Squishy games railroady and DM-dominated?

[Dalebert]

EDIT: I changed the title of the thread because I feel like I made a mistake to call it "fate-based" when I really mean squishy, as opposed to crunchy. Squishy rules are meant to be easier than crunchier rules, but I have generally bad experiences with them so far.

"It's about the story."

That's what I keep hearing from one DM but I'm wondering if I'm seeing a correlation between DM styles and their preference for fate-based systems. I mean, I acknowledge the #1 rule that the DM is always right. You don't want to spend 10 minutes of game time arguing while people wait around to play. You make your case for something but ultimately accept the DM's call to keep the game moving. Maybe you bring it up later offline or at least out of game in a more casual setting like over lunch but he remains the ultimate arbiter because you need someone to be. It seems like fate-based systems are even more DM-centric because you really have so little structure.

In a somewhat crunchy game, I have something to go on. I have some idea of what my character can do. I have some idea of how big of a threat a particular encounter may be. The world around me feels more solid and real. What my character is capable of in a more fate-based game feels extremely heavily dependent on the DM's whim at that moment. Are my character's actions moving HIS story in the direction he wants it to go? Then he may be more lenient. Otherwise...

I've played in story-heavy games in crunchy systems. Often my creativity about my character's past and personality is stimulated by the mechanics. I once wanted a necromancer but I didn't want to be evil and I picked a race that gave me some mechanics I wanted. Both inspired me to come up with a story line for my character that the other players thoroughly enjoyed and that I got countless compliments on. The supposedly story-loving DM was provided with countless opportunities for role-playing and doing fun stuff in the context of the character I had created and he seemed disinterested. It wasn't HIS story.

It can also introduce a lot of tedium when there's so little structure. If you just hand me a blank page and say "Make a character", and I ask "What am I allowed to play?" and you say "Anything!" then I'm going to probably sit there for a while and eventually say something like "I want a character who can summon dragons to do his bidding." Then we will spend some time while the DM starts explaining exactly what he'll let me get away with and it will remain very vague. "Well, you won't actually be summoning this huge, powerful dragon that does whatever you say, but how about you call upon dragon spirits that can do something for you and then vanish after a turn or two, and you'll get better at it over time, and eventually you may be able to actually summon a real dragon... but probably just small ones like a wyvern and then... And of course I want some structure, so now we're making up rules from scratch.

It's like I sword-fighting a fart. What do I even aim for?

[sktarq]

Depends on what you like to for fun in game.

No really.

You can generally figure out a basic power level that you start at and that will grow during the game. A burglar type starts by being able jimmy a poor lock in 10 minutes and has an eye for the shadows but will eventually grow to ninja/mission impossible type stunts. Consider that your matrix to measure ideas against.

And I wouldn't say Fate style systems are more DM dependent as more human dependent. Both DM and player have wider ranges of control. If your playstyle doesn't match the system well then of course the DM's boost will be far more obvious.

[Eisenheim]

I definitely would not say fate drives things in a railroady direction. That certainly hasn't been my experience. Part of the confusion here seems like the difference between fate the system and a given game that uses that system. Fate isn't actually a game on its own. Unlike D&D it has no default setting, but every game you play using fate will have a setting, so the mechanics of fate are wide open, but if a GM just says "make a character, anything goes" that's useless, even in fate.

I'm running a fate gmae right now where the PCs are gods, and their enemies are other gods and primordial monsters.

I'm playing in one where the PCs are slightly larger than life heroes in 1870's america.

Those are both fate games, both clearly define what kinds of characters and powers are appropriate, play for both is narratively driven, and they are very different from each other.

As player and a GM, I would say that the GM in fate has as much or a little more power to direct the story than in a non-narrative RPG, such as D&D, the players have a lot more, and the dice have a lot less, since both player and GM have tools to work around the dice when they don't cooperate with a satisfying narrative.

