|
Let your players create the conflict they want (villain off a building!), but make it as long as it is cinematically. First you get them to the edge [and they might take minor consequence]. They draw a backup weapon...they go onto a flailing piece of lumber. Someone's on their fingertips, offers their hand, tries to pull the other person down...
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
It was one player's Arch Nemesis. To be fair, the guy was supposed to show up with his accomplice, lay down some havoc for a few rounds and then fade into the night. I like some of the options here, so we're going to discuss next session and see what we can come up with. I'm having a hard time adapting a few people to Fate, and this guy's one of them. He just couldn't accept that there's a million other very cinematic things to do that are perfectly easy with Create an Advantage - all he could see was a guy on a roof and "there's no reason if there's a guy on a roof that I can't push a guy off a roof is all I'm saying." That's quickly followed by accusations of "well, you said that Fate was really open, yet I can't push a guy off a roof. Doesn't seem open to me." He's normally not at all a problem player, and is usually very cinematic. He just wanted his "This is Sparta!" moment when he kicked the guy off. I'm leaving it up to my group to decide, but I like the way the Dresden Files style looks. Doesn't give you anything extra beyond what you could normally do (no Create and Advantage with a free forced movement tacked on or anything; it's still one action, one result). If someone wants to take a stunt that helps pushing people off ledges that's perfectly fine but I couldn't believe this became a point of contention when people have been having a blast otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:It was one player's Arch Nemesis. To be fair, the guy was supposed to show up with his accomplice, lay down some havoc for a few rounds and then fade into the night. I like some of the options here, so we're going to discuss next session and see what we can come up with. I'm having a hard time adapting a few people to Fate, and this guy's one of them. He just couldn't accept that there's a million other very cinematic things to do that are perfectly easy with Create an Advantage - all he could see was a guy on a roof and "there's no reason if there's a guy on a roof that I can't push a guy off a roof is all I'm saying." That's quickly followed by accusations of "well, you said that Fate was really open, yet I can't push a guy off a roof. Doesn't seem open to me." The problem here doesn't seem to be that the player wants to kick this dude off the roof so much as the player wants to get something for nothing...he wants to one-shot his Arch Nemesis and that is, to be blunt, weak tea. You don't have a capital-letter Arch Nemesis just to off him like a chump. A conflict with someone like that ought to be an actual memorable occasion, just like nobody wants to watch a movie or read a book where the hero and primary antagonist finally have the climactic showdown and it's resolved in five seconds when the hero shoots the villain in the face like an rear end in a top hat (acknowledging that in the right kind of book or movie that could be entertaining but in most cases will probably just be insufferable). FATE is not a system that lends itself to "a single attack murders the evil overlord on the spot, good job hero." That's not an issue of openness, plenty of games don't let you kill the main villain as casually as tripping someone going down the stairs. I don't really know how I'd begin addressing this issue with the player because it sorta sounds like he's trying to test the boundaries and look for "gotchas" and it partly sounds like he wants to get a cheap victory and call it cleverness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Just do the Marty McFly thing from BTTF2 where he falls off the roof and then rises back up on a flying car, arms crossed, looking smug. Or whatever flying entity is thematically relevant to your setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:Just do the Marty McFly thing from BTTF2 where he falls off the roof and then rises back up on a flying car, arms crossed, looking smug. This is a good way to do it. If you need to give the player a bit of candy for getting creative and wanting to be cinematic, there's also other tricks you can use. I've played characters who had permanent forced movement before and the way I pitched it to the GM was, if I force-move someone off a roof or into a fan or whatever, they take extra shifts of stress equal to the number of zones I would've had to move them if gravity wasn't doing the job for me. So if we're fighting atop the Empire State and I make a Push roll and succeed, that guy is dead (assuming we're playing street level heroes or whatever)...but the GM can Invoke to have the BBEG crash through a window and survive post-roll by making up the difference between our rolls, or he can toss me a few points' worth of Compels to say my archenemy gets away instead of getting splattered. FATE's flexible like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
I have the preliminary rules for my 10,000 Wonders hack in a state where I am comfortable thinking about running it. Admittedly the wiki format makes it a bit length and dense to read, but assuming I can playtest over the course of several PbPs, I might be able to get it to a point where I'll consider putting it into a pdf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Meanwhile, on a less ambitious line of thought, I threw together a rough framework for running Paranoia in Fate. I mainly just think that Fate's stress/damage rules are really good for modeling Treason conflict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
I always found Fate too "fair" for Paranoia and usually run a 3d6 or 1d20 roll-under system. Perversity points for funny play and betrayals balance the innate randomness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I'm super new to this system, and my group has questions on two things that Fate Accelerated wasn't entirely clear on. If the GM invokes an NPC aspect and gives the player a fate point, can the player then immediately spend that fate point on an invoke of his own? Can this happen as long as there are aspects to compel and invoke, or do you have to compel/invoke your aspects all at once? The other question is about stress. Does checking a stress box soak up all the damage of one attack, or does it only soak up its numbered value? It feels like each box should only soak its value, but Fate Accelerated was a little weird about how it worded damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
