Fate chat and game room

BESW

07:24

Alternate brainstorming structure, draft 0.1.

> Define the question the scene will answer.
Each player, in turn, names the skill/approach their PC will use to investigate the situation.
They roll to take a Create Advantage action with that skill/approach against a difficulty of [highest default rank for that iteration of Fate].
Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is) that their character has discovered, placing it as an aspect on the scene. If the roll was successful, add invokes to the fact according to the Create Advantage rules. (Ties create full aspects, not …

doppelgreener

"highest default rank" is referred to as the skill ceiling in Fate Core, I think. [continues reading]

BESW

(At the beginning is an implied "players who don't want to do this don't have to." I might mechanise it somehow, and I'd definitely still let them vote.)

doppelgreener

07:40

Sounds nice.

I like the whole thing.

BESW

The voting might be a bit contentious, but everybody gets to add a fact for sure, and everyone gets to share their theory without fighting for the space to do so.

(Also free invokes mean something!)

doppelgreener

... though since creates a choice between "you vote OR you get free invokes out of the theory the brainstorm creates, so vote less to have a more beneficial theory, or feel bad for voting so much because now it has no free invocations", I'd go with Magician's thing and just take that choice out of the picture: those free invokes vanish if unused and your Theory aspect gets 3 free invokes.

BESW

Hmm, fair.

doppelgreener

Then abstaining is just a personal choice: I'm not satisfied by other theories / mine is the only one I like or the only one at all.

(your rules call for a vote if there's only one theory. I'd have them account for that scenario "If there's only one, it's the answer" and call for votes if there's more than one.)

@BESW also votes xferring to the end could mean an explosive about of free invokes at other times. Saying "you get three free invokes on it" gives it a set and dependable amount of lasting value.

Aether

08:02

@BESW Just to be clear, this is a one-round-and-done thing? There is no second chance to wait for further facts before proposing a theory, right?

BESW

@Aether Yup.

That seemed like an unnecessary complication that tends to add a contributional imbalance (unless everyone adds another fact, somebody's getting undue influence with bonus facts, and extra invokes to vote with).

We're already going from "three facts" to "as many facts as there are PCs."

So, draft 0.3:

> Define the question the scene will answer.
Each player decides if their character will investigate the situation.
Each investigating character’s player names the skill/approach their PC will use.
Each investigating character rolls to take a Create Advantage action with that skill/approach against a difficulty of [rank ceiling for that iteration of Fate].
Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is) that their character has discovered, placing it as an aspect on the scene. If the roll was successful, add invokes to the fa…

Aether

Is the naming of a skill/approach a deliberate abstraction in the process, or are you assuming (given Fate's inherent "narrative first" emphasis) that the player describes what they are doing to use that skill/approach?

BESW

The latter.

I'm leaving it obscure because in practice I've found players tend to prefer to describe how they discovered the thing alongside describing what they discovered.

doppelgreener

@BESW also meant the dude with +5 in (extremely relevant science) is almost certainly going to say more than the dude with... um.... +3 in notice? That is deliberate in atomic robo probably, maybe not in our Amaterasu game.

BESW

Yeah.

This is definitely more of the "everyone at the table gets to talk" philosophy.

That's what I'm pulling in from Danger Patrol and Mission Briefing.

doppelgreener

08:17

"Modify the aspect's phrasing accordingly and give it three free invokes." I'd say "theory aspect" to be specific about which aspect you mean. Also, accordingly with what?

BESW

> Modify the theory aspect's phrasing to reflect its upgrade to answer status and give it three free invokes.

doppelgreener

> Each investigating character rolls to take a Create Advantage action with that skill/approach against a difficulty of [rank ceiling for that iteration of Fate].
Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is) that their character has discovered, placing it as an aspect on the scene. There are special exceptions to creating an advantage in this situation: ties result in full aspects (not boosts), and the GM gets no free invokes on failure.

BESW

Are you changing things, or just clarifying phrasing?

doppelgreener

Clarified the second paragraph out of those two, probably mostly personal taste: "do things according to these rules, with these exceptions", instead of "do things according to these rules, then do things according to those rules again but only in this circumstance" ("but i was already following those rules, wasn't I?")

BESW

Yeah, part of the "draft" thing is that I won't worry too much about nailing down the text form until I know I'm gonna keep what it's saying.

doppelgreener

08:24

Ok. :)

BESW

Copy editing's always the last kind of editing to do, otherwise you wind up wasting a lot of time on saying things just right--and then you rip 'em out 'cause they weren't saying the right things.

