this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
23 points (96.0% liked)
D&D Next - 5e Discussion
2396 readers
5 users here now
A place to discuss the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons, the fifth edition, known during the playtest as D&D Next.
Join our discord! https://discord.gg/dndnext
-- Rules --
- Be Civil. Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
- Use Clear, Concise Titles.
- Limit Self-Promotional Links. External links to blogs, kickstarters, storefronts, YouTube channels, etc, must be related to DnD and posted no more than once every 14 days. Affiliate links are never allowed.
This is a new community and the rules are in flux. Please bear with us (and give your feedback!) as we navigate building this new community. Thank you!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Phantaminum @jjjalljs I enjoyed Fate more in concept and rules book than as played. My GM was a firm believer in giving me as many opportunities to earn fate points as possible, and "constantly failing" didn't feel good
Why were you constantly failing? The few times I've been able to play Fate I felt like I succeeded on all the stuff I wanted to, and picked my poisons on troubles.
It was really satisfying for my Space Nazi Hunter to invoke like four aspects at once to really make sure the space Nazi leader got his head blown clean off. Also satisfying to get fate points by starting nonsense with my "faked own death to escape corporate espionage charges" trouble.
Might've just been lucky with a good gm
@jjjalljs kinda exactly? "Hero" a-la Snow Crash obviously had a "best swordsman in the meta verse" aspect. But did he have to spend a fate point to win the swordfight when he was challenged in a bar early on?
In my game, my character was supposed to be talky-McTalk face, and I failed to talk my way into a bar because I wasn't willing to spend a fate point to do so. I shouldnt have had to.
I made a mistake when I tried to run it for one group of setting the difficulties too high, which can give results like you experienced.
I also found that when it went well, the players pushed for more "this aspect gives me permission without even having to roll". So if someone was playing "smooth talker" and the gm said to roll to get past a bouncer, the player might push back.
The time it went worst I think the players didn't really offer any creative input. Failures just turned into "I give up" instead of like "what if I convince him to let us in by lying that I'm someone famous, and then the real person shows up?" or whatever. I think it's hard for some players to zoom out from just their character and get more into the writer room space.
@jjjalljs I was focused more on the direct role-playing and less on the writers-room aspect... So by the time I was going "wait what?, I shouldnt need to roll?", the RP had already gone off the rails because the GM declared the bouncer pulled out a magical face id thingy and declared some trivial lie of mine was false
I.e.: failure always unless I spent fate points
That sounds like your GM wasn't one I'd enjoy, and wasn't following the "the table should buy in to whatever's happening" premise. Sorry your game wasn't good!