EscortMission posted:I'm super new to this system, and my group has questions on two things that Fate Accelerated wasn't entirely clear on. If the GM invokes an NPC aspect the fate point just gets spent. It doesn't go to any of the players. A stress box only soaks up the amount of stress it is rated for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
EscortMission posted:Can this happen as long as there are aspects to compel and invoke, or do you have to compel/invoke your aspects all at once? quote:The other question is about stress. Does checking a stress box soak up all the damage of one attack, or does it only soak up its numbered value? It feels like each box should only soak its value, but Fate Accelerated was a little weird about how it worded damage. Let's say you take a 5-stress hit. You can check off your third box to reduce the hit by 3 stress. You still have 2 stress left over, so you'd have to take at least a mild consequence to remove the rest of the hit. e: oops. Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:
Wait, this answer is making me worried that I've been doing it wrong. In the example you just gave, could you mark your 3 stress box and your 2 stress box, or does it have to be one stress box, one consequence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
I believe it's 1 stress box, 1 consequence. In the System Toolkit book, they say to allow spreading damage over multiple stress boxes only if you want longer fights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Squidster posted:I believe it's 1 stress box, 1 consequence. In the System Toolkit book, they say to allow spreading damage over multiple stress boxes only if you want longer fights. Close. It's one Stress but as many unmarked consequences as you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Cool. I guess that's why my fights always take so long, I will try to fix that in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
I didn't totally get fight balance through an entire campaign with fate - in my opinion, it's a big area the rules are missing, advice on how to balance fights. I started with 'pathetically easy' and scaled it up gradually, and the PCs still kicked everything to bits. For the last bossfight, I said gently caress it, gave the NPC a skill at 7 and dropped a few fate points, one-shotted a PC (the dice picked that moment to roll +4 for me and a -2 after reroll for the player), and then they used The Package. Kudos to the system for being fast enough that it wasn't a big problem - none of the fights spoiled the flow of the story, so the players didn't notice the balance issues (or thought it was part of my style, either's good). Having said that, the groups' other game at the time was D&D 4e, so pretty much anything would seem fast compared to it! e: Was just writing up some advice for the other GM in my group who's about to run a campaign in Fate, and thought I'd copypasta to the thread. Mainly because if I'd figured this out before a year of running the system, things would have been much easier! smrt posted:Remember that the 'everything is a PC' rule in fate also extends to the plot. That is, "That Thing You Want" can be statted as a PC, with skills (brawl = waves of henchmen, physique = a tank, etc), aspects ("But this time it's on a train!", "I hate snakes"), and stress tracks (ie, how close the PCs are to solving the plot). petrol blue fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess my fights weren't actually that long, they still played super fast compared to D&D. But the other games we were playing at the time were Powered by the Apocalypse, so misunderstanding Fate made it comparatively glacial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Yeah, agreed: funnily enough, the replacement for 4e was DW (almost as if the DM's a goon...), and yeah, DW combat is beautifully fluid. I think Fate is pretty much the midpoint between DW and 4e in terms of speed v. crunch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
I'd like to get a second opinion on a stunt a player has suggested. We're back to the forced movement thing I'd covered previously - they just won't leave it alone. A player was going through the Stunt Families and noticed that "Scion of the Court" seems to allow two effects on the same roll (p94 Fate Core). Scion of the Court is a suggested stunt that requires Child of the Court (Gain a +2 bonus to any attempt to overcome obstacles with Rapport when you're at an aristocratic function), and Scion of the Court chains to When you overcome an obstacle with Child of the Court, you may additionally create a situation aspect that describes how the general attitude turns in your favor and if anyone wants to get rid of the aspect they overcome at Fair. My player wants to skin that into a chain of some sort to use Physique to in an opposed overcome to force movement a zone, and then chain a second stunt to automatically apply an aspect of "stunned" or something like that. No damage involved. It costs two stunts, but does that seem to violate the law/spirit of the game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Does anyone know of some FATE system based podcasts / youtubes to listen to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:My player wants to skin that into a chain of some sort to use Physique to in an opposed overcome to force movement a zone, and then chain a second stunt to automatically apply an aspect of "stunned" or something like that. No damage involved. It costs two stunts, but does that seem to violate the law/spirit of the game? Personally, I'd just say 'sure, but we might have to look at it again if it turns out over-powered'. Possibly have the aspect not come with a free invoke if you want to deflate it a bit? Honestly, it sounds like a pretty cool concept for a stunt to me, and I'd just be worrying about how I was going to include enough things for mooks to get thrown through/off. RE: Podcasts - I don't know any specifically about Fate, but there are odds and sods, individual episodes and games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Myrmidongs posted:Does anyone know of some FATE system based podcasts / youtubes to listen to? RPPR's done some FATE Actual Plays, as have The Gutter Skypes, Fandible, the Knights of the Night, and although they don't do lengthy stints with any given game, I believe The Walking Eye have done at least one Fate game (Dresden Files).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