Aether

@doppelgreener By the way, I believe the term is skill cap

BESW

(Copy editing's often the kind of editing most people feel most comfortable doing so we tend to jump into it prematurely.)

Aether

The assumption seems to be that the GM has an idea in mind for the answer, but this is a way for the players to choose their own thing...

BESW

Not really; that's why the GM can choose to leave it a mystery.

doppelgreener

08:29

@Aether thanks!

Aether

Is there a use in allowing a player who doesn't like a proposed theory, but doesn't have one of his own, to suggest that the GM adds his suggestion to the theories being voted on?

BESW

Hmm.

[fiddles with]

Aether

So you don't end up with one default theory that one person loves, but the rest of the group is so-so on

doppelgreener

@BESW just checked ARRPG, which says that if the brainstorm doesn't produce a hypothesis "the GM places an aspect on the game to reflect the team’s utter lack of comprehension—something like Science Can’t Explain It! or Nobody Said Anything About Ghosts." Would be good to keep that.

Aether

(I guess the answer could be: someone needs to step up and propose an alternative...)

BESW

08:33

@doppelgreener That's part of my fiddling; I'd been going from memory and just re-read that bit.

doppelgreener

So in this case you could say the GM gives everyone a fate point and produces their own Theory aspect - which could also just represent nobody has any idea.

BESW

Okay, this is getting complicated but--voyage out, eh.

> Define the question the scene will answer.
Each player decides if their character will investigate the situation.
Each investigating character’s player names the skill/approach their PC will use.
Each investigating character rolls to take a Create Advantage action with that skill/approach against a difficulty of [rank cap for that iteration of Fate].
Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is) that their character has discovered, placing it as an aspect on the scene. There are special exceptions to creating an advantage…

Aether

Looks good to me so far

doppelgreener

Comes to mind you can leave boosts alone... They'll last long enough for the hypothesis.

BESW

Hmm, true.

doppelgreener

08:43

Unless you want to ensure the permanence of the fact is captured.

But those aspects probably go away anyway and boosts become permanent by becoming part of a theory.

"If there is only one theory and the GM declines to add a second, that theory becomes the answer." I can't tell which theory becomes the answer here but I'd still put it to a vote.

BESW

....what?

doppelgreener

Oh wait. Declines. Thought that said decides.

Could just say "players may contribute theories, including the GM but only if a player has already contributed a theory. Then: if there's only one theory, it's the answer, if there's more than one, the players vote."

Can work out wording later but might make it look less complex while you're working on it.

BESW

Oh, it's in individualised bullet points so I can add and subtract bits more cleanly.

doppelgreener

Aha

BESW

"the players may contribute theories" and "the GM may contribute theories" are separate design elements.

doppelgreener

08:50

Got it

I like this version

BESW

Phrasing for consumption isn't an issue at the moment, it's about keeping the pieces of the design tidy.

(I'm using the same program and structure that I used to design Colonypunk, but we're used to a certain economy of phrase in published Fate material so it looks weirder at this stage.)

Aether

Going back to the narrative, it makes sense that the character of the player who proposed the accepted theory gets to go "aha!"... it's less clear when the accepted theory is the GM proposed one...

Where did that idea even come from?

BESW

@Aether [enter villain, monologuing]

@Aether Which idea, that the GM can propose a theory?

Aether

@BESW No, the in-game idea - the theory that became true...

Maybe that's the point... it came out of the discussion, but looking back, the characters can't really decide which of them came up with the idea... it just ended up making sense to them...

BESW

Or it could be realised by everyone at the same time, or revealed by an NPC...

Plenty of ensemble shows have a moment where everyone just looks at each other because they all figured something out at once.

Aether

08:59

Yeah, that makes sense

I guess, just double-checking the work by going back to the narrative... do the mechanics make sense narratively...

BESW

The edit-for-end-users will tie the narrative bits together more explicitly, I think, but it's a good sanity check to make after each major change.

doppelgreener

I didn't even think to do that... then I immediately thought of another fate hack I've been working on, ran that sanity check through it, and realised something that wasn't gonna work out :P Thanks!

... and a simpler way to do something I was already thinking of

Aether

I hear it's a common step for a lot of things. I've heard about it used by board game designers, and it's also common for maths/physics problems (albeit in a different context - inputting your result to the beginning and seeing if it makes sense).