[Geddy2112]

Certainly railroading "storytime" GM's could prefer a fate based game, but it does not mean that fate based games are inherently railroaded. A railroad reading rainbow DM will be that way in any system.

[Anonymouswizard]

In a somewhat crunchy game, I have something to go on. I have some idea of what my character can do. I have some idea of how big of a threat a particular encounter may be. The world around me feels more solid and real. What my character is capable of in a more fate-based game feels extremely heavily dependent on the DM's whim at that moment. Are my character's actions moving HIS story in the direction he wants it to go? Then he may be more lenient. Otherwise...

It's really the opposite. In most games I'm powerless to affect the GM's story if he's clever enough (and I have played with someone who is clever enough, never giving enough evidence to suspect the campaign villain, but also not giving us any reason to suspect him), or even just doesn't give me a chance to interact. In Fate, I can spend a Fate Point to interact (and if I can't effect the story I don't lose the Fate Point, I'd actually give an extra here as well).

I've played in story-heavy games in crunchy systems. Often my creativity about my character's past and personality is stimulated by the mechanics. I once wanted a necromancer but I didn't want to be evil and I picked a race that gave me some mechanics I wanted. Both inspired me to come up with a story line for my character that the other players thoroughly enjoyed and that I got countless compliments on. The supposedly story-loving DM was provided with countless opportunities for role-playing and doing fun stuff in the context of the character I had created and he seemed disinterested. It wasn't HIS story.

I won't disagree that mechanics can stimulate creativity, but in this case the system has no effect on SSLDM beyond allowing him to justify his railroading. When I GM Fate (or any game) I have the problem of players not roleplaying enough and so having to power through the plot faster than I'm ready and end up not having a satisfying conclusion (to the point where my planned Anima game is less like the 'climbing tower' I normally try and give my players and more like a one way road network).

It can also introduce a lot of tedium when there's so little structure. If you just hand me a blank page and say "Make a character", and I ask "What am I allowed to play?" and you say "Anything!" then I'm going to probably sit there for a while and eventually say something like "I want a character who can summon dragons to do his bidding." Then we will spend some time while the DM starts explaining exactly what he'll let me get away with and it will remain very vague. "Well, you won't actually be summoning this huge, powerful dragon that does whatever you say, but how about you call upon dragon spirits that can do something for you and then vanish after a turn or two, and you'll get better at it over time, and eventually you may be able to actually summon a real dragon... but probably just small ones like a wyvern and then... And of course I want some structure, so now we're making up rules from scratch.

It's like I sword-fighting a fart. What do I even aim for?

I'm someone who loves Fate, because it's the system where I can take a party consisting of a completely ordinary soldier, a dragon summoner (who summons, say, ancient red wyrms en mass), a highly intelligent cat, and the ruler of a small nation, and expect them to all have the same amount of influence on the plot (instead of the ancient red wyrm summoner being the most prominent). If you want more structure than aspects give yes you'll have to make up some rules, maybe the summoning takes a Fate Point or five and allows you to effectively use a character for a scene, maybe the dragons only allow you to overcome certain obstacles and use a weapon 4 attack (I would personally allow a weapon 6 attack, because I can just scale everybody's extras/Fate Points to compensate). You might end up with a Refresh of 1 and no Stunts, but you'll be able to pick them up fairly quickly.

[Knaight]

I'm not a big fan of Fate, but I wouldn't characterize it as either railroady or GM-dominated by nature. That's entirely on the GM, and if anything they picked a system they have to fight against to implement a railroad.

[AMFV]

I'm also not a huge fan of FATE, I'm much more into crunchy systems But I don't think that FATE itself is what makes the game likely to be railroady. I suspect that a DM who is likely to run a railroad, would be just a likely to do that in FATE as in other systems, that's more a matter of personality.

