|
Evil Mastermind posted:Also books have been arriving with a fairly audible THUD Surely the one on top was more of a "fwap"? 
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Colour me more than a bit jealous. Can't find anywhere to get them in the UK yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Well, those were KC backer rewards, so I don't know if the books are in wide distribution. I did order two Decks of Fate too; they're very high-quality and the Arcana art is really nice. I feel like I need to come up with some cool unique way of using it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Any chance of some photos? The previews I can see don't show the actual product, only digital versions. I really like the idea of variable effect stunts based on the moons/suns on the cards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Jesus Christ this is the third time I've had to write this post. You guys better appreciate it. The deck is $15 POD at DriveThruCards, and is very high quality. The deck itself is 96 cards, with four "instructional" cards that includes a Fate reference. I got the deck, a ten-card pack of blanks, and a pretty solid plastic case for about $25 with shipping. The deck itself is made up of three "sub-decks". There's a six-card FAE Arcana deck which has one card for each of the default FAE approaches, and a nine-card Arcana with more general approaches.  That's two of the FAE Arcana and two of the normal Arcana. Each card in the deck except the FAE ones has two unique Aspects listed; on the normal Arcana it's one positive and one negative. The rest of the deck are the die result cards. There are 81 cards, one for each potential combination of 4dF. In other words, the deck has the same probabilities as a set of Fate dice.  Each card has a lot of stuff on there; you get the result, the die combo, and two aspects of relative severity to the result. There's also the sun/moon/eclipse symbols; one to three moons or suns appear on each card, and the eclipses only appear on the unique cards (+4 and -4). There's no "official" use for these, but they're there for people to hack. Oh, and the back of each card has the Fate logo, so you can use the cards as Fate Points too. Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Just a note that one of the zeroes has an eclipse as well. A friend of mine has the deck, and I would just like to reiterate how high-quality these cards are. They are a joy to hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for that writeup... I'd be tempted to get a deck if I wasn't already working on the metal fate dice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
In Core, do Nameless Npcs get Consequences? In the book, it talks about one, two, and three shift hits being enough to take them out, so I wouldn't think so, but I've heard some people say that they do. Who's right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:In Core, do Nameless Npcs get Consequences? In the book, it talks about one, two, and three shift hits being enough to take them out, so I wouldn't think so, but I've heard some people say that they do. Who's right? Both! You can do it either way based on how tough you want them to be. It is best to be open about it with your players, but other than that it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Lallander posted:Both! You can do it either way based on how tough you want them to be. It is best to be open about it with your players, but other than that it doesn't really matter. Thanks, I figured that you could basically do what you want with Nameless NPCs (or anything else in the game), but I guess I wanted a definitive answer. If there isn't one, that's just fine with me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Thanks, I figured that you could basically do what you want with Nameless NPCs (or anything else in the game), but I guess I wanted a definitive answer. If there isn't one, that's just fine with me! The book says "They only have one or two stress boxes, if any, to absorb both physical and mental hits. In other words, theyre no match for a typical PC." So the definitive answer is no they don't get consequences. They can if you want them to however!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Evil Hat is accepting requests to playtest Do: Fate of the Flying Temple! Submission form is here. Looks interesting, I can't wait to give it a try. Hope my group gets picked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
So I've been considering a Persona/SMT-style game using FATE. Strange Journeys in particular strikes me as interesting, in the whole "people go to a MYSTERIOUS NEW ZONE and find world-changing things in there". Persona interests me because, well, they can resonate with the character's Aspects. And there is also the whole negotiating with the various demons thing, where some may join you... how could this be handled without bogging down the entire thing with just NPCs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Aspects, Powers, or Stunts would be the usual way of handling that, but supporting characters/minions could work too, if you have players that can handle it. Basically, I have no idea, but I like throwing options around in an attempt to spark discussion. Personally, I think the Stunt option works best under FATE Core, but that's because I really like the flexibility stunts allow for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Demon Negotiation as a way to power is very much a videogame trapping and needs to be left there. You can't and shouldn't try to replicate it because the format of tabletop RPGs does not allow for it. Fusing works just fine as spending refresh and skillpoints to get better at things though, so that's easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Negotiation would pretty much be diplomacy, in my opinion. But befriending them, having them fight besides you, that is what I'm mostly wondering about. Or if not fighting besides you, then what? I -can- see them working as aspects, with all the invoking/compelling that entails (if you have an Angel with you, chances are it could compel you to act against devils and such)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head: When you fuse with a demon/angel/hoobajoob, you get three things: An Aspect related to the creature you're fused to. A power/stunt that the creature grants you. A +2 to a specific skill. What would the downside to being bound be? Apart from whatever compel you can get off the demon's aspect?