Square system, round game

[Knaight]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of your post. Are you suggesting that I abridge my current game so that a FATE game can be started sooner?

You were trying to start a new game, correct? I'm suggesting you finish the current one, abridged or no, and see that characters are made in FATE so a FATE game can start. If there are already new D&D characters, a one shot or similar can deal with that problem. Then FATE.

[kaomera]

So I talked to my players about the issue and yeah, we're not making any progress on it. The cleric's player builds his character concept and roleplaying out of the mechanics of D&D, and is adamant that the setting should be altered to fit them, whereas I see the mechanics solely as a tool with which to facilitate player interaction with the setting.

I've dealt with this myself - players want to be able to create whatever character they want. They have a tendency to feel that anything published ought to be fair game and that only "play balance" could possibly be a factor in limiting their choices. This plays into the high-magic idea that bloodtide mentioned: it avoids some problems by simply giving many players what they want.

Now, my own take on the idea was to try and let the players make their characters first, and then build a reasonable setting around those characters and the choices they where based on. While I find that altering an existing setting to accommodate otherwise inappropriate character concepts is quite a chore and prone to failing in any case, I'm pretty sure that I'm creative enough to come up with something that interests me that will wrap around most concepts (there are some things that just don't interest me). That way, hopefully, everyone gets what they want.

Unfortunately I never actually got to put this to the test. The group I wanted to try this with simply refused to create characters in advance (or at least to show them to me). They also skipped out on or refused to participate in character-creation and campaign-planning sessions, only wanting to show up when we where "really playing". Unfortunately, for all that, they all seemed to already have their next characters (or perhaps a few options in some cases) picked out beforehand and refused to be flexible about it...

I think part of it may be a trust issue. Players may feel that they can't trust the GM with that kind of info in advance (since you can stack things against them? Like you couldn't just do that anyway...), and at the same time they can feel like it's a sign of mistrust on the part of the GM... So then it becomes a circular argument of "I can't trust you with my character concept if you can't trust me to come up with one on my own..." (I also found a disappointing tendency to mistake or maybe to try and re-frame any question of a concept being appropriate to the setting as a balance issue.)

But I think that the way to make this work would simply be to hand out as little info as possible - just what you absolutely need to (write down the answers that you give to any questions that are asked) - before or during the first session, and then figure out everything else thereafter. You can tell the players that there may be special things about the setting that would normally be secret that their characters know, and then provide individualized campaign backgrounds... This would involve doing an awful lot of campaign planning work in a fairly short amount of time, but I think it would be more efficient than doing all that work for nothing.

The character-building mechanics of 3.5 are why a lot of players like that system. And if that's where they get a significant amount of their enjoyment of the game from, then asking them to put that aside (even if you aren't really, you're asking them to do things differently from what they currently enjoy) may cause problems. That applies both to asking them to build characters to the setting and to asking them to play a different game. Hopefully you can get them interested in trying something different for a change.

[stainboy]

After a few sessions, it became apparent to me that D&D does not really fit the story and setting I have in mind at all. Magic and especially magic items are too high-power for the setting, combat is too all-or-nothing in its results, the class-based nature of the game discourages organic character growth in favor of planning a character's trajectory entirely ahead of time, and the system in general is too combat-centric for what I intend to do.

-Loot-driven progression
-Classes are straitjackets
-Overly focused on combat
-PCs can't lose a fight without dying

People have been talking about these same limitations since the eighties. If you can't sell your players on a Forge-approved "narrativist" game it's not hard to find a traditional skill-based game that addresses these problems. Check the Savage Worlds / Alternatives to D&D thread for options that might be more palatable to your players.

If you like FATE's core mechanic your players might also be more receptive to FUDGE than FATE.

[Knaight]

If you like FATE's core mechanic your players might also be more receptive to FUDGE than FATE.

Fudge, not FUDGE. The acronym was dropped years ago. Also, it is very possible, as FATE is far more narrativist than Fudge has ever been - the introduction of aspects saw to that. I'd also argue the Fudge is a better game in general, though my signature has hints as to my reliability and lack of bias.

[stainboy]

Don't know what Niek thinks of this option, but can you recommend a good resource for Fudge fantasy? I apparently don't know what the game is called, but I at least know it doesn't come with a pre-written skill list or magic system.

[king.com]

My ultimate goal in running games is, given an existing story I have in mind, seeing how it turns out differently when the protagonist role is given to PCs rather than my own characters. Allowing the setting to change due to factors other than the players' own actions would interfere with that goal.

I follow that method except, major NPCS are doing just as much as players and they can alter the world too.

I really hope you get the situation resolved, sounds like your the kind of GM I would enjoy playing with.

[Knaight]

Don't know what Niek thinks of this option, but can you recommend a good resource for Fudge fantasy? I apparently don't know what the game is called, but I at least know it doesn't come with a pre-written skill list or magic system.

The 10th Anniversary edition has a complete fantasy game built in. Deyrini Realms is a complete fantasy game built with Fudge that is significantly longer - I personally am not a fan, but it is well liked. Then there is Fudge Factor, the e-zine, which has plenty of stuff, the default Five Point Fudge skill page, which includes a fantasy list, so on and so forth. Plus, you can always build your own version, which is pretty easy if you have help from people who know what they are doing. And my PM box is open.