This is a blog about role-playing games. It includes some general thoughts, some deeper essays, and the occasional piece of short fiction. It will also include a number of posts regarding Seven Kingdoms, a new RPG which I am live-blogging the development of.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
System Wank - Ads and Disads
Lots of systems out there feature various ways to make your character better, along with various ways to represent flaws. Most of them function essentially the same way. I want to call out the system that completely changed the way I thought about them, and in some ways how I thought about RPGs in general.
FATE, first seen by most of us in Spirit of the Century, approaches the whole issue from a decidedly different angle. Advantages and disadvantages both serve one single purpose: grabbing the spotlight. One way lets you shine by winning, the other by failing. Unifying the mechanics as Aspects is undeniably brilliant.
Gaining a Little Aspect-ive
If you are a gamer, and have not at least checked out the SotC SRD, I strongly recommend that you do so. No matter what your preferences, you will find stuff in there to make you think.
Aspects are, quite simply, the core qualities that distinguish your character from all the other characters. Once you grasp them, it becomes pretty simple to identify the Aspects of any fictional character. It is especially easy with characters in novels, because the Aspects tend to be the phrases you see repeated over and over.
One of the key elements of Aspects is that they are double-edged. Being an overgrown Boy Scout means that you are always prepared, but it also means that you aren't going to be good at underhanded deeds. They are both advantages and disadvantages, depending on the situation.
When you invoke an Aspect, you are using it as an advantage. Hence, you must pay a fate point, and you become more likely to win the day. When the Aspect is compelled, it is a disadvantage. You get paid a fate point, and your life becomes more complicated. (Note that I am glossing over a lot of the subtleties of the system here.)
One of the other great things about Aspects us that they are completely player-defined. You pick a phrase that is key to the character, and that phrase starts to come up a lot. Ideally, your Aspect should simply be naturally integrated in your description of your character's actions. When Luke Skywalker does something awesome, an observer will say, "The Force is strong with this one." Similarly, when Darth Vader is tipped to his presence, he says, "The Force is strong with this one." That line is obviously one of Luke's Aspects, and makes his life both easier and harder.
Honorable Mention
I want to throw a bone to 7th Sea here, for the innovation of backgrounds. While the actual mechanics ended up being a bit clunky (like much of the system), the concept was revolutionary. Backgrounds are, in essence, disadvantages. Things like Wanted Man, Vow of Vengeance, or Impoverished were typical. What made them different was two things. First, you actually paid for your backgrounds, as opposed to the typical mechanic of a disadvantage giving you extra points. Second, you had to pay for your background, because it was actually a good thing for you.
See, these sorts of "disadvantages" are actually big, shiny plot hooks for the GM to pull you into the story. The more you have, the more spotlight you get. John Wick had noticed this in other games, where a 10-point Nemesis inevitably led to the player of that character actually having more fun. So, he turned the whole thing around. In 7th Sea, the GM is strongly encouraged to use your backgrounds to make your life difficult. Whenever he does so, though, you gain extra experience points for that session. More backgrounds leads to both more involvement in the plot and faster advancement.
If you see some similarities in approach here, that's not entirely coincidental. Rob Donoghue has mentioned that 7th Sea's backgrounds sparked a sea change in his thinking, one which eventually led to how Aspects were developed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If a designer takes *anything* from FATE, aspects would be my recommendation. FUDGE rules are okay, but aspects (and their general applicability -- places and things can have them as well) is really the telling feature for me. When I bought _The Dresden Files RPG_ that one idea covered the cost of the books (the awesome that is Dresden Files is all extra after that, from a design perspective).
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. There are other awesome things in the system (their framework for group templates, the city creation rules in DFRPG), but it's Aspects that make the game golden.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, the city creation rules as well (I don't remember group templates, but I can look them up when I get home). I read the city creation rules about the same time I was working on my campaign setting design series (which is due for an update and polish; I have more to say) and caused me to reconsider how things fit together. It led to a revision of my 'entity' definition that I'm rather happier with. You can see the result at http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/04/25/campaign-setting-design-definitions/
ReplyDelete... how annoying, it won't let me make that URL a link.
I played a few sessions of Spirit of the Century and the converted my Traveller game over to Diaspora, and ran two sessions of my own very short (German) Mesopotamia FATE system. I like the idea of aspects. In actual play, however, I felt that the result was rather bland. I'm not sure what the problem was. People had too many fate points and were never in dire straits. When I wanted to reduce the fate points, some players complained and said they wanted to play a heroic game. Effectively there was a misunderstanding between the various people at the table on the intended goals and actual working of the fate point economy. Perhaps my problem is that I like the tough approach to RPGs–I like old school D&D and fearing for my character. Aspects and fate points made me feel safe and as a game master I saw no way of turning it around.
ReplyDeleteWell, the simplest way of turning it around is simply to up the stakes. Turn the villains into super-villains. Set the characters against impossible odds. It's the difference between WWII as seen in Saving Private Ryan and as seen in Captain America, to use a recent example.
ReplyDeleteThe primary distinction is in how you handle the routine existence of the characters. When I'm just walking down the road, do I need to worry about having enough food? If bandits attack, are they actually likely to kill me? If I boldly kick down the door, is there likely to be a poison trap on it?
If your answer to those is yes, you are probably playing a gritty game. If the answer is no, you are probably playing a heroic or cinematic game. And answering no doesn't mean that you are coddling your players. It just means that they get to be badass enough to assume they can handle the routine, and only really get engaged when they come up against equally badass competition. The kind of competition that also doesn't worry about where the money comes from, has an endless supply of faceless (but barely competent) thugs, and is invulnerable to ordinary forms of law enforcement.
You will definitely end up with a power problem if you've built the game based on Firefly and they're playing Deathstalker, or vice versa.