Apr 19, 2015 Fate Core Thought of the Day Advanced...
Fate Core Thought of the Day: Advanced Fiction First
Ooooooh. Advanced. Sounds pretentious. And, honestly, this is kind of a weird subject, so I might have to approach it somewhat obliquely in a few ways.
So, most of the time, when I talk about "Fiction First" it's from the viewpoint of resolving actions. And that's a pretty good use of it, because it can be really hard to resolve Fate actions if you don't do it in a fiction first way.
This is the same, but slightly different. Maybe a bit deeper, or more theoretical. Maybe slightly less immediately practical. Maybe I've just finally gone off the deep end. Maybe more than one of the above.
Perhaps, it'd be better described as "the primacy of fiction". But that sounds even more bizarre than "fiction first".
Anyway, the canonical example of this is that a room isn't dark because it has the Dark aspect. The room has the Dark aspect because it's dark.
The way I look at it, there's four primary elements in most RPGs. The players, the GM, the "fiction", and "the bits". The fiction being the stuff we imagine in our heads, and the bits being the stuff written down on a piece of paper, or the dice, or the tokens on the map.
So what this really kinda says here is that "the fiction" is what drives the bits, and not the other way around.
Basically, imagining a dark room is "the fiction". The 3X5 card or whiteboard note or whatever saying Dark is "the bits". And the fiction is what comes first, and what drives the bits. Always. We use the minimum amount of "bits" to keep everyone on the same page, and to make sure we don't forget stuff.
So when somebody gets knocked on the ground, that's what leads. The fact that On the Ground is an aspect is really more of a note of this, so that we don't forget it, and a hint that we can use certain mechanics relating to this fact now.
So, here's a slightly more advanced example. One of the things we hear is "situation aspects exist until they're not longer narratively relevant." What the hell does that mean? Here's a more concrete example.
You're providing Covering Fire. Then, you go inside a cave that has no visibility to the area you were providing covering fire for. What happens?
So, if we do a "mechanics first" approach (or, "primacy of the bits" if you want), there's an aspect there, and we need to have some mechanical interaction to get rid of the Covering Fire aspect, or maybe it's even there. It seems a bit.... odd.
But from a "fiction first" approach, it all just... works. The aspect is just a reflection of the 'reality' of your PC providing covering fire. If you're in the cave, you're clearly not providing covering fire any more, and so there's no reason for there to be an aspect, right?
And that, right there, is the core of "fiction first". The mechanics do not define the reality. They merely reflect the reality, and specifically only certain parts of it. If the imagined reality ever conflicts with the mechanical bits, the imagined reality wins.
And when we start applying this idea more broadly, a lot of things become really obvious. Have a Broken Leg consequence? Weird that it means you can't climb a ladder without a Compel? Yeah, that would be weird. But, in the fiction, it makes perfect sense that you can't just climb a ladder if you have a broken leg, right? We don't even get to the point of a roll or anything else, because the fiction coming first tells us that the action doesn't even make any sense to begin with.
This isn't how all games work! Many games have lists of specific conditions, that tell you exactly what you can and can't do, with specific modifiers and conditions. And that causes a lot of confusion - people see "Aspects can be invoked for +2 or Compelled" and assume that's all they can do, because those are the only mechanical effects.
But that's not even half of the story - yes, those are the pure mechanical effects (apart from providing passive opposition), but since aspects are true, and the fiction leads, then any logical consequence of those aspects is true as well. And, really, again, the aspect is just a note, a reflection of the imagined 'reality' in the first place.
To me, fully understanding this idea is the point at which Fate goes from being a fairly complex game to being an incredibly simple and streamlined game, and the point at which it really begins to "sing".
Ooooooh. Advanced. Sounds pretentious. And, honestly, this is kind of a weird subject, so I might have to approach it somewhat obliquely in a few ways.
So, most of the time, when I talk about "Fiction First" it's from the viewpoint of resolving actions. And that's a pretty good use of it, because it can be really hard to resolve Fate actions if you don't do it in a fiction first way.