I imagine it has pretty broad applicability

BESW

Feynman said that whenever someone was explaining a theory to him, he'd immediately think of a practical model while they were talking. As soon as something in the model didn't match something they were saying, he'd say "Nope, doesn't work like that," and they'd be amazed.

...But I wouldn't take Feynman's social gimmicks as a guide for anyone else, ever, so there's that.

doppelgreener

@Aether [takes strong mental note of this]

@BESW haha!

BESW

09:11

@doppelgreener In Ruhi Institute culture, there's a strong emphasis on "reading the reality of the situation" and making sure plans and actions fit within that context.

doppelgreener

@BESW I think this might be something I've learned to do fairly well.

BESW

10:44

> Define the question the scene will answer.
Each player decides if their character will investigate the situation.
Each investigating character’s player describes the skill/approach their PC will use.
Each investigating character rolls to take a Create Advantage action with that skill/approach against a difficulty of [rank cap for that iteration of Fate].
Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is) that their character has discovered, placing it as an aspect on the scene. There is a special exception to creating an advan…

eimyr

I fail to realise at a glance what this mechanic is supposed to model/achieve

BESW

It's a replacement for the ARRPG brainstorming mechanic.

eimyr

Oh, bummer, I'm unfamiliar with ARRPG to that extent.

brainstorming is not something I've been interested in

BESW

When someone asks "What's really going on?" or "How do we fix this?" this is a mechanic that can let the group collaborate to decide the answer.

The original brainstorming mechanic was a bit too competitive, too antagonistic. Players had to vie with each other for a limited number of "I contributed!" slots.

doppelgreener

@BESW something to sort out: skill cap by default is something that changes by going up sometimes, so it's unclear if you're referring to "whatever it would be before the players got any milestones" or "whatever it is now"

sounds like you mean the first?

eimyr

10:49

@BESW So the GM gets a free pass against a singular theory, but if there a re multiple, he sits out the exchange?

BESW

@doppelgreener I'll sit on that for a while.

doppelgreener

sure!

BESW

@eimyr The GM can add a theory if there's at least one from a player already (and then players vote on them, but the GM doesn't).

If there's only one theory, it can't be the GM's--because if the GM adds a theory, there was already one from a player, so there's at least two, so there's a vote.

eimyr

@BESW OK I see

BESW

And the GM can add a theory no matter how many the players present, so long as the players present a non-zero number.

doppelgreener

10:54

@BESW What if after all the things are spent (and nobody's willing to spend more), two theories are tying?

eimyr

I think adding free invokes is a bit cringey.

Anaphory

So, you establish facts no matter what you roll? Is there an implicit understanding of some cost there?

@eimyr I read that along the lines of “and this fact really supports that theory”

eimyr

Fate Points - sure, but my free invoke on Wartime Gorilla aspect should perhaps stay as it is.

BESW

@Anaphory The cost of failing the roll is you don't have free invokes to vote with and have to spend fate points to get a say in which theory is right.

@eimyr I'll edit it to make clear the free invokes spent for voting are only the ones on facts.

eimyr

@BESW I think you should clarify... yeah, just that.

Anaphory

10:55

So it's more a “I find this thing out, and the invokes judge how closely related to the mystery it is”

doppelgreener

@BESW failing also means what you were trying to do goes horribly, but you at least learn something useful in the process.

BESW

> Each player puts fate points toward the theory they prefer. If you have free invokes on a fact, you can use those instead of fate points.

Anaphory

Sherlock Holmes: You may Invoke your High Concept to vote in a brainstorm.

doppelgreener

even if it's "whoever these guys are, they're really bad shots! [cough] now call an ambulance"

eimyr

@Anaphory Your stunt doesn't do anything, because you can spend a Fate Point to vote nevertheless

BESW

10:59

Yeah, I'm using fate points and free invokes for something that is not invoking, here.

eimyr

@BESW In ARRPG are free invokes assigned to specific players or free-floating?

Anaphory

@eimyr True. I just felt like there's a Sherlock stunt somewhere here. I know I utterly missed the point in it's mechanical doings.

doppelgreener

@BESW as well as* fate points

Anaphory

@doppelgreener That's what I asked. If there's not much action going on, it's just “This is a cool fact but has absolutely nothing to do with the mystery.”

BESW

@eimyr Generally they belong to the person who succeeded on the action that created them.

@doppelgreener I'm not calling for success at cost here.

