Honest opinions on Fate as a system?

>*Autistic Screeching*

Fate is a metasystem that requires a very detached way of viewing your character and has odd outputs all over the place. It's considered rules-light, but Core has a large skill list and enough weird, common law gotchas that it becomes rules medium. The fact that several rules bits are hidden in different parts of the core book doesn't help either. It relies on Aspects to do the heavy narrarive/mechanical lifting, but are primarily (in some cases only) interactive when you pay Fate Points for them. This creates a deep disconnect. The Fate Point Economy is busted; they are purely a solo incentive for negative character behavior, so players either hoard them or hog the spotlight with melodrama, slapstick, or both. Combat is profoundly grindy and swingy; since the dice are heavily weighted to zero, they become a formality and your numbers are what matter, especially when invokes hit the table.

That being said, it does get players to be more focused in creating and playing to character traits, the non-combat stuff is quick to resolve, and it's not a game with a great deal of system mastery to take advantage of. The negative incentive of the Fate Point Economy can be either ignored or used to create adventure seeds for normally listless players. Accelerated, especially, is easy for new players to get and moves at a fair clip. It's easily hackable and the SRD has free junk, including the reasoning behind certain rules decisions.

Basically ask yourself this: do I want a rules dense story modeling game? If so, Fate's your huckleberry. If not, you can possibly beat it into something more fitting. If modeling narrative bothers uou, stay away from the game.

It lends itself to very specific kinds of playstyle and certainly isn't for everyone (myself included), but I can certainly see the appeal. I'll stick to crunchier stuff, though I did have a bit of a laugh in a short four-session Dresden campaign using it.

>do I want a rules dense story modeling game? If so, Fate's your huckleberry.

What would you recommend for a rules lite story modeling game?

One of the Powered by the Apocalypse variants?

Honestly, I think it depends on the group and DM.

My group and I played DnD for a few years off and on, joined another friends game where we played FATE. The guy as a GM was very story driven. Our characters mattered, the NPC's mattered, and you better remember their names.

I enjoyed it because it lent itself more to a story focused element. It made more focused on playing as my character. I didn't have to think "Well, X has a higher persuasion / Y is the only one who can do Z." While we certainly had our specializations between ranged, melee, mechanics, nature, etc. We all still had a chance to be a part of the narrative.

For some I can definitely see the downsides. Those FATE dice most certainly help on crucial rolls. Combat seemed a bit slow, if you didn't overwhelmingly exceed, you may as well have not done anything. If your GM follows the rules of handing out FATE points, people may hog the spotlight. However, most GM's will try to limit that bullshit, ensuring everyone is in the same spotlight.

Did I have fun? Yes. Was it all thanks to FATE? No, the DM had an awesome story we were invested in, FATE was the simple rules we used to progress it. Is it for everyone? Hell no. Is it worth giving it a shot if you or your DM really like narrative focus? Yes.

Sadly this.

Like most games.

If you're not playing with autists it's good.

Good stuff here. I find the combat works when you view it from a story driven standpoint, rather than the 'whittle down their HP' that you are accustomed to in other games.

The best example I can give is let's say you are writing a novel or even a screenplay. When writing that stuff, you are not thinking how much damage the weapons do vs how many hits the antagonists can take, you are imagining the scene play out and how the protagonists would overcome it in a compelling way. That is where you view combat in fate.

Again, not everyone is able to make that disconnect and enjoy the crunchy numbers aspect in their games, which is fine. Again, our group switched to it, and even we sometimes can't help but wonder 'how many gunshots does it take to kill this guy', when its now about that.

It takes the right kind of players and especially the right GM.

So if anything, you should give it a shot at least. Fate accelerated is a slimmed down version that introduces the system, so it's great for pick-ups and one-shots. If your group dug it, then look into the full system. If all they can keep talking about is the system they were in before, then maybe it's not for them, which is cool.

>e to kill this guy', when its now about that.
when its NOT about that

fixt it for myself

What bugged me about FATE combat is that the best option is always 'everyone sticks an aspect on the target, the last person in init uses the free tags for a king hit'.