To be honest I don't think running a railroad is always bad, if you can do it with the players believing that they have agency, it is roughly the same as them having agency. There are of course degrees of railroading. There's forcing the players to walk down the exact hallway, and denying them any opportunities to feel creative, and then there's rearranging things so they wind up where you planned even if you hadn't actually originally planned on them being there, both are restrictions of agency, one is obvious and (in many cases) unfun, the other should never be something the players should know, and it should be fun for all involved (provided that the story is good).

[Florian]

Well, the problem here is the "Anything" part.

Fate relies on a very specific unwritten rule, namely all players (that includes the gm) knowing the same background and being "on the same page" and an understanding that using such things as skills are not based on simulating imdividual avtions but the ability to influence the ongoing narrative.
So it is possible to play Tin Tin as well as Metabatons with the same rulesets and no changes, as lomg as all participants agree on the same boundaries.

[CharonsHelper]

I would say that Fate isn't inherently railroad centric - but GMs who want to railroad their players would gravitate towards Fate based games.

In part this is because the type of GMs who want to railroad do so to 'tell their story' to a captive audience, and too much crunch can get in the way of said story. And more importantly - less crunch for players to call them on when they change world to fit their story.

But generally - bad GMs will be bad no matter what they're running. But - I would agree that they gravitate towards games like Fate in the same way that FPS jerks may gravitate towards games that let them spawn-camp more easily.

Doesn't make those games or other people that play them inherently bad - just that it makes the game more appealing to those players.

Disclaimer: I tried not to be, but I may be a bit biased as I prefer crunchier systems.

[CharonsHelper]

To be honest I don't think running a railroad is always bad, if you can do it with the players believing that they have agency, it is roughly the same as them having agency.

It's also possible that such things would be more noticeable in a more 'story' based game like FATE. If you're playing Pathfinder, a lot of your choices have to do with mechanics, so when the occasional story choice is really a magician's choice - it'd be less noticeable.

[Knaight]

I would say that Fate isn't inherently railroad centric - but GMs who want to railroad their players would gravitate towards Fate based games.

In part this is because the type of GMs who want to railroad do so to 'tell their story' to a captive audience, and too much crunch can get in the way of said story. And more importantly - less crunch for players to call them on when they change world to fit their story.

The thing about Fate is that it has a built in fate point economy, and while that generally ends up being used to subtly influence a number of smaller things, it's also the sort of thing where you can just blow fate points in huge numbers to just about completely seize the reins for a while. That's not conducive to railroading at all.

[AMFV]

It's also possible that such things would be more noticeable in a more 'story' based game like FATE. If you're playing Pathfinder, a lot of your choices have to do with mechanics, so when the occasional story choice is really a magician's choice - it'd be less noticeable.

I think that the key aspects would involve using different techniques to hide the railroad. After all twists in fiction are often difficult to predict, and that's a medium that typically has no crunch at all. The difference is that in DnD (or similar crunch systems) The DM has an easy out: "You didn't make the check" whereas in FATE he would have to think on his feet more quickly for why a course of action wouldn't work.

[Florian]

Certainly railroading "storytime" GM's could prefer a fate based game, but it does not mean that fate based games are inherently railroaded. A railroad reading rainbow DM will be that way in any system.

How so? A Fate based game can turn in any direction, any time, because the players have the means to access the story itself via fate points. It borders on being stupid/wanting to have a fist in the face to prepare and enforce a whole story arc the way railroading would need to.

[kyoryu]

Any game can be railroaded, but Fate isn't really geared for railroad play.

As others have pointed out, the Fate Point economy really gives players the ability to get the result they want, at least some of the time. And "play things out, even if it's not what you had planned" is advice explicitly given in the Fate Core book on multiple occasions.

Fate really works best when neither the GM nor players really know what is going to happen.

[AMFV]

Any game can be railroaded, but Fate isn't really geared for railroad play.

As others have pointed out, the Fate Point economy really gives players the ability to get the result they want, at least some of the time. And "play things out, even if it's not what you had planned" is advice explicitly given in the Fate Core book on multiple occasions.