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I think the compel would be the biggest thing. Demons do tend to have their own agenda, some more than others, and, IIRC, the entire Order/Chaos thing is a pretty big deal in the setting at large. The games give you elemental weaknesses and strengths and such, although those do seem a bit game-y to include here. Of course, chances are the demons aren't simply coming for free, and you have to do something for them or they simply bail (or worse?) Now, if you also want to add Personas to the mix (and why not), demons could also take the aspects of a part of your psyche, again compelling you to certain other behaviors. If that Jack Frost you are bound to doesn't like fire, you yourself might find yourself fearing it... and Jack isn't likely to bond with somebody who throws fire around in the first place. But hey! You find that you don't mind the cold so much. ... Personas themselves, I'm rather fond of the entire Tarot High Arcana thing they got going, and I think most could easily be translated into aspects you can invoke and compel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just off the top of my head: Well that sounds like it should cost at least a point or more of Refresh, leaving you less able to resist the influence of the supernatural creature. Maybe throw in a free compel once a session? Edit: But I'm not a fan of the latter mechanic. Kwyndig fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
So I'm not a big fan of Physique and Will in Fate Core, am I really missing out too much on just throwing these out and letting people take "Strongman of Cook County" as an aspect?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Well, they do have effects on stress tracks - by removing them, you'd be making it so that people have to get stunts to increase tracks. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you're after in the setting. Also, you might want them for 'resisting a bribe/mild toxin/illness'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Additionally, both of them have active sides to them - Physique allows you to throw stuff, Will is what you use to create Aspects related to intense concentration, determination or ignoring pain. They have a place IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Well I'm not really sure I like the extra stress boxes, it seems like it is just another checkbox to have a useful combat character. Will power is always kind of weird in an rpg and you already have compels to tempt them. I haven't played Fate Core yet though, just FAE so I am not sure if it works better in practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I'd really suggest playing it before you decide to mod it, especially with something that involved - it's a pretty elegant system, and changes might have more ripple effects than are apparent just by reading the rules. My turn: I'm working on a semi-hard scifi game, but psychic powers exist. I'm thinking of this system for them, and wanted to get people's opinions. quote:Requires Psychic Skill plus at least one stunt. Each stunt gives access to one of this list, though others are possible (talk to me, and we'll add it to the list). I'm going to fine-tune this list a bit, but just wanted to get general thoughts on it as it stands. The idea is to give an 'always on' ability to reward the big investment, and a turbo-charged ability in exchange for fate points. I've tried to balance more useful 'always' powers with weaker 'special' powers. Every stunt should give a use for the Psychic skill on the 'always' power if not both. e: Also, please, someone come up with a better name than 'crush'! I want it to be the 'Screw that, I make her head explode!' option. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
neaden posted:Well I'm not really sure I like the extra stress boxes, it seems like it is just another checkbox to have a useful combat character. Will power is always kind of weird in an rpg and you already have compels to tempt them. I haven't played Fate Core yet though, just FAE so I am not sure if it works better in practice. If stress is a problem to you, I suggest consolidating the tracks and making it so the best of Physique or Will applies to it. It's very rare that a character will both be not at all tough AND not have a strong personality given FATE's setup. And at that point, there's always the option of taking a stunt to use something else for the track anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