That mechanical structure is quite narratively limiting. I'd like it if there were other ways to approach combat if only to let you enjoy fluffing them up in different ways without making it even more of a slog than it already is.

I get that. When broken down the mechanics under it all are less significant than say D&D 5e, but I find that is the beauty of it, in that it's less intrusive in the narrative. But that's just me anyway.

It's a very good game with a number of flaws.

On the plus side, you can do literally anything with it. There is no other system that allows as much diversity with as little imbalance. It's trappings are entirely abstract, while its mechanics are rigid and simplistic. The result is that you can do essentially anything you can imagine, but never stray far outside a very core power level, allowing characters who would be radically mismatched in other systems to be effective equals. It is relatively simple, making it easy to learn and easy to teach. Because it is modular, streamlined, and uses a great deal of abstraction, it is easy to modify and can adapt to pretty much any setting, genre, or style of game with a minimal amount of effort. It is not connected to any specific setting.

There are also negatives. Because it has no list of traits and flaws to browse, and no classes to use as a guide, some players find it paralyzing. It also punishes characters for not having weaknesses, while rewarding failure, especially characters who go out of their way to fail repeatedly, in order to gain advantage later. Essentially, the game punishes you for being boring, punishes you for not engaging in role play, and punishes you for not failing enough. This can frustrate players who don't like the style of play it is built for, and also creates an inequity, where players with more storytelling skill and more creativity tend to outpace those who are more straightforward and mechanical in their approach. The game is extremely soft as written, even going so far as to say player's characters cannot die without their permission. For some game genres, and for some groups, this is out of place. It does not work well for horror, for instance, although this can be house ruled. It is not connected to any specific setting.

>the best option is always

I find this is a problem with most games; players are going to happen upon a method of fighting that yields the best results, and they're going to keep applying it over and over. If hitting people with a sword is the best option to win, some folks are going to turn everything into a sword fight because that's the best option.

Personally, my biggest hurdle when running Fate campaigns has been just trying to get people to accept the extra responsibilities handed to players. I thought that players would generally enjoy their more explicit control over the narrative ("muh player agency"), but for every player I've had that wields it deftly, there's been another who seems REALLY uncomfortable with using it. As a GM, I like that it sets out a more collaborative relationship between the players and the GM explicitly, and handing over some of the normally-GM-only-stuff to players takes away some of the guessing games involved in working out what direction players are wanting to take the game.

Was part of a group that tried to do a mecha noir game in FATE. all the players had no experience in the ststem, coming from D&D, so it was difficult to adapt to.
Was fun until scheduling conflicts killed it.

Utterly awful, as most "cajole to get your best stat to apply to everything" systems are.

Also what said. I really despise systems that basically force you to treat your character like some sort of puppet to dance for your amusement instead of a character whose actions you want to succeed. Encouraging PCs to suddenly erupt into bouts of self-sabotage makes GMing it harder and playing it feel utterly jarring.

It's good as long as everyone playing has experience in GMing a game and is interested more in the story than "winning" the game.

>Did I have fun? Yes. Was it all thanks to FATE? No, the DM had an awesome story we were invested in, FATE was the simple rules we used to progress it
Honestly, that's one of its biggest strengths to me. I don't like rules for their own sake. I just want some basic mechanics to make playing pretend more interesting. If those mechanics reward you for being better at playing pretend, all the better.

>thought that players would generally enjoy their more explicit control over the narrative ("muh player agency"), but for every player I've had that wields it deftly, there's been another who seems REALLY uncomfortable with using it.

Honestly, the idea that players enjoy "narrative control" in the meta sense of the phrase is the most incredibly wrong piece of meme advice that has made its rounds through Veeky Forums. Players DON'T usually like naming PCs, or inventing countries, or deciding details about the scene. If they did enjoy that stuff, they'd be a GM, not a player.

So most of the time you just end up with a really awkward moment where the GM is trying to shuffle work onto a player who is utterly uncomfortable with it.