I think that'd slow down and muddy up what is already a much more complex process than I'd hoped for.

eimyr

11:01

So who "owns" the three free invokes? The theory proposer?

BESW

@eimyr In that particular case, they belong to the whole group.

@doppelgreener GM choice or flip a coin?

doppelgreener

@BESW not suggesting you need to (take the ambulance thing for a light-hearted comment), but there should be some meaningful difference between "you succeed" and "you fail", and if both establish facts, one should be "you succeed at doing the thing you were doing and learn what you were after" and the other should be "you fail at doing the thing you were doing and instead learn something else because of it"

burglary: you can't break in, but why you can't break in tells you something. contacts: nobody's heard of these people so you can't learn anything useful about them from the people you know... or nobody's willing to talk... but that tells you something. etc.

eimyr

@Anaphory Elementary. Gain a Fate Point whenever someone abstains from a vote.

BESW

> I'm Sherlock Bleedin' Holmes. Your theories get +1 vote.

@doppelgreener I'll leave the details of deriving narrative from mechanics for the groups using the mechanic.

Remember, sometimes our sessions grind down around feeling obligated to come up with some interesting narrative detail for a mechanic instead of leaving it generic or using an interesting idea that doesn't exactly fit what the mechanic says should happen.

doppelgreener

11:18

mmm, but... i think the mechanics should at least have something in mind when they're written. or we roll it then go "i failed ... so do i just say something anyway? why did i roll? what version of the create an advantage failure outcome do pick..?"

that "why did I roll" is a big deal to have an answer to, for me

reading now so i can try to work this out for myself...

> When you fail [a create advantage roll], you either don’t create the aspect, or you create it but someone else gets the free invoke—whatever you end up doing works to someone else’s advantage instead. That could be your opponent in a conflict, or any character who could tangibly benefit to your detriment. You may have to reword the aspect to show that the other character benefits instead—work it out with the recipient in whichever way makes the most sense.

BESW

In this case, there's no one else to get the advantage, so nobody does.

doppelgreener

so i create no fact, or i create it but someone else in the group gets my vote if there's someone who'll benefit at my expense...

BESW

You roll to see how many free votes you'll have.

doppelgreener

Ok, but "roll only if failure is interesting" and all that

BESW

Being forced to spend fate points to vote is, I think, an interesting and sufficient disadvantage.

doppelgreener

11:20

so it sounds like it's possible to not contribute a fact, which is something I wasn't expecting coming at this from comparisons to Danger Patrol & Mission Briefing. ok.

BESW

@doppelgreener Yeah, because:

in RPG General Chat, 5 hours ago, by doppelgreener

I've noticed one problematic effect of brainstorms that comes up from time to time: players buying in who aren't sure how to actually contribute. It's possible to have a scene where things are going on other than the brainstorm: we had a fight where Jessie Farman was distracting some spider-bots, while the rest of the team self-compelled themselves into a brainstorm about what was going on, and notably, self-compelled themselves out of the fight. They couldn't help Jessie for four rounds.

My version lets you sit out of fact-making and then continue to contribute at the theory and voting stages. If you contribute a fact, though, you can roll for free votes.

doppelgreener

@BESW Oh, no, I mean, it's possible to join in on the brainstorm, and then roll, and produce no fact at all. I figured, coming into it, it had some result of "everyone who does contribute, provides a fact".

BESW

...what?

"Whether the roll is successful or not, the player defines a fact."

doppelgreener

right, and I'm telling you, I'm having a lot of difficulty figuring out what I ought to do when I roll, and fail.

BESW

You discover a fact but get no free votes for choosing a theory.

Anaphory

11:25

The roll is not “Do I find this thing out”, the roll is “Do I manage to connect this observation to the mystery”

doppelgreener

Okay, but this is a create advantage roll, and create advantage says specific things happen when I fail at a create advantage roll, and none of those things seem to apply here, so I'm left going ???. It sounds like I effectively can't get below a tie, or... I don't know, I come up with some interesting interpretation on the spot, so I'm trying to figure out, right now, what form of interesting interpretation of failure fits.

BESW

How about an actual example?

doppelgreener

I thought I wrote two.

BESW

So... if you wrote two already, then what are you struggling with?

doppelgreener

You seemed unsatisfied with that. I guess I was reading into that unnecessarily?

BESW

11:31

Well, I'm certainly confused.

There's a difference between success at cost and failing forward.

