) "I lash out my foot and take the enemy's leg from underneath him!"
2) "Okay, Roll CA with Physique"
3) <roll roll> "Yay, you made it! Put Tripped on the bad guy!"
4) "The bad guy falls face first in the dirt."
So, what's really happening here? What's important?
If you view steps 2 and 3 as the 'real' game, then, yes, it's ridiculously abstract.
I view steps 1 and 4 as the important bits. My character isn't "Creating Advantage" - he's tripping someone. The bad guy doesn't end up with an aspect, he ends up face down in the dirt. The mechanical bits are just there to help us figure out what happens, and to give us future mechanical reinforcement. They're not the "real" thing.
So from my view, I really look at the sequence as:
1) "I lash out my foot and take the enemy's leg from underneath him!"
4) "The bad guy falls face first in the dirt."
There is nothing abstract about this whatsoever. This works because I'm putting the "reality" of the situation above the mechanical representation.
However, many people will look at the 'real' sequence as being:
2) "Okay, Roll CA with Physique"
3) <roll roll> "Yay, you made it! Put Tripped on the bad guy!"
This is ridiculously abstract, especially if coming from a system like GURPS, where the system itself will tell you exactly what happens.
But the rules in Fate aren't like that. They're not a "physics engine". They're not even rules, really - they're more like 'rule templates' to be used by the GM when adjudicating actions. This is a pretty big shift from many games where the rules are concrete things, and are intended to be used very directly by players. It's a shift that took me quite a while to make, personally.
So yeah, I can see how some people think Fate is abstract. I certainly did when I started playing. But I think that's mostly due to a misunderstanding of how the rules are meant to be used in Fate, and an expectation that they do things that they intentionally do not do.
Shared to the community Fate Core - Public
+1'd by: Mike Merwin, Markus Wagner, Henry Gaudet, Tarquin Carlin, Johannes Oppermann, Mark Arndt, Daniel Hooyboer, André Le Deist, JP Sugarbroad, Eric Tolle, Sam Hart, Stefan Schloesser (Shadom), Lon Sarver, Jake Staines, RPG with DBJ Davae Breon Jaxon (DBJ), Devon Apple, sleypy, John Stepp, Ryan Welsh, 오승한, Jonathan Beverley, David Lee, Jerome Marcantel, Juniper Jazz, Nathan Dowdell, Mark Zeller III, Mark Kowalizzinn, Nikolaj Bourguignon, Gerrit Reininghaus, Steve Meinel, Dirk Willrodt, Stephen Figgins, Devin Parker, Calyn Stidham (The Meaty Ogre), Paul Vencill, Steve Neubauer, Martin Cumming, Jack Gulick, Brian Rock, Robert Slaughter, Matt Harrop, Kevin Baird, Thrythlind aka Luke Green, Senda Linaugh, Mark Lamourine, Dylan Ross, Zachary St Lawrence, Tom Cosaert, Christopher Bartlett, Thinker Monkey
Even if a lot of time I let the players at least suggest with kind of action use mechanically.
If you've laid down Covering Fire and go inside, you're obviously not laying down covering fire any more. So the aspect goes away. This kind of inversion was a hard leap to make, but I think it's one of the most important things to grasp about Fate.
This sentence is really important, too. If people ask in forums how to do this or that in Fate, there is nearly always a plethora of answers: add some static defence, give that situation aspect an attack option, use the fractal stuff, just ignore it, because it's not really interesting for the narration... and so on. Not a simple "if X than Y", but "if X than choose what fits best in your current situation and your preferred pacing".
All possible answers are valid and I have the feeling that a lot of people have issues to decide which tool from the toolbox would be the right one. And that adds a lot to the feeling that Fate is abstract. So many branches on the decision tree.
Great article, thank you.
+U'Mascariatu Erich
Yeah, that's something that hit me similarly. You can say "narrative" all you want, but it takes a whole other level for that to really kick in.
"I have played in many Fate games where the players have used the mechanics to inform their narration directly and overtly."
Yup! As I said, in FAE, "I bring the axe down on the orc's head with all my might" is pretty clearly angling for a Forceful Attack.
"The phrase 'fiction first' feels nice, but frankly, as long as the fiction gets in the play at some point, whether first second or fifteenth, I'm good."
Again, the point is that the imagined situation is primary, and the rules support that, not vice versa. I generally don't allow players to "Forcefully Create Advantage", but I also don't require mini novels.
Covering Fire is a good example. If you walk away from your position, you're obviously not providing covering fire any more, so the advantage goes away. The advantage reflects what's happening in "the world". If you do something that negates what the aspect is reflecting, then the aspect is no longer relevant. No special mechanics are required for this. It's just a natural consequence. This can be jarring for people that expect every mechanical interaction to be detailed.
"Similarly, in my trad games, I see players never engage with the mechanics in their stated actions at all. In those circumstances the GM becomes the rules engine, and the player the narrator."
Depends on the game, of course. Gygaxian D&D is famous for this - with Gary hiding behind his filing cabinet and whatnot. I've also played BRP sessions heavily based on this. It's not a new thing.
OTOH, games like GURPS or Rolemaster or D&D 3.x-4 are a bit harder to do this way.
And the confusion over it isn't new either, I mean, in the 80s I can't recall how many times I heard or said "it doesn't make sense that shooting a captive in the head with a crossbow probably won't kill them!" These days, with either D&D or Fate, if you shoot a captive in the head with a crossbow (or slit their throat, or whatever), they just die. Fiction first!