So hey, the Breakfast Cult Kickstarter is up. It's a FAE cosmic horror anime RPG and I hear the creator is pretty handsome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Myrmidongs posted:Does anyone know of some FATE system based podcasts / youtubes to listen to? There was a Fate-specific podcast, but it faded a while back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:There was a Fate-specific podcast, but it faded a while back. Wasn't compelling enough? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Wasn't compelling enough? It invoked the wrong kind of feelings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
Which Elder Being us the most Tsunder-est?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Which Elder Being us the most Tsunder-est? Nyanlathotep
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Nyanlathotep Nyaa~lathotep
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 05:39
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Evil Hat just released their second Patreon campaign, The Secrets of Cats! Like Venture City Stories, it's pay what you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Wow. That's... pretty blatantly knocking off the John Wick game, that's a little bit low. On the other hand, I might be able to sell it to the GM running said Wick game and not have to put up with the horrible rules, so I'm not going to complain too hard! e: VVV Yeah, you're right. And given it's a pwyw module, I guess I knee-jerked a bit. If it was a standalone thing, I think it'd be a reasonable criticism. Well, as long as I can escape the joys of never-replenishing mana and 'revised' editing that I'll be glad. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Wow. That's... pretty blatantly knocking off the John Wick game, that's a little bit low. It's not exactly a new idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Nyaa~lathotep Nyarko, crawling with love~
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
For that matter, Wick's game postdates Diane Duane's YA cat wizard stories by several years, and was pretty blatantly inspired by it, so it's more like going back to the same source, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I'm contemplating a Fate Accelerated Star Wars game, and I'm thinking about how I want to handle spaceships and vehicles. What I'm leaning toward right now is statting up ships as, essentially, mooks: a couple Aspects, a couple things it's good at and bad at, maybe a Stunt (but not necessarily), and 0-3 Stress boxes. When it's just a generic ship ("Watch it, TIE Fighters on your tail!"), those are its stats, period. If a PC or a major NPC jumps in one, though, its "good at" and "bad at" lists become bonuses/penalties to the character's approaches, like prepackaged stunt bundles. You'd use your ship's stress boxes, but your own consequence slots (multi-crew ships would use the captain/pilot/whoever's in charge). So, for example: X-Wing Lock S-Foils in Attack Position!, High Maintenance Good At (+2): Dogfighting, strafing runs Bad At (-2): Flying without an R2 Unit, outrunning TIE Fighters "R2, See if You Can Lock it Down": Once per scene, clear your minor consequence slot during the scene instead of at the end of it. Stress: [] [] TIE Fighter The Fist of Empire, There Are Always More Good At (+2): Crazy acrobatic maneuvers, ganging up Bad At (-2): Operating without support, flying through confined spaces Stress: [] Iconic ships like a Millennium Falcon probably start out like this, but anyone with an Aspect tied to it can toss one of their stunts to the ship if they want. Am I missing any blindingly obvious pitfalls by doing this? Obviously ships should never have Stunts that grant a +2 bonus, since potentially stacking up to a +7 bonus is pretty extreme.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Does anybody have any experience with implementing a "time limit" mechanic in to an encounter in a Fate-centric way? I've got a situation where the characters need to infiltrate a facility and get out within "90 minutes". I could just do something like each round of checks is 5 minutes, so make them count (and that's how I started doing it, but the bulk of the mission is happening next session) but I feel like there is probably a Fate Fractal way to handle this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
OverloadUT posted:Does anybody have any experience with implementing a "time limit" mechanic in to an encounter in a Fate-centric way? I'd absolutely do it as a Fate fractal thing, yeah. Run it as a conflict with a twist: every round the situation attacks itself, the PCs' actions during the infiltration are modelled as Defends. Alternately if it's not a major setpiece, just run it as a contest between the PCs and the time limit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
So this is kinda neat: Two-Column FAE. Basically you still get the base six approaches, but you only get +2/+1/+1/0/0/0. Then you have six Capabilities: Combative, Roguish, Primal, Focused, Arcane, and Divine. You get four levels to distribute through those however you like. Then, when you want to do something, you add the approach and capability then roll. So hitting someone with a big fuckoff axe would be Forcefully Combative, whereas being all swashbuckly would be Flashily Combative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:So this is kinda neat: Two-Column FAE. Huh. A friend and I were talking about doing almost exactly this for a 60s spy game just last night. Ours was more Smallville-style motivations for the second column, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Yeah I really don't like that Capabilities list. I like the idea of two-columns of Approaches, but that second list doesn't feel very good to me at all. And I don't see why it needs to also be 6 things. I think two columns of four might work better, something like: Column A (+2, +1, +0) Quick Careful Flashy Sneaky Column B (+2, +1, +0) Forceful Peaceful Clever Brash With a floating +1 and +0 to place in each column.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 07:07
|
|