Anaphory

@BESW He struggles with the fact that among the actions one could choose, this roll clearly is one, but it's not Defend and not Attack (?) and not Overcome, but Create Advantage, and Create Advantage has a certain set of possible Outcomes according to the rules.

If the possible outcomes of this roll are “An aspect is placed”, “An aspect is placed with 1 free invoke”, “An aspect is placed with 2 free invokes” etc., then it's clearly not a Create Advantage action according to the rules, and that is confusing.

BESW

I've explicitly mitigated the mechanical cost of failing to create an advantage in the specific circumstance of establishing a fact. If you tie you still get a boost. If you succeed you still get an aspect with a free invoke. If you succeed with style you still get an aspect with two free invokes.

If you fail, you get an aspect with ~~one free invoke for the GM~~ no free invokes.

doppelgreener

The mechanical cost of failing to create an advantage is that it either doesn't happen or someone else gets an advantage instead of you. (Note that the aspect may even get reworded in that person's favour to that ends.) Since the GM can't benefit and I create an advantage anyway, that's weird.

BESW

"Aspect with no invokes" is a distinct and separate outcome for failure, compared to tie (boost), success (aspect + invoke), and success with style (aspect + 2 invokes).

It's just mitigated compared to normal.

doppelgreener

Anyway. Main reason for me to be struggling right now, I think, is just this: I don't think I like rules that leave a big deal like this unmentioned and for the group to figure out. When I am designer dude, I write the things and make the decisions so that the group can have faith that they have good instructions to follow. My experiences of figuring out what the heck to do in so-and-so circumstance the rules should have covered clearly have generally been frustrating.

Aether

11:36

@doppelgreener My reading of the skill cap is that it is a set figure and never changes, but it's only a hard limit during character creation (e.g. the skill cap may remain at +4, but through milestones, you can get +5 or higher)

doppelgreener

So I think when it comes to a final publish, there should be some idea provided in the rules covering the failure scenario that makes it manifestly different from any other result.

BESW

It's a pretty clear case, for me, of applying the silver rule (don't let mechanics do things that don't make sense) to modify a mechanic (there's nobody to benefit from the failure invoke, so throw it out).

And no, I haven't explained all the detailed implications yet in my draft which is not yet finalised.

doppelgreener

@BESW I think we have two different interpretations of failing at creating an advantage then.

@BESW Yes! I said, in the final publish! And you said, much earlier, you will just leave it for whoever uses those rules to figure out.

So I'd like a failure result to be explained, but yes, please do explain it later rather than right now while you're drafting things.

BESW

@doppelgreener I have re-defined that failure to be "you don't get a free invoke" instead of "someone else gets a free invoke" because in this specific instance there's nobody to give it to.

Anaphory

@BESW The mystery profits. I mean, currently it's totally valid to uncover a lot of clues that apparently have nothing to do with the mystery (all rolls failed) and than magically appear at a theory that is it, because the GM can't suggest “It's a mystery” if any theory is proposed.

BESW

11:41

Would it be better if I created a whole new action called "Factmaking" which is exactly the same as Create Advantage except nobody gets free invokes if you fail?

doppelgreener

No.

I'm not asking that, I'm here trying to sort out with myself, out loud, what to do in failure scenarios.

BESW

@Anaphory Unpack that please.

Anaphory

> If [and only if] no one has a theory, the facts remain but the question is unanswered. The GM creates an aspect about the continuing mystery and gives each player a fate point.

doppelgreener

@BESW My interpretation of failing to create an advantage is not that "you do the thing but a free invoke goes to someone else", but "you do the thing badly / you do it in such a way someone else benefits / whatever happens is manifestly different in result, and possibly also method, to what would have happened if you succeeded, possibly drastically so (hence a reword). Also, the invoke goes to someone else because of this."

That's what I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile with "you do a fact anyway" such that they jive.

BESW

@doppelgreener Okay, that's a fundamentally and prescriptively different definition to mine.

doppelgreener

11:44

@BESW Quite!

Anaphory

But if all rolls fail, i.e. no-one manages to find things that have any reasonable connection to the mystery, the mystery should be able to remain a big question mark until something new comes up, too.

BESW

[digs for line in the GM guides]

Anaphory

In the sense of failing forward, it should not remain opaque.

There should be a “next thing to do”.

BESW

@doppelgreener This seems to totally ignore the possibility that we can blame the circumstances.

Anaphory

But there should not be a “I've got a theory! It's demons!” to jump to, necessarily, from nothing.