"As with so much, it's the personal style that people bring to the table, not the system, that flavours the game."
Absolutely. However, I think Fate is intended to be played in a "fiction first" way, and is designed around that. If played in a "mechanics first" way, it is indeed very abstract and kind of surreal and bizarre.
+Chris Klug: https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/1x8MtdJRWH9
The mental gymnastics involved were kind of impressive in a sad way.
I'll even admit that PbtA is far more explicit about it than Fate.
Thanks.
As an example, your description of "fiction first" sounds an awful lot like this description of the OSR "rulings not rules" maxim: http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html
Fate takes it a little bit further in a few ways, I think.
"Rulings, not rules" is more about the expansiveness of how to treat every detail, I think. Fate definitely falls on the "rulings not rules" side, as well.
I want to hack the computer system so that it looks someone else invaded other than me.
Hmm, okay. You're already in the system. Do you have much knowledge of the group you're framing?
Yep. KS and everything.
Okay roll that to make it fit their patterns then. -4 because you were tooling around a bit before you thought of this. Lots of stuff to cover.
This is one of the earlier things I wrote, but I think it's relevant: https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/TqqpgynjHEn
Question : what about the one free invoke you get from creating the advantage? It vanishes once used. The guy might still lie face down in the dirt and the aspect remains true. But the bonus goes away. That is abstract and most of my players really didn't get it without some meta knowledge about the rules. In game it doesn't make sense that there is no bonus remaining.
Same thing about spending Fate points. Why am I only getting a bonus out of my aspect when it should be always true?
Those are the reasons people find Fate abstract, not only the parts described above.
Fate generally doesn't do static stacking bonuses, though. It's just a different way of handling it. For most things, it's handled by passive opposition - so if you're on the ground and trying to attack, you've got passive opposition to overcome in addition to the active opposition of your opponent. This ends up acting like a 'floor' to their defense roll. So being on the ground might provide a passive opposition of 2. Now, if you're attacked and end up with a -1 defense, you still have an effective defense of +2.
Honestly, I haven't worked out a good way for how this works if defending in that situation.
As far as aspects not providing constant bonuses... that's kind of what stunts are for. "I"m really good at x" in various forms is generally more of a stunt than an aspect.
Also: https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/EDqaCxsjobL
So while that's understandable, I think as much of it springs from a misunderstanding of what aspects are/should do as anything else.
However. In the case of the guy on the ground. Initially you get a free invoke because he's recovering from the surprise. After that, he is acclimated somewhat and defending himself better. He might be on the ground but he's also dodging about like the hero in those movies rolling back and forth to avoid being hit by a Giant's hammer.
He is still on the ground so the opponent can put a bit more effort and get the benefit (spend a fate point) but its not an automatic benefit. Still, to avoid it being used against him, he'll have to take an action to stand up. Which might be an overcome if there's direct opposition.
As to the character aspects. A character might always be a Master Class Swordsman but most of the time they're going to be using their standard moves and they'll only dip into their well of knowledge as they need to, such as when an opponent forces them to reveal a bit more skill or when they decide to put extra effort into a finishing move. Knowing at least one martial artist, simple moves are usually the best answer and flashy moves are done in desperation.
Likewise for a Gifted Doctor or a Robot Scientist.
The Fate Point represents when they're really pushing themselves.
The interaction between aspects, and how active and passive opposition work could certainly be spelled out more clearly, and I think that's a quite fair criticism of the game.
I also think the fact that the fiction 'leads' could be spelled out more clearly - once you grasp it, it's pretty clear. "Yeah, I guess it doesn't make sense that I can run out of the room if I'm on the ground. I guess I should get up first" is like ridiculously obvious once you've made that connection, but when you're coming from a system where every interaction is spelled out, it's not nearly as intuitive.
Also, the "invocation = camera focus" type thing really isn't super clear or spelled out either.
I'm not pointing fingers here, by the way. I went through the exact same thing, and had to learn the exact same things. It was a process. I do think the game isn't abstract, but there are certainly things I think could have been explained much, much better.
I get irritated at the abstraction of levels and classes for instance because they don't make sense to me.
This can lead to a lot of confusion for people coming to it fresh, especially people that have played a lot of other games. It's really understandable. So, I mean, this post isn't really "Fate's not abstract and you're dumb for thinking so". It's "You know, I can understand why you think Fate is abstract. But if you think of these things just slightly differently, I think you'll find it's not really abstract at all."
So the combination of those two things can certainly be one hell of an adjustment. But even then, it's probably worth noting that even a +1 in Fate is pretty huge compared to most bonuses in other games, and a +2 is monumental.
That's not meant as a criticism or a dismissal. It's understandable, and it's certainly something I've felt, when figuring out Fate. It's probably tied in with that differing first principle/assumptions stuff I talked about before.
The latter method only seems more "abstract" to some folks because it's modeling something different than most trad games are modeling. There's an expectations mismatch, especially since games like Fate and Cortex Plus are in a lot of other ways very trad games themselves and could do a better job of explaining this major point of difference.
If that wasn't clear, I'd be happy to hear where it wasn't, and what might make it more clear.
Of course, the opponent can still fail to hit you because it's an opposed roll.
So if you're prone on the floor and your group decides that should impede your ability to defend against someone kicking you in the face, the worst your opponent can roll is Fair (+2).