This is the same, but slightly different. Maybe a bit deeper, or more theoretical. Maybe slightly less immediately practical. Maybe I've just finally gone off the deep end. Maybe more than one of the above.
Perhaps, it'd be better described as "the primacy of fiction". But that sounds even more bizarre than "fiction first".
Anyway, the canonical example of this is that a room isn't dark because it has the Dark aspect. The room has the Dark aspect because it's dark.
The way I look at it, there's four primary elements in most RPGs. The players, the GM, the "fiction", and "the bits". The fiction being the stuff we imagine in our heads, and the bits being the stuff written down on a piece of paper, or the dice, or the tokens on the map.
So what this really kinda says here is that "the fiction" is what drives the bits, and not the other way around.
Basically, imagining a dark room is "the fiction". The 3X5 card or whiteboard note or whatever saying Dark is "the bits". And the fiction is what comes first, and what drives the bits. Always. We use the minimum amount of "bits" to keep everyone on the same page, and to make sure we don't forget stuff.
So when somebody gets knocked on the ground, that's what leads. The fact that On the Ground is an aspect is really more of a note of this, so that we don't forget it, and a hint that we can use certain mechanics relating to this fact now.
So, here's a slightly more advanced example. One of the things we hear is "situation aspects exist until they're not longer narratively relevant." What the hell does that mean? Here's a more concrete example.
You're providing Covering Fire. Then, you go inside a cave that has no visibility to the area you were providing covering fire for. What happens?
So, if we do a "mechanics first" approach (or, "primacy of the bits" if you want), there's an aspect there, and we need to have some mechanical interaction to get rid of the Covering Fire aspect, or maybe it's even there. It seems a bit.... odd.
But from a "fiction first" approach, it all just... works. The aspect is just a reflection of the 'reality' of your PC providing covering fire. If you're in the cave, you're clearly not providing covering fire any more, and so there's no reason for there to be an aspect, right?
And that, right there, is the core of "fiction first". The mechanics do not define the reality. They merely reflect the reality, and specifically only certain parts of it. If the imagined reality ever conflicts with the mechanical bits, the imagined reality wins.
And when we start applying this idea more broadly, a lot of things become really obvious. Have a Broken Leg consequence? Weird that it means you can't climb a ladder without a Compel? Yeah, that would be weird. But, in the fiction, it makes perfect sense that you can't just climb a ladder if you have a broken leg, right? We don't even get to the point of a roll or anything else, because the fiction coming first tells us that the action doesn't even make any sense to begin with.
This isn't how all games work! Many games have lists of specific conditions, that tell you exactly what you can and can't do, with specific modifiers and conditions. And that causes a lot of confusion - people see "Aspects can be invoked for +2 or Compelled" and assume that's all they can do, because those are the only mechanical effects.
But that's not even half of the story - yes, those are the pure mechanical effects (apart from providing passive opposition), but since aspects are true, and the fiction leads, then any logical consequence of those aspects is true as well. And, really, again, the aspect is just a note, a reflection of the imagined 'reality' in the first place.
To me, fully understanding this idea is the point at which Fate goes from being a fairly complex game to being an incredibly simple and streamlined game, and the point at which it really begins to "sing".
Shared to the community Fate Core - Public
+1'd by: James R, Владимир Петриченко, Jason Coffin, Gerrit Reininghaus, Scott Lorch, Martin Cumming, Eric Willisson, Łukasz Matylla, Marie Olive, Scott Acker (SaintAndSinner), Christopher Dylan, Michał Zemełka, Marek Spyrzewski, Zachary St Lawrence, Thinker Monkey, Christopher Ruthenbeck, Christoph Thill, Christopher Moore, todd estabrook, Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi, Jeremy Downey, Angela Robertson, Christopher Dyszelski, Adam Schwaninger, Paul Vencill, Marc P. Reyes (Marc), David Goodwin, Core Brute, beket, Matt Harrop, Jacob Possin, Sergio Le Roux, Sophie Lagace, Steve Meinel, Ergodic Mage, June Shores, Antoine Pempie, Morgan Ellis, Ryan M. Danks
I've been tempted to write up Fate in a way that makes this even more explicit somehow, such as reframing Create an Advantage to Promote a Detail to Aspect. Or even just assuming that every detail is an aspect, and making Create an Advantage only provide free invokes, which you just label what detail they are attached to.