Fate really works best when neither the GM nor players really know what is going to happen.

To be fair, I imagine that if a DM wanted to railroad in FATE and had that sort of personality. He would simply twist the results of the FATE points, or respond vindictively to discourage that sort of usurpation of authority. Bad railroading DM's tend to make it all about authority. It isn't so much about "wanting their story told" as it is about exerting authority, and that can be done as easily in any system where people are present. You don't need to exert authority on the rules, when you can exert it directly on people.

[Florian]

To be fair, I imagine that if a DM wanted to railroad in FATE and had that sort of personality. He would simply twist the results of the FATE points, or respond vindictively to discourage that sort of usurpation of authority. Bad railroading DM's tend to make it all about authority. It isn't so much about "wanting their story told" as it is about exerting authority, and that can be done as easily in any system where people are present. You don't need to exert authority on the rules, when you can exert it directly on people.

How should he do this? The basic Fate premisse is the veto right for all participants.

[AMFV]

How should he do this? The basic Fate premisse is the veto right for all participants.

Talking loudly, shouting, whining, leaning on other players to interfere, refusing to move forward with the things that happened with the FATE points, refusing to acknowledge those happened later, preventing any meaningful things from happening.

There is no system that is going to offer you protection against a bully, particularly a bully who also has partial right to arbitrate rules. I suspect that this sort of DM would start out by setting up a system of houserules designed to prohibit this from happening, but they may or may not.

As a note, I'm not saying that FATE is a bad game, I'm only arguing that the manipulation happens on a non-rules related level, but on a level of personal interaction, the rules are secondary to the people involved in this case.

[Lord Raziere]

Talking loudly, shouting, whining, leaning on other players to interfere, refusing to move forward with the things that happened with the FATE points, refusing to acknowledge those happened later, preventing any meaningful things from happening.

There is no system that is going to offer you protection against a bully, particularly a bully who also has partial right to arbitrate rules. I suspect that this sort of DM would start out by setting up a system of houserules designed to prohibit this from happening, but they may or may not.

As a note, I'm not saying that FATE is a bad game, I'm only arguing that the manipulation happens on a non-rules related level, but on a level of personal interaction, the rules are secondary to the people involved in this case.

Thats not a Fate problem, thats a "GM is refusing to play the game with us" problem, and thus should be kicked out of the game.

if Fate makes the person all the more obvious to spot, all the better, they get kicked out faster. I don't see the problem with this.

[Florian]

Talking loudly, shouting, whining, leaning on other players to interfere, refusing to move forward with the things that happened with the FATE points, refusing to acknowledge those happened later, preventing any meaningful things from happening.

There is no system that is going to offer you protection against a bully, particularly a bully who also has partial right to arbitrate rules. I suspect that this sort of DM would start out by setting up a system of houserules designed to prohibit this from happening, but they may or may not.

As a note, I'm not saying that FATE is a bad game, I'm only arguing that the manipulation happens on a non-rules related level, but on a level of personal interaction, the rules are secondary to the people involved in this case.

I echo what has just been said: That is not a Fate problem and Fate makes spotting railroady gms very very easy.

[AMFV]

Thats not a Fate problem, thats a "GM is refusing to play the game with us" problem, and thus should be kicked out of the game.

EXACTLY! Most jerk DM issues are not caused or facilitated by rules and systems, they are caused by bad character, and facilitated by the people around the bad DM. Like I said it doesn't happen on the game level, rather on a personal level.

if Fate makes the person all the more obvious to spot, all the better, they get kicked out faster. I don't see the problem with this.

And here is where I break with you. Bad DMs of that type are easy enough to spot in ANY system, and they rarely get kicked out, people who are prone to that type of misbehavior also tend to be good at assessing who will put up with their bad behavior and who will not.

Edit:

I echo what has just been said: That is not a Fate problem and Fate makes spotting railroady gms very very easy.