Most players want the illusion of freedom, not actual freedom. I suspect that's why Fate inspires more incoherent temper tantrums than pretty much any other system (except the ones that are popular and therefore cool to whine about, of course). Things don't go right and they get frustrated, but because their perceived level of agency is the same as it was for D&D they can never quite put their finger on the problem.

see

>Most players want the illusion of freedom, not actual freedom.

Stop.

You clearly don't understand. Let me try to make this more explicit.

Players, by and large, enjoy responding to scenarios and situations that the GM have outlined, not creating those scenarios and situations themselves.

A player enjoys looking at a GM's world and figuring out how his PC could fit into it, not designing his own nation and explaining all the politics and social classes and blah-de-fucking-blah shit that makes his PC a thing.

A player enjoys figuring out how to take advantage of things the GM mentioned in the scene to his own benefit, not spending a plot point and declaring that there's a convenient chandelier above his enemy's head to rope him into.

A player enjoys overcoming a challenge and seeing his character succeed by merit of wit and skill, not suddenly indulging in self sabotage because he wants more meta tokens to play with.

This is not about "players clearly don't appreciate all the freedom they have," they, 99% of the time, don't like stepping out of their character's heads.

Sorry, by your taste is by far a minority, and your waifu system remains shit.

>Protip: The way you like to play games is not the only way to play games. Nor is it the correct way, the best way or somehow more mature than other ways. It's just your way.
>If you want to play games your way with groups who feel the same? That's fine. If you're going to get angry at the very idea people might enjoy playing games differently to you, you're just kind of a dick.

Played Spirit of the Century 3 times, I think. It's a system that does pulp simulation quite well. Aspects are also nice narrative elements.

However, if you are aiming for more realism or at simulating a genre that is more realistic, you might find it a bit lacking.

Also disregard any reviews of the system that don't address its strengths and weaknesses in terms of playstyle.

>Also disregard any reviews of the system that don't address its strengths and weaknesses in terms of playstyle.

That would be because FATE doesn't have any strengths as an RPG, at all.

The strongest emotion generated by the idea of people playing and enjoying fatal is bewilderment.

Majority or minority is irrelevant to the point

Surely the creators must have played and enjoyed it.

It's not at all irrelevant to people who actually want to run games that aren't shit, however, which is why the meme advice of making players contribute to the setting instead of making their CHARACTERS INTERACT with the setting is so prevalent, despite being so incredibly wrong.

What are you even talking about?

t. narrativist player

t. simulationist player

>A player enjoys figuring out how to take advantage of things the GM mentioned in the scene to his own benefit, not spending a plot point and declaring that there's a convenient chandelier above his enemy's head to rope him into.
you mean a simulationist player enjoys that. both narrativist and gamist players don't mind.

>A player enjoys overcoming a challenge and seeing his character succeed by merit of wit and skill, not suddenly indulging in self sabotage because he wants more meta tokens to play with.

I think that's a case of approaching a game from two different angles; every character is going to suffer setbacks. If you want a game where your character suffers setbacks because you rolled poorly, then regular RPGs are going to work. Some people find that a random and somewhat unforgiving system where failure happens because of something external works for them, other people are going to want games where complications and setbacks occur because of the traits that make up their character. It's different strokes for different folks really.

you mean as a system? that is as bullshit as deendeefags claiming their system is perfect for everything. it does have some clear strengths. aspects are a good mechanic for inserting character background into the ongoing narrative, for example. or giving certain location elements mechanical meaning. fate dice are a really good basis for simulationist task resolution (sadly this creates a mismatch to the narrative-focused fate point mechanics). someone should do a GURPS variant based on fate dice.

I am talking about FATEfags giving meme advice that sabotages normal GMs trying to run normal games for normal groups. Advice that "sounds good" right up until your session stalls like a manual stick shift car being started by a 1st day driver.

