As the title. Anyone have good/bad experiences with FATE in PBP?

I haven't played FATE yet (but am very interested in doing so). It seems that since the system involves opposed rolls and the use of FATE points--which can potentially edit the narrative--FATE might struggle a little bit in PBP. I would be very happy to be wrong about this.

Additionally, if the above is true, has anyone developed ways to better tailor it to PBP?

A huge amount of spending and counter spending only really happens on really big rolls. So it's not a huge deal. Mostly when you roll you handle your spending for rerolls immediately (you know you were not going to succeed with a -3) then you lay out what assets you are willing to spend to make up the difference. So you end up with something like.



Invoke for effect aren't really any harder than doing something cool in the narrative in any other game. Problem with those in general is that they sort of rely on you looking around the table and seeing if people think what you are doing is reasonable. In a PBP we are sort of screwed since we just can't do that.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 13:48, Fri 05 May 2017.

A general agreement to be as accepting as possible of what people are trying to do, and some GM guidance as to the tone, genre and power-level of the game can go a long way toward minimizing how much checking people have to do before acting. Fate relies heavily on trust and judgment; it just takes a little more in PBP.

I've GM'd a couple of FATE games (and variations like the Dresden Files).

I've found that it's pretty easy to streamline you're prepared ahead of time.  If you take on much of the "mechanical scene breakdown", the players can focus on their actions with a minimal of negotiation.  You can narrow a discussion down to two opportunities to spend fate-points (at the time of the action declaration or once a breakdown of the mechanics of a combat exchange has been posted).

Most players are interested in keeping the action moving so won't spend fate points unless it's really worth it to them.

I can post how I run combat if you're interested...

Just joining the discussion, but I would be interested in seeing this.

Okay, here's my basic breakdown.

1. As the GM, I pre-define all the NPC moves for the round.  I write myself a note in the GM-Only thread.
   
2. The players post their moves and rolls together.  They have the option to declare up front that they're spending fate points and/or conditions under which it'll happen.
   Given the nature of RPOL, adhering to an initiative order really runs the risk to slow things down.  So, it's up to me, as the GM, to reframe the scene with the posted actions in the Initiave order.
   
3. I draft an "Exchange Breakdown" and include "default actions" for those who haven't posted an action.
   
4. PCs will roll defense & spend fate-points as they choose.  In very rare circumstances, I might spend fate-points from the GM-Pool...  The "draft exchange" isn't set in stone yet.
   
5. I post the completed exchange breakdown
   
6. I or one of the players will post a narrative breakdown of what just happened...

The draft exchange breakdown typically looks like this:

• +3 Steve
  
  • Action: Shoot NPC:Mark with Guns:+2
  • PC:Steve rolled 4dF(+1) + Guns(+2) == Attack(+3)
    
    • NPC:Mark rolled (Private to GM: 4dF(-1) + Athletics(+2) ==) Defend(+1)
    • THEREFORE: Attack(+3) - Defend(+1) == Damage(+2)
    • NPC:Mark takes 2-stress from Steve's gun attack
    • Mark already has the two-dot stress marked off.  It'll have to roll-up to the 3rd stress dot.
• +3 Mark
  
  • Action: Attack Steve with Fists:+3
  • NPC:Mark rolled (Private to GM: 4dF(+3) + Fists(+3) ==) Attack(+6)
  • Steve, roll to defend.  Athletics to Dodge or Fists for close-combat.
    
    • Default Outcome (if you don't respond by Wednesday):
      
      • GM rolled 4dF(+1) + Athletics(+3) == Defend(+4)
      • Attack(+6) - Defend(+4) == Damage(+2)
      • Steve takes 2-stress from Mark's Claws attack.
      • You wanna spend a fate point?
• +2 Joanne
  
  • Action: Create Advantage "FURIOUSLY DISTRACTED" on Mark with Provoke +2
  • PC:Joanne rolled 4dF(+3) + Provoke(+2) == Attack(+5)
    
    • NPC: Mark rolled Will to defend.  (Private to GM: 4dF(0) + Will(+2) ==) Defend(+2)
    • THEREFORE: Attack(+5) - Defend(++2) == Create Advantage(+3)
    • Joanne creates "FURIOUSLY DISTRACTED" on Mark
    • In fact, it was  Success with Style, so...  Joanne gets two free invocations she can use starting with the next exchange!

After the draft exchange  is posted, the actions are defined.  Fate-points can still be  spent and Aspects/Consequences defined.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 22:36, Sat 06 May 2017.

This was very helpful to me. I'll admit, my grasp of the system is too weak for me to fully appreciate everything you've posted, but it has generated a lot of good questions to guide my learning of the system.

I will ask this: Doesn't FATE normally allow a player to make an opposed/defense roll every time they are attacked/threatened? If so, how do you handle this in PBP? The breakdown leads me to believe that you as GM would just roll the appropriate defense on behalf of the player and ask them if they would like to use a FP to reroll. Am I following you or am I totally off-base?
This message was last edited by the user at 03:30, Sun 07 May 2017.

You and I do much the same thing.  I like how you use the GM-only thread.

One thing I'm noodling on currently is how to manage the declaration of combat actions.  The inherent problem I see as possible is that players posting later may adapt to actions declared earlier.

One way of resolving this I am thinking about is to have combat actions posted in private threads so that I can merge them when it's time for results.  Have you ever ran into anything like this?

This goes to one thing you said earlier about having all players post actions "at once".

You're close.   As the GM, I will roll the appropriate defense.  This is what I consider a default result.   If the player doesn't react or roll by a deadline (Steven needs to respond by Wednesday or the default action takes place), what I rolled stands.

The downside of this is that if I rolled really well, the player can just accept it.  But I accept that downside because the benefits of moving the story along are worth it.   It doesn't get him out of writing the narrative, but if he's gone offline... well, we've got to keep the game moving.

I also have another rule:
If the GM didn't call for a roll, you don't have to roll.  But if you do roll, you've got to play by the results!

This is definitely a potential downside.  But RPOL being what it is, enforcing an initiative order is going to slow things right down.  It's a bit of a trade-off.  And, yeah, it does penalize the guy with a high initiative but slow posting-rate.

I hadn't thought of doing combat action via private threads.   That sounds pretty cool!  I could totally see that working.

You'd want to keep the OOC threads going, strictly as an administrative thing ("Mike submitted, still waiting on Marie!")...

Hm.  I might put that before my current table and see if they'd be willing to try it out.

In reply to jait (msg # 10):

Glad I could be of some small service.  I also maintain a Combat Log in Group Z which acts as the official record of combat-related adjudications.  Just a ball of yarn in the Labyrinth for me.

Some of this boils down to how much of a "tabletop simulator" you view RPOL as.  At the tabletop, folks are constantly adapting their actions based on what other people are doing.  If it's entirely a black box where everyone shoves an action in, which may well be invalidated by faster actors, it's a different experience, but not necessarily a bad one.  Just different.

True enough.  My live table very much enjoys discussing possibilities at the table.  I'm quite okay with the metagame talk at the table, and in OOC threads...

I suppose this point of view is as valid as any other.  I spend too much time designing simulations, and sometimes I get bogged down in the modeling.

It probably boils down to what player expectations are with regard to combat.  More to think about...