I will echo what I said in all my earlier posts. I wasn't calling it a FATE problem, but a system independent one. As it's a problem of personal interaction, I don't think that any rules system would stop it, or cause it to be less of a problem. It's not happening on the level of the game, but rather on the level of the people involved. As such, the game rules aren't really a factor. I mean I've had one GM like this, and this generally resulted in large numbers of houserules to adjust things that weren't in their favor.

[CharonsHelper]

Thats not a Fate problem, thats a "GM is refusing to play the game with us" problem, and thus should be kicked out of the game.

I don't think he said that it was a Fate problem - I certainly didn't. I merely opined that that sort of GM will tend to gravitate to a system such as Fate.

[Lord Raziere]

EXACTLY! Most jerk DM issues are not caused or facilitated by rules and systems, they are caused by bad character, and facilitated by the people around the bad DM. Like I said it doesn't happen on the game level, rather on a personal level.



And here is where I break with you. Bad DMs of that type are easy enough to spot in ANY system, and they rarely get kicked out, people who are prone to that type of misbehavior also tend to be good at assessing who will put up with their bad behavior and who will not.

1. Yes, this is what Fate player would know?

2. really? oh well, I leave and find another group, no gaming is better than bad gaming, this is basic stuff dude. its the other guys poison if they decide to stay.

[AMFV]

1. Yes, this is what Fate player would know?

2. really? oh well, I leave and find another group, no gaming is better than bad gaming, this is basic stuff dude. its the other guys poison if they decide to stay.

Well the general problem is what we see here. "Well the players could beat the bad DM with 'FATE points'", people tend to default to trying to beat people by working within the rules, even when the problem is not contained by the rules. I once had a GM in Shadowrun, who was continually weakening characters, lowering our starting points, over and over, every time we had successfully produced a character who could be even the least bit competent. We never complained against this directly (though we should have), instead we wound up trying to munchkin our characters more and more.

Trying to argue for a rules solution to a not-rules problem is never going to end well, and that's the same thing as saying FATE is better or worse at dealing with DM railroading and bullying, FATE is as good as any system, as it's not the interaction with the rules that's the issue, but the interaction between people.

Edit:

I don't think he said that it was a Fate problem - I certainly didn't. I merely opined that that sort of GM will tend to gravitate to a system such as Fate.

I don't think so, again this is a people problem, not a rules problem. A DM like that could just as easily twist a rules heavy system in his favor as he could bend FATE that way. It has more to do with people than actual rules.

[Florian]

Sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with Fate?

[AMFV]

Sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with Fate?

Nothing, which is my argument.

I was arguing that FATE doesn't have any bearing at all on whether a DM behaves like a jerk. It's system independent.

[Dalebert]

Good points made. I made a mistake to use the term "fate-based". My concern is really about squishy rules versus more crunchy rules. I'm happy with a reasonable balance, of course. I feel like rules should be crunchy "enough" to have some structure to them. Otherwise, when it's left wide open to interpretation, you have a game that's even more DM-focused than games already are. In fact, I think fate as part of a crunchy enough (but not too much) system can actually be pretty cool. I apologize for expressing myself poorly.

[Anonymouswizard]

Have we realised that we're all arguing similar things, ON THE FIRST PAGE?