If you know that all your players are also hypercompetent GMs who effortlessly weave fascinating stories, sure, FATE is not a completely terrible system. But that's not because it's "too advanced," or whatever FATEfags try to comfort themselves with, it's because it's the Fiasco of roleplaying games, which is to say it is a roleplaying game under only the loosest definition of the term with mechanics that just barely qualify for the label, and demand an entirely separate mindset from conventional games.

This is why FATEfags invariably give terrible advice. They're off playing Cops and Robbers while everyone else is playing Descent.

t. fag who didn't get the memo that GNS is bunk.

You seem to be defining normal as 'The way I run/play games' and assuming that you automatically are part of a majority while everyone else is a minority.

Have you ever considered the popularity of systems like Fate might be evidence that this isn't actually the case?

There is no such thing as a 'normal' game or a 'normal' group. Every game is different, ever GM has their own quirks and style and preferences, and making the kind of broad generalisations you fall back on are just as unhelpful as the advice you're criticising.

GNS isn't accurate, but it is a vaguely useful framework for discussing and thinking about systems, as long as you remember that none of the categories are absolute. Every RPG needs all three, it's a question of priority and how they split their focus.

>Some people find that a random and somewhat unforgiving system where failure happens because of something external works for them
simulationists
>other people are going to want games where complications and setbacks occur because of the traits that make up their character
gamists/narrativists, depending on whether the traits have been selected because of mechanical effects or not.

>Have you ever considered the popularity of systems like Fate might be evidence that this isn't actually the case?

Go onto roll20 and tell me how many FATE games are being played. Then tell me how many d&d games are being played.

I'll wait.

FATE is a game which doesn't require a battlemap, so I assume not many? But that isn't really a point, an argument, or evidence of anything in particular.

It's a dead giveaway of an user's newness. Anyone who has lurked Veeky Forums for more than a day will have learned it.

>using roll20 as a measure of anything

wew lad

Sales numbers then.

Let's cut the bullshit; you and I both know you're full of shit, and that games that do not invite players to act like co-GMs are the norm. This is reflected in FATE's relative unpopularity, which is in turn reflected by their lack of online games, sales figures, and so forth, compared to other more conventional games.

>using an online game service as a measure of how many games are being played isn't allowed when talking about the popularity of games

wew lad

no, it just disposes of simulationism to a large degree, which is why it is so different from "normal" RPGs. i am more the simulationist type myself but i can see how and why it would work for non-simulationist players. i can also see how advice from non-simulationist GMs can fuck up the sessions of "normal" GMs.

prove it

some amount of simulationism/realism is the default for RPGs and it's what we have grown up with

discussing systems and players. if you look at Edwards original article it talks about player types and systems that cater to them.

>prove it
lurk Veeky Forums for more than five minutes.

Or better yet, go to any of the external archives and do a search of GNS and read the pages and pages and pages of threads completely tearing every tiny aspect of the theory apart.

i'm here since 2010 and play RPGs since the mid 80s. so newfag doesnt cut to it, bring some arguments, you lazy faggot.

You seem to be getting very defensive at the idea that you aren't able to stand in authority on the correct way to play roleplaying games. Why does it matter that much to you?

You seem to have no arguments left to make and are instead relying on random tangents.

Bullshit.

GNS being bunk is a fucking dead horse, you'd know that by now if you weren't actually a newfag.

What sales numbers?
Wotc doesn't release sales figures to the public.

>lurk Veeky Forums for more than five minutes.
nah, i prefer being proactive and not giving morons like you the entire spotlight

>Or better yet, go to any of the external archives and do a search of GNS
yeah, no, that doesn't make for a good debate in this thread. if you can't deliver any meaningful arguments yourself, GTFO.

and make sure these arguments specifically apply to debunking the way I have been using GNS in this thread. can't? that's because you're dumb. just fucking stupid.

Fate proves that knee high socks and grimdark can sell anything.

Yeah, nah.

No one cares that much about your little 'debate,' if you can't be bothered to learn why yourself then no one else is going to spoon feed it to you.

Go back to the forge, newfag.