It's a bit like a surprise party and the birthday boy decides to go to the cinema instead of home.
Skills/approaches and resistances, the fate point economy, and stress are different widgets and do different things.
But unlike most systems, which which things have mechanical weight is encoded into the rules, Fate specifies them at the table.
In Roll20.net, the GM can write Text lines right on his Map Layer, maybe in red. Secret Aspects could go in the GM Layer which the players can't see. Since these are elements similar to Tokens or map tiles, they can easily be deleted when they no longer apply. A Secret Aspect can change Layer when it becomes obvious.
I was a player in a SF Fate game where we had no particular map as we travelled from the home-planet to a remote space-station with troubles. There was a planet and starfield. We were discussing things (theater of the mind), preparing to move to that isolated troublesome spot, and the inky blackness of deep space was filling up with a lot of political Aspects. I forget exactly what Aspects were on but it had some evocative things like Station Master Is A Law Unto Herself and Off-Season For This Quadrant (as this was one of four stations in the planetary orbit and it was nowhere near the Jump-Point for the system at the time). It was a glorious thing and I took a screen-shot of it, wisely assuming this would guide several sessions of play. Unfortunately the game itself started strong, with strongly developed characters, but ended abruptly after the first session, I assume only because the GM had "no time" to continue.
Going off the tangent a bit (and to make this more than just a "me too" chime). I've been thinking lately that Covering Fire is bit of a... bad example. It provides opposition, but it is one of the cases where one can reasonalby argue to ignore the opposition. Run straight through the lead rain. Or perhaps send a killer robot through, which has no concept of self-preservation.
The vanilla rules don't really cover the concept of situation aspects causing stress, or other instances where an action might transform into another (in this case your previous CAA acts as an Attack). Same would apply to a Wall of Fire and someone who is determined to push through no matter what. I've decided to handle these as baseline +2 Attack actions, but many newcomers to Fate might not even realize the idea of ignorable opposition.
Granted, these are edge cases, and I haven't been able to come up with any other transforming action than CAA turning into Attack.
I realize that per the action economy this might not be "kosher", but it fits the fiction of bullets and hails of gunfire being deadly and something to be avoided whenever possible. It also makes for intense scenes of player characters being pinned down by mobs of enemies all emptying magazines in their general direction.
The balance to this, as I see it, is that I also make a lot of hard compels on ammo stores (especially in the case of someone firing all-out for a turn or more).
I'm sure I'm breaking some mechanics here, but it sure is fun.
Isn't "ignorable opposition" just a different way of phrasing "success at cost?"
Fiction first - 'figure out what you want to do, and then consult the rules to help you do it'. So, yeah, you're following the most important rule :)
That said, I'd probably do it more as active opposition to the movement, and if they failed, they could succeed at the cost of an appropriate Consequence.
When you're being covered, usually you kind of poke out to see if you're still going to attract fire. If so, you duck back behind your cover. If you go, you'll almost certainly get nailed by someone if they have any skill whatsoever. There's a very fast feedback loop there that isn't well handled in many games.
So the 'simulationist' (blecch, hate that term) view isn't necessarily more realistic. It's just more typical of many game systems.
Game of Thrones, for example, has a setting and story that is praised by many I have spoken to as a "highly believable world", in that often people die without objective reason, the world is harsh and unforgiving, and the characters are motivated (mostly) by highly tangible ambitions... plus all the brutal combat, of course.
For a long while, I thought that was a genre of storytelling that a Fate-style game could not accomplish; how can you have brutality, a harsh world, betrayal, bloody duels, and that grime-and-grit feel without finding all the knobs and bitz and tacking them on to the most lethal and unforgiving system you can find?