BESW

11:47

To my mind, you can do a perfectly bang-up job at creating an advantage, exactly as you intended, but for some entirely outside reason the situation you've created--which is exactly what you wanted to happen--doesn't actually give you an advantage.

@Anaphory I'm not sure where "facts have no connection to the mystery" is coming from.

Anaphory

@BESW Sorry, it's my reading of the Advantage.

BESW

If facts are established, they are presumptively related to the mystery or they wouldn't be there.

Anaphory

Indeed. And the free invokes say “Look, you can use this to vote!” presumably because the connection is clearer.

BESW

I left that bit out, but it's in the ARRPG brainstorming and I was taking it as a given assumption implied by my "see Brainstorming" parenthetical.

doppelgreener

@Anaphory (i think the free invokes might just be totally meta in this case)

BESW

11:49

(Which, in the final, I will be expanding on myself.)

The free invokes are pretty meta.

I'd like to unmetafy them a bit more, but I haven't latched onto how yet.

Basically you peel them off your fact and slap them onto the theory you like.

If I thought it appropriate for the GM to vote, this would all be cleared up almost instantly.

....actually. Hrm.

[duplicates file, starts editing vigorously]

Anaphory

@doppelgreener In that case, I'm very much with you at not-really-getting-it-yet-how-does-it-connect-to-the-other-mechanics.

doppelgreener

@Anaphory Each of the characters has found a mystery, like "how are those ants so giant!? the square-cube law doesn't support it!"

Or "the nuclear reactor's gone missing!" and the characters are scratching their heads

So they go around and each of them, thanks to their skill set, susses out a detail.

BESW

The free invokes are drawn from Majestic 12's Mission Briefing mechanic, which uses rolls to create fate points with unique restrictions.

Maybe I should be bolder and actually make it a different mechanic entirely.

doppelgreener

The nuclear reactor went missing during the span of one guy's lunch break. There was a big grinding noise. There were some power failures during that time. The security footage cut out. You declare these facts as you succeed, and you get superficial free invokes if you do extra-well, which you'll use to vote later. The facts mean everything, the free invokes are strictly meta.

Someone suggests "I think one of the walls is a hologram, and the nuclear reactor's been taken through that!" No competing theories, so that's the answer your team's going with. And since it's an action story, of course your theory's correct. Time to find the hologram wall!

@BESW Make another mechanic but say that it counts as create advantage for the purposes of things like stunts, unless the game's leveraging the mechanic heavily outside of brainstorms?

(or, er, less confusing wording maybe: if the game's only borrowing the mechanic for the brainstorm action, and brainstorms aren't happening frequently, count that action type as a create advantage action for the purposes of stunts that give +2's and other benefits - for stunts that make sense being applied that way.)

BESW

> Each player decides if their character will investigate the situation. (They can still participate in the theories part later.)
Each player describes how their character investigates the scenario and discovers a fact (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is), which they place as an aspect on the scene.
Each investigating character makes a special roll with a skill/approach appropriate to their investigation. On a success, they get one free vote; on success with style, they get two.

doppelgreener

12:00

Oh! Ha, or that. That's nice and elegant. I like it.

Jolly good!

And later you can say fate points can be spent for additional votes.

Anaphory

@BESW Wohoo!

BESW

> If there are at least two theories, the group will vote. Each player who earned votes during the investigation can cast them on theories; additional votes may be cast by spending one fate point per vote. You cannot vote on your own theory, but you may abstain from voting. (Players whose characters did not investigate may still vote, but must use fate points. The GM may not vote.) The theory with the most votes is the answer.

The other solution was to give the mystery a default theory of its own, like You can't handle the truth! and all failed create advantage attempts create a fact of the player's choosing, but also cast a vote for that theory.

But that's just too much.

Anaphory

That was my expected tweaking of the original way you put it. I like this new phrasing better.

BESW

I guess I'm on voyage back now.

> Define the mystery the scene hopes to solve.
INVESTIGATE
Each player decides if their character will investigate the situation. (You can still participate in theorising later.)
Each player describes how their character investigates the scenario and what fact they discover (see Brainstorming for limits on what a fact is), which they place as an aspect on the scene.
Each investigating character makes a special roll with a skill/approach appropriate to their investigation. On a success, their player get one free vote; on success with style, they get two.

doppelgreener

13:22

@BESW is good. fate-like rewordings to make, but i like this version.

missing bit: "makes a special roll ... vs a difficulty of X"

Transcript for

Fate chat and game room