>the meme advice of making players contribute to the setting instead of making their CHARACTERS INTERACT with the setting is so prevalent, despite being so incredibly wrong.

The character still interact with the setting, you know that right? Relinquishing a little bit of control makes your life as a GM so much easier, because rather than having to build your world and hope that the players are going to find parts of it interesting, you instead get told straight up what your players are interested in doing and from there flesh it out further. It's obviously less useful if you're into world building as an academic exercise, but for the purpose of running a roleplaying game, getting player feedback on what they want out of a setting helps you make a setting that players are going to want to interact with.

Players don't seem to make their characters interact much with shit they're not interested in. As cool as your not-Aztec Elven Kingdom is, if the players aren't interested, it's not going to work. Characters interact with the setting, the players help define the setting along with the GM.

As far as I can see, my original argument in has yet to be addressed. Even if we assume that the sales figures or Roll20 numbers apply in the way you suggest (which I still dispute), you completely ignored my latter point- That treating any broad section of the hobby as if they all do things the same ways is meaningless, and acting as if your personal views and style is universaliseable in that sense is not logically sound.

>This is reflected in FATE's relative unpopularity, which is in turn reflected by their lack of online games, sales figures, and so forth, compared to other more conventional games.
None of that works the way you think it does.

Knee highs? Why didn't you fucking say so sooner, where can I sign up?

Players being creatively involved with something is not equivalent to players being interested in something, and acting as if they are is yet another piece of FATEfag meme advice.

If you want to run a successful and entertaining game 9 times out of 10, you will run it as a conventional d&d game.

If you want your game to crash and burn 9 times out of 10, you will run it as a FATE game.

If you want to pretend that norms and generalities have no place in deciding how best to conduct activities or behaviors with people whose nuances you may or may not know, then suit yourself, but it is the height of ignorance.

At this point you're just making assertions, not arguments. You've not really left any room for discussion or debate beyond wordier versions of 'nu uh'.

>If you want to pretend that norms and generalities have no place in deciding how best to conduct activities or behaviors with people whose nuances you may or may not know, then suit yourself, but it is the height of ignorance.
Seems to me that your problem is you play with absolute strangers.

>Players being creatively involved with something is not equivalent to players being interested in something

Why wouldn't they be? If I asked you to make me a character that you'd be interested in playing in a game, it'd be something of a huge leap of logic for me to tell you then that you wouldn't be interested in playing it. I could be way off the mark here, but it's my experience that people tend not to put shit in their character background that they're not interested in. If they're not interested in it, they don't tell you about it.

That's because there is no room for debate; I am correct. FATE appeals to a minority of "roleplayers" who don't really enjoy playing a character as much as they enjoy making a little show for themselves based on what their puppet does. This is not how most RPGs work, and why their advice is not applicable most of the time.

Seems to me you're making assumptions because you've run out of arguments. Anyone can tell you that you don't know how people actually are in a p&p game until you sit them at the table and play, and pretending that you're going to divine their preferences for pen and paper gameplay conventions based entirely on their non-pen and paper activities is simply lying to yourself.

>t does require the right group of players.

You could play d20, ctulhutech and d&d 5 and basically every single game with "the right group of players".

This is actually a really good point. If you know your players and group well enough, then surely all the advice the poster is complaining about isn't a problem? As a GM you should know your group, or be willing to experiment with them to figure out what they like. That sort of advice isn't statements of 'always do it this way', but suggestions you can incorporate into your game to see how they work out. As long as you have that basic mutual understanding, then the relative proportion of playstyles that the poster keeps asserting are still irrelevant.

You could play FATAL or MYFAROG with the right group of players.

That whole argument is just as stupid as people who insist that because you can houserule a broken game, then the game isn't broken.

Don't forget FATAL.

Still amuses me how you could insert 's diatribe into a FATAL player's mouth and it'd still be exactly as applicable.

Well, it is generally true. As godawful as the system seems to most people, there's a community and support for almost everything, so some people are apparently having fun with them. And... Good on them, I guess?

