Position/Effect has always been the weirdest part of any FitD game to me. Like, most of FitD as a framework is so interested in very concrete ways that narrative informs mechanics and mechanic informs narrative. But Position/Effect are so abstract and subjective in terms of both trigger and impact. It’s a mechanic that exists to ensure the narrative impacts the narrative, and that doesn’t feel right for this sort of game. Then because its impact is purely narrative, it’s always completely overshadowed by the dice’s result, because that’s the cooler one you get excited about. And yes I know they impact clocks but that’s just one very specific situation (only when you are actively doing an action with the intent to tick a clock up) and also FitD clocks suck anyway. I just constantly feel like it is a completely vestigial mechanic that I’ve never actually found interesting in execution.
I really like position and effect because it can lead to the bickering between player and GM reminiscent of asking the dm if you can get a +2 mod to a roll for doing something in a specific way. The discussion of setting and modifying position and effect, haggling over it, is an act of fumbling around something and getting a better sense of the situation.
but ultimately what does it mean? how much does that impact anything to make that haggling mean anything? Plus it already has the “you decide what attribute you use for the roll and can argue your way into it” system that I think works WAY better for this sort of thing because the impact is tangible, concrete, and rooted in character.
I don't agree that Position and Effect are either abstract or detached from the outcome of a roll. Position and Effect is the initial communication of the difficulty of an action based on how the character and the action they take relates to the context they face. Is it flexible to the point that it's nebulous? Sure! I think that's comparable to a DM having a favourite number they fall back on when they need to set for a DC for a skill check1. Both of these techniques to communicate difficulty are often left to the judgement of the GM. Yet, if I have some ace up my sleeve that I can bring up to the GM from the fiction that can change that position and effect, like a tool or secret or tactic, FitD leaves space for that kind of play to be rewarded.
It's also the stake setting to make the roll feel important. The GM should be describing what the reason is for the effectiveness for an action, which can be discussed in the conversation of play. Same as position. If those are low (and they should be when it matters imo. Any GM who hands out great effect easily is fumbling the game) then that pushes the the players to start putting more stuff at stake like gear, stress, or trading position for effect. And you have two things that are taxing those resources.
Haggling is then some end-of-the-rope shit. It's the perfect moment where a character has a desperate position and a player is right there with them. The meaning of that action is made possible by playing within the context of the narrative and the mechanics. That is a kind of powerlessness mixed with just a smidge of hope that I have not found in any other game. Position and Effect stays in.
-
And speaking of comparing it to DC, I think P+E is a much simpler way to communicate how you match up against something. Way easier to pick good or bad twice and then hear somebodies case as to why that might be different than to pick a number between like, 8-26.