@AMFV: I agree that some of us like to try and solve everything within the rules. For me this comes from two tendencies: normally knowing the rules better than the GM (in one case when I'd had access to the book for about 20 minutes and had one a quick google search, whereas he had had access for over two months), and being a stubborn idiot with a good grasp of decently complex maths. If given a chance I can create a character that will ride roughshod over GMs (not that I always do so on purpose, how was I supposed to know that nobody else had an array!?*), but I'll offer to redesign the character if asked to tone it down (I was told that I shouldn't try to beat everyone else at their own game, whereas I was just concentrating on my concept, which was an air mage [I flew as fast as the lightning powered speedster could run, was able to turn into air, and could control air, and had Intellect reaching the human maximum in a party with a psychic {a telekinetic!? I could understand if a telepath was smarter than me, but she didn't use her TK anywhere near the 8 INT on her sheet}]), but I've had things like a GM first ignoring what my character could do because researching the zombie plague isn't a decent idea in a zombie apocalypse apparently (how was I suppose to know we had to punch it into oblivion instead of find a cure!?***) and complained because only one player had given him a backstory when he hadn't asked for one (I responded to these by pointing out not only how he was using the system wrong, but his claims of 'this is in every sytem' [i.e. a 5% chance of a crit fail, standard target number of 10 if it's non d%] isn't even in half the systems I'd played and might not be in this one, have you even read the rules). I know my tendency to fight within the rules is wrong, but considering that I've only ever had to do it with bad GMs, I haven't had the chance to grow out of it.

Looking back on it though, my rather weird ideas of how games aren't all about beating the bad guy or following the yellow brick railroad (although that was at least a pretty enough railroad to make me forget about the train) being the root cause of it all.

I now have an idea of running a sandbox campaign set entirely on a really large train. Like 100 carriages the size of manor houses.

* I concentrated my powers in a, IIRC, barely legal array and then tacked flight and insubstantial on, whereas the GM advised another player to spend a lot of PP on Summon and Equipment when that didn't even work by the rules**, and he should have just bought two arrays: one for weapons and one for armour (which would have given him some points to increase his defences).
** The GM assumed M&M worked on a descriptive system rather than an effects system.
*** Oh, I've had several people tell me that my expectation of the game sounds far more interesting than what it was, makes me want to run my own zombie game using Fate.

[icefractal]

The players can use FP to declare stuff, but IIRC, the GM has the ability to reject that. It's only supposed to be used when someone's making a declaration that screws up the premise of the game, or that the whole group dislikes, but a railroading GM could easily twist that as "going against my story is breaking the premise of the game". Or they could use the 'evil genie' method - "Yep, you call in your police contacts and a SWAT team is sent to deal with the cultists. Too bad the police have already been infiltrated by the cult - you just provided them more weaponry!"

That said, it's no worse than other games in that respect. However, I do think that railroading is more obvious and more annoying in a rules-light system, because you don't have much mechanical gameplay to fall back on. It also might be somewhat easier for GMs to slide into railroad territory when they don't need to override any rules to do so.

[Florian]

Good points made. I made a mistake to use the term "fate-based". My concern is really about squishy rules versus more crunchy rules. I'm happy with a reasonable balance, of course. I feel like rules should be crunchy "enough" to have some structure to them. Otherwise, when it's left wide open to interpretation, you have a game that's even more DM-focused than games already are. In fact, I think fate as part of a crunchy enough (but not too much) system can actually be pretty cool. I apologize for expressing myself poorly.

Ok, see, the problem I do have here is that Fate is not, by any means, squishy.
It has a different focus and it is very very crunshy in regards to that focus.

Stuff like the skill pyramid, aspects and stunts are geared towards a "scene", not an individual action and in this regard, they work and they provide the necessary crunch.

As a Fate gm, I would never, ever, ask my players to check a skill for one simple task if that task is not part of a larger ongoing narrative. That would make no sense with this particular system and the accompanying style of play.

If you make the transition to this kind of thinking, then the hard crunch is there and nobody will fiddle around to circumvent this.

[sktarq]

Actually I would FATE as a system is less forgiving of railroady DM's than many chrunch heavy systems because players can try to use the system to support themselves in a more flexible manner. This will either cause problematic DM's to act less problematically or to be problematic in a more obvious fashion. Do note this a relative effect - both will eventually show their true colours but in FATE there are more opportunities to force the issue clearly.


On the other hand a player who does not engage with system (by choice, unfamiliarity, whatever) will be almost entirely carried along by the DM- possibly to their annoyance possibly by design.