>That's because there is no room for debate; I am correct. FATE appeals to a minority of "roleplayers" who don't really enjoy playing a character as much as they enjoy making a little show for themselves based on what their puppet does. This is not how most RPGs work, and why their advice is not applicable most of the time.

It's amazing, how you apparently know the motivations of an entire group of people who you've explicitly stated you don't share interests with. It's almost like you're talking out of your fucking arse.

Well, you didn't really give any arguments yourself beyond the sperging.

user's mind would probably explode if he tried considering that maybe people don't play D&D the same way he thinks they do.

>You could play FATAL or MYFAROG with the right group of players.

Some people like soup and some people like salad and some people are really into eating shit off the backs of hairy European men.

nah, I'll keep posting my stuff here. feel free to point out the existence of some mystical debunking argument to my stuff.

well, the more the players contribute to the game world, the less there is for them to discover

and again: the only real difference is that "normal" roleplayers want simulation of a game world for immersion. as such, they balk at the thought of them having a meta-currency to influence the gameworld outside of their character's actions.

>well, the more the players contribute to the game world, the less there is for them to discover

If this is true, then you have a godawful GM. Every element a player gives me to make use of I can spin into so many more things that are directly interesting for them to discover and explore. It's actually easier to give players things to discover if they contribute to the setting.

Why does a starting character NEED to have a "first adventure" in backstory? What if I specifically want a character who never did anything that can be described as an adventure?
The rules say, and I quote:
>The first phase is your character’s first true adventure—his first book, episode, case, movie, whatever—starring him.
So I'm not allowed to think of an "adventure" that's too banal to be the entire plot of a novel or feature film. It can't be that one time the character lost his keys. He has to have walked into Mordor or fought ninjas or rescued a princess. It has to be big.
Not only that, but my character's first adventure must involve the other PCs as well, so I'm not allowed to make a character who is meeting the party for the first time.
The core rules are basically forcing the group to start a campaign at a narrative point that would be 20 to 30 hours into a D&D campaign. I would rather play through those hours as a game.

no, it's not untrue. even if you can add on top of things, when we collaboratively generate the background of out PCs, for example, I already know the gist of their background. may there be much more to discover? sure, but I know some very important facts that are bound to come up already.

yes, you can add more but anything the players openly design is something they already know. if they agree that kingdom X is ruled by an evil monarch, they (the players) already know this basic fact. if I as the Gm design kingdom X this way, they have the chance to hear about it in-game.

A first book/episode can easily be about your training. Heck, I know multiple book series' like that.

So you'd prefer characters to know nothing about the universe they are from? As FATE generally doesn't involve generating much beyond the well known by characters.

The players and characters knowing less to start doesn't mean there's less to find in the world. That's nonsense. It just means they have more of an idea where to start, things they're invested in and can follow up on.

A world full of mysteries is irrelevant if they aren't things people care about. Even if it did somehow restrict the quantity of stuff available, the fact it's restricting it to things people actually care about means you still end up with more actually useful things to work with.

>Why does a starting character NEED to have a "first adventure" in backstory?

Because the system of compels works better in the game when the players have an understanding of what the other characters are like, and fleshing out a first adventure together helps that. It also hammers home the idea that you should be playing characters that work together, which some players can struggle with.

As for the it-has-to-be-big thing; the game mentions that the player characters are "extremely competent". Guidelines for handling failure are based around making the characters still look "competent and awesome". The shared first adventure should help establish what the character is good at (competency), what the character is like (helps everyone get a handle on what your various aspects really mean and how you might want them to be compelled) and establishes the group as, well, a group. There probably wouldn't be much stopping you from tweaking the rules around such that you don't need a first adventure, if that's what you'd want to do, but there are reasons why it's the way it is.