It was not until I came back to Fate that I realized, it is exactly and precisely the type of thing Fate is meant to accomplish (within certain parameters). What bridged the gap for me was when I realized that Ned Stark was not simply a man with a code of honor that led him into an unfortunate series of circumstances that got him executed through GM fiat, but that he had in fact attempted to wage a war of ideologies and honor with a sea of soulless aristocratic backstabbers; the failure of which simply culminated in his imprisonment, being socially Taken Out, and ultimately death/removal from the narrative.
In GURPS terms, a lot of player characters die in a lot of really foolhardy and/or accidental ways, most probably driven by a lot of Disadvantages and incomplete planning.
In Fate terms, there was arguably a huge amount of social conflict, a massive number of concessions, and ultimately a few PC's and their corresponding underlings who got Taken Out in a series of memorable and purposeful events.
I've gone off on a tangent, but my point is that while GURPS might model the blade coming down and the spinal trauma and finally the head separation, Fate has modeled everything up to that point in time; death is simply the inevitable outcome of the preceding events, unworthy of mechanical definition on its own.
You can have plausible verisimilitude (i.e. realism) in both a "simulationist" or "narrative" flavor, but ultimately realism itself is about genre and convention, not physics. You can run a Toon game or a Godfather game in both GURPS and Fate; the only question is, which form of realism or fantasy are you looking for?
I'd also mention that Consequences provide a lot more in terms of "lasting consequences from wounds" than a ton of systems.
Also: https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/iGBaeXT7PKw
...
Aspects are about spending Fate Points to Invoke them or earning Fate Points to Compel them, right?
Wrong.
This is how Aspects actually work:
> 1) Aspects are always true
> 2) Aspects give permissions
> 3) Aspects are clearly phrased
> 4) Aspects move the adventure forward.
To illustrate why those are the pillars of all good Aspects, let's assume the opposite of each.
> An Aspect is not true
Why give a character Aspects like "Super-Strong," "Billionaire Industrialist," or "Student of Wizardry" if your character is not super-strong, a billionaire industrialist, or a student of wizardry? Why would you give your character Aspects that they could never Invoke or be Compelled for if they aren't true and therefore could never move the adventure forward because they are irrelevant?
> An Aspect doesn't grant permissions
If I have a "Billionaire Industrialist" my character had better 1) have a net worth in the billions, 2) have the various perks that come with being so wealthy, and 3) know a thing or two about business and the industry that he or she makes money from. Those things and more should be implied and agreed upon when the GM signs off on it. If I get none of those things then why would I have an Aspect that says I do? The Aspect is no longer true. How do I Invoke or Compel it if I don't even have what it says?
> Aspects are not clear
What good is an Aspect that no one understands? How is anyone supposed to know what's true about your character if we don't understand how you derive those truths from your phraseology? How can we trust that you get certain permissions or not others if you vaguely word it? How does anyone know when to Invoke or Compel your bad Aspect? How are they supposed to use it?
> Aspects don't move the story forward
Why would you sink Fate Points into an Aspect that accomplishes nothing? Why would you ever get a Compel if nothing that matters to anyone or anything gets complicated as a result of it?
Fate is not about the Fate Points. The Fate Points are an abstraction that facilitates the interplay of Aspects.
When I Create Advantage, I'm establishing new truths that grant new permissions and which move the adventure forward.
When I Attack, the end result is that my opponents have Consequences which are... Aspects. A Broken Arm is a new truth about one's character which affects what they can do; what they are permitted to do. It presents new opportunities to advance the adventure if that character's Broken Arm is exploited for good or bad.
When I Defend, I am trying to prevent a new truth from emerging.
And when I Overcome, I am eliminating the truths and permissions that stand in my character's way, which only moves the adventure further forward.
For my allies are the Aspects. And powerful allies they are. Gameplay creates them, makes them grow. Their energy surrounds us and binds us as player-characters. Narrative beings are they, not this crude matter. You must feel the Aspects around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere! Yes, even between the land and the ship.