So I came up with something interesting for Fate Accelerated, and I think I might actually like it more than Fate Core now if I can work this into it/refine it some. Embedded stakes questions, Apocalypse World style: When you roll +careful, tell everyone why you have to take your time and why you can't take too long. When you roll +clever, tell everyone what you're focusing on and what you don't want to ignore. When you roll +flashy, tell everyone who you want to notice you and what you don't want them to see. When you roll +forceful, tell everyone what you're trying to break and what you hope you don't have to. When you roll +quick, tell everyone what you want to do first, and what you're racing against. When you roll +stealthy, tell everyone what you're trying to keep hidden and who you're hiding it from. I think these are generic enough that they fit any application of the approach, but I'm still enamored with that new idea smell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
Glazius posted:So I came up with something interesting for Fate Accelerated, and I think I might actually like it more than Fate Core now if I can work this into it/refine it some. That would be a really useful tool for people who are new to RPGs, or who aren't used to how a game like FAE works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Glazius posted:So I came up with something interesting for Fate Accelerated, and I think I might actually like it more than Fate Core now if I can work this into it/refine it some. Putting on the playtester hat and dropping all niceness for a second, I can shoot down that hope with one question: What am I trying to break when I want to move using Forceful? This is easy enough to justify normally (I tax myself to the limit, straining my muscles as much as I possibly can, or if I'm riding something I spur it onwards), and yet it doesn't work with those questions. It's not like I'm trying to break a speed record, I just want to get from point A to point B. For that matter, the same thing goes with Flashy: Moving with cartwheels, pirouettes and acrobatics is a perfectly legitimate way to use it to move, but a complete flop with that system because it's not like I am trying to attract someone's attention intentionally, it just happens because of the way I get around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Putting on the playtester hat and dropping all niceness for a second, I can shoot down that hope with one question: What am I trying to break when I want to move using Forceful? This is easy enough to justify normally (I tax myself to the limit, straining my muscles as much as I possibly can, or if I'm riding something I spur it onwards), and yet it doesn't work with those questions. It's not like I'm trying to break a speed record, I just want to get from point A to point B. For that matter, the same thing goes with Flashy: Moving with cartwheels, pirouettes and acrobatics is a perfectly legitimate way to use it to move, but a complete flop with that system because it's not like I am trying to attract someone's attention intentionally, it just happens because of the way I get around. Isn't the answer to that, though, in those situations you don't roll? If there's nothing at stake (or nothing interesting at stake) then there's no need to engage the mechanics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Putting on the playtester hat and dropping all niceness for a second, I can shoot down that hope with one question: What am I trying to break when I want to move using Forceful? This is easy enough to justify normally (I tax myself to the limit, straining my muscles as much as I possibly can, or if I'm riding something I spur it onwards), and yet it doesn't work with those questions. It's not like I'm trying to break a speed record, I just want to get from point A to point B. Who says that what you're trying to break and what you don't want to break have to be different things? You're running hard enough to break your heart or fast enough to break your legs, pushing your horse until it breaks, swerving your plane so hard you hear the wings groaning, but baby, hold together. Transient People posted:For that matter, the same thing goes with Flashy: Moving with cartwheels, pirouettes and acrobatics is a perfectly legitimate way to use it to move, but a complete flop with that system because it's not like I am trying to attract someone's attention intentionally, it just happens because of the way I get around. I don't know. Who are you performing for, when no one's there? Possible answer: "Lady luck, be kind!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Isn't the answer to that, though, in those situations you don't roll? If there's nothing at stake (or nothing interesting at stake) then there's no need to engage the mechanics? Ultimately, yes? But the goal of these stakes questions is to put reasonable limits around an approach. If there's obvious stuff an approach would do that these stakes questions don't have a frame for, that means I might need to change the questions. Or abandon this whole mad dream entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
Glazius posted:Ultimately, yes? But the goal of these stakes questions is to put reasonable limits around an approach. If there's obvious stuff an approach would do that these stakes questions don't have a frame for, that means I might need to change the questions. I just meant that the specific examples Transient People raised don't fall outside the frame of the stakes questions you set out because neither of his examples would require a roll. If a player declares "I'm moving forcefully" they wouldn't roll unless there is something to be gained or lost from doing so - part of the point of your stakes questions is to determine if there needs to be a roll at all. In both cases raised by Transient People the effect of applying the relevant stakes question is that there is no need to roll. Under your system the player doesn't need to roll to cartwheel around if they don't want to accomplish anything other than moving from point A to point B.