>Why does a starting character NEED to have a "first adventure" in backstory?
it doesn't have to be an adventure per se- just an experience that led him on the current path.
>What if I specifically want a character who never did anything that can be described as an adventure?
Fate relies on players and GM cooperating, so you always can ask GM about that and it's not that big of a deal to disallow.
>So I'm not allowed to think of an "adventure" that's too banal to be the entire plot of a novel or feature film. It can't be that one time the character lost his keys. He has to have walked into Mordor or fought ninjas or rescued a princess. It has to be big.
it doesn't. See point 1.
>Not only that, but my character's first adventure must involve the other PCs as well, so I'm not allowed to make a character who is meeting the party for the first time.
That's a good thing. It immediately establishes you and other PCs as a group and gives them connections to one another. Of course you can skip that (as i previously mentioned, it's up to you and GM), but in my opinion that makes the whole thing a bit boring.
>The core rules are basically forcing the group to start a campaign at a narrative point that would be 20 to 30 hours into a D&D campaign. I would rather play through those hours as a game.
The core rules make you skip the worst 20 hours of a D&D campaign - when party doesn't know each other, communicate awkwardly and don't know each other at all.

I get that "you all meet in a tavern, zero to hero" games can be fun too. You actually CAN play these in FATE. But with framework available it's a waste. FATE places more emphasis on interaction between your dudes and the world, starting from a blank state is a misuse of these resources.

No, that's silly. If characters know something, it doesn't mean that this "something" is all there is in the setting. Beyond that, you can make plot twists involve what characters know. Characters give you material to build the rest of the setting upon, that's a goddamn godsend to any GM.

>yes, you can add more but anything the players openly design is something they already know

I'd argue that, just as a player will do best approaching Fate with a slightly different mindset than the one fostered by "normal" games, the GM has to approach things differently as well. Not only are your hands marginally more tied by the action of collaboratively creating elements of the setting, but the sort of game plots that you're able to easily run are going to be different.

Game plots that involve the players being surprised by the events that unfold don't work so well, for instance. In my experience, limited as it is, the game works better with the direction of the story unfolding through the collaboration of players and the GM. It's difficult to relinquish that narrative control that you traditionally enjoy in other RPGs as a GM. Having said that, some of it will come down to the questions you throw back to the players - if you rarely turn questions about the game setting back to the players to discuss and think about, you can maintain a game world that can be ran and planned out like one in a traditional roleplaying game. However, I don't think that really plays up the strengths of the game, but it may work well for both players and GMs that aren't entirely comfortable with the slightly odd responsibilities placed upon the players and GM.

Honestly having played a DF game with it, I dislike it. Not hate, but I just cannot get into the aspects. It ruins the immersion for me, constantly thinking about and using the metagame elements and trading chips with the GM. It destroys the fun and escapism for me.

>yes, you can add more but anything the players openly design is something they already know. if they agree that kingdom X is ruled by an evil monarch, they (the players) already know this basic fact. if I as the Gm design kingdom X this way, they have the chance to hear about it in-game.

But they don't know what the evil king is doing, they don'-

fucking hell, if you're playing in Golarion or Forgotten Realms you'll KNOW who the evil kings are and the mind flayers are in the underdark. And while these are shit settings, they're hugely popular.

Are you going to go and say now that all prebuilt settings are utter trash because the players know about the game world in advance? Seriously?

/thread

Is there an official version that incorporates Discover?

>ryanmacklin.com/2014/10/fate-the-discover-action/

I heard it enhances the gameplay considerably.

FATE is the system for the kind of people who like to pretend that Batman has no superpowers.

>No it just deposes of simulation

Agreed. As gaming terminology goes, it is useful.

Reminder that Evil Hat strong armed DriveThru RPG to remove a parody games about SJWs from their store, threatening to pull their own stuff if they refused.

Regardless of how you feel about what went down with GG, that was an incredibly shitty business practice and it's one of the main reasons I refuse to support FATE. It's kind of hilarious that the developers cry about the way other people have fun only to have their fans fervently defend their shallow narrative system and insult people who just "don't get it", which is evident from all the posters on their high horses in this thread.

Evil Hat should calm their tits about the SJW rethoric in some of their books as well.