|
The easy solution is that you don't try to turn one number into another. Look at the Cortex+ stats and figure out in general what an NPC can do and how well they do it compared to a PC in that system. There's some kind of benchmark for novice/skilled/expert, right? Then you just put things in relation to your PCs. Like, this NPC is supposed to be an ace pilot, so if your group also has an ace pilot maybe make the converted NPC's Drive skill equal to the ace PC. Just eyeball it because trying to create some kind of formula will probably cause weird poo poo