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:I just meant that the specific examples Transient People raised don't fall outside the frame of the stakes questions you set out because neither of his examples would require a roll. If a player declares "I'm moving forcefully" they wouldn't roll unless there is something to be gained or lost from doing so - part of the point of your stakes questions is to determine if there needs to be a roll at all. In both cases raised by Transient People the effect of applying the relevant stakes question is that there is no need to roll. But there is something I want there. That thing I want is as simple as "get where I need to be", but I don't really need to be noticed and I don't need to break anything. I just need to be in the right zone, at the right time, to do what I want to do when it's useful. That's how conflict movement in FAE works, you roll and the shifts determine the zones you move by. quote:Who says that what you're trying to break and what you don't want to break have to be different things? You're running hard enough to break your heart or fast enough to break your legs, pushing your horse until it breaks, swerving your plane so hard you hear the wings groaning, but baby, hold together. And the problem here is that these things are entirely too punishing when my goal is, at the same time, simple and yet of supreme importance: Be at the right place at the right time, so I can do what I need to do to achieve an objective or help out a friend. Making the failure to move be "you take a Consequence/die/lose out on being able to continue your tale like you wanted entirely" is just disproportionate as all hell and just means that I, as a player, would simply stick to burning Fate Points to deny the GM the opportunity to hit me with something so ridiculously mean ever. Likewise, reducing a Flashy character to being a lucky punk, no matter what, is just needlessly constraining concepts (when in fact, most of the Flashy characters I can think of are the opposite, acrobats, swashbucklers and showmen of tremendous skill and charm instead of bumbling buffoons). The stakes you have right now are flawed, because you're trying to create one-size-fits-all answers for a game that already gives you answers in every situation that are tailor-made for the conflict at hand. Instead of trying to answer the 'what' of stakes, which FAE does by itself, answer the how. What makes a flashy infiltration of a base differ from a Stealthy one, or a Forceful one, or a Clever one? We know the stakes already: Success, you get in. Fail, you don't. The important question is what that means through the lens of the approach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
Transient People posted:But there is something I want there. That thing I want is as simple as "get where I need to be", but I don't really need to be noticed and I don't need to break anything. I just need to be in the right zone, at the right time, to do what I want to do when it's useful. That's how conflict movement in FAE works, you roll and the shifts determine the zones you move by. In that situation, where your goal is about getting to a place at the right time with no other obstacle than distance, why would Flashy or Forceful be an approach you would use? Your example sounds like a use of the Quick approach to me. Edit: Actually, you did give examples up thread and I can see where that's one way to use approaches but it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to say that moving quickly by being Forceful or Flashy doesn't make sense in a game that uses the stakes that Glazius' questions set. That doesn't necessarily make either way wrong. It's just that one puts more limits on the situations that a given game allows a given approach to apply to. Also, surely when a player answers the stakes question what they are really doing is giving ideas of what they want to achieve, along with the Serious Cost, Minor Cost and the Boost that could attach to the action. Each of those should be commensurate. So if I say my character is going to use a forceful approach to move an extra zone then I would say that I want to "break through the pain barrier" and force myself to move faster, but I don't want to "break a sweat". So if I succeed I get my extra move, if I get a boost I will make it something like "feels no pain" and if I get a Major Cost then I've over exerted to a serious degree and take a penalty of some kind, and a Minor Cost could be a lesser penalty. "Break" needn't be quite so literal. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Yeah, this isn't intending to actually make Ms. Forceful break her legs all the time or Mr. Flashy some chump who only skates by on chance. The stakes questions are designed to contextualize what happens after: what the boost feels like, and flavoring the minor and serious costs. I mean, let's say there's an overcome action where a sensible "minor" and "serious" cost for success are a fragile boost against you and a minor consequence. Let's say, y'know, oncoming boulder. And this is a supers-scale game, so "oncoming boulder" isn't that serious. Ms. Forceful jumps straight up, lets the boulder pass under her, and lands. She's calling it forceful, both willing to break her legs and hoping she doesn't have to. "Broken Leg" is not a mild consequence, but "Pulled Muscle"? Sure. The boost against her? "Awkward Landing". The boost for her? "Perfect Landing". Mr. Flashy tosses off a quip - "Lady Luck, be kind!" - and discreetly checks then apparently no-look shoots his grapnel at a nearby vertical surface, pulling himself out of the way with moments to spare. Showoff. Anyway, His boost? "Fortune Smiles". The boost against him? Maybe the boulder actually clips his boot, doing no damage but leaving him with a "Bruised Ego". The mild consequence? Well, he did no-look fire the thing and it actually whiffed, so he had to scramble out of the way. Stuff like that makes a guy think "This Just Ain't My Day". "Lady Luck" may just be Mr. Flashy's conceit - you've got to have a little conceit, to be flashy - but the boosts and consequence can also play into that conceit. It works even without taking a mild consequence, actually. They could both just take stress equal to the margin of failure - Ms. Forceful for the awkward landing, Mr. Flashy because his composure was rattled. Glazius fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:In that situation, where your goal is about getting to a place at the right time with no other obstacle than distance, why would Flashy or Forceful be an approach you would use? Your example sounds like a use of the Quick approach to me. Yeah, but Forceful covers a whole lot more situations than just breaking something; off the top of my head, I can think of lifting something heavy off a person, pushing past a thug or changing someone's mind with a blunt argument. You can try to stretch "break" to cover all of them, but why would you when you can just make the question more general? Personally, I think it would work better as something like, "Tell everyone what you're trying to move that doesn't want to, and what you hope doesn't break in the process." Except with less awkward wording, if possible. More generally, it seems like the first part of each stake is basically justifying why the approach would help with what you're trying to do. This might be why Flashy also seems a bit off - sometimes it's not impressing people that helps you, it's just that being able to disarm someone with a flick of the wrist tends to impress people. I dunno, Flashy's a bit of an odd duck even in original FAE, being more defined by what it can't do (be subtle) than what it can; maybe it needs something different, like, "Tell everyone why you're not insane for trying this..." For the second parts, most of them seem to be about an inherent weakness of the approach (Careful is slow, Clever is focussed, Flashy is obvious, Forceful is uncontrolled) which can produce side-effects for a success with a cost, but Quick and Stealthy are basically, "What happens if you're not quick/stealthy enough?" That sounds more like it would come into play on a failure, and I'd think the circumstances of the check would answer it pretty trivially anyway. I'm not too sure about what weaknesses you could use for them, though; maybe for Stealthy you could ask what you don't want to have to do in an emergency, but I can't think of anything for Quick. Overall, I think it's a cool way to add a bit more structure to FAE. The questions might limit possible consequences somewhat, but limits can be pretty useful in a loose, narrative system. I'd be interested to see how it worked in play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Just checking if anyone's come across somewhere in the UK to buy the system toolkit (and ideally the worlds books)? I've got the toolkit on pdf, but it's just not the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
I have no idea if you've tried it already, but Amazon's selling all three for what looks like the normal price. Toolkit, Worlds 1, Worlds 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
What Zandar said is basically why I'm critical of the idea. Just to give examples off the top of my head, these are things that are all forceful, but two of them most certainly cannot really be made to work with the questions without making the player jump through some very awkward hoops, even though they fit perfectly: -Coolly and mercilessly deconstructing the motives, means and odds of another person to prove just how pathetic their plans are and why they are fools for thinking they could achieve them, using nothing but truth and facts. Bullying, in other words, but honest bullying. -Summoning up force of will when you need it most. -Hefting an enormous two-handed sword and cutting someone in half with it. -Lifting a stone far too big for anyone else to move, because you are strong and stubborn enough to not quit. All four are very obvious and valid uses of the approach, but two of them make the player twist around and contort what he wants to do into 'break stuff' for no reason. The questions really should be more general than that and handle all the basic applications of an approach. quote:More generally, it seems like the first part of each stake is basically justifying why the approach would help with what you're trying to do. This might be why Flashy also seems a bit off - sometimes it's not impressing people that helps you, it's just that being able to disarm someone with a flick of the wrist tends to impress people. I dunno, Flashy's a bit of an odd duck even in original FAE, being more defined by what it can't do (be subtle) than what it can; maybe it needs something different, like, "Tell everyone why you're not insane for trying this..." Something like that is basically what I'd use to set the stakes. Depending on the power level, what Flashy can do is just "Would El Zorro/Raiden (Metal Gear Rising)/Dante (Devil May Cry) do this?". And the consequence for failure is "And what would happen if he screwed up?". PS: As for Quick, if we're talking about successes with a cost, my instinctual tweak would be to make the second part "...And what would be your five-second plan should your first attempt fail?".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
petrol blue posted:Just checking if anyone's come across somewhere in the UK to buy the system toolkit (and ideally the worlds books)? I've got the toolkit on pdf, but it's just not the same. Have you tried Leisure Games in London?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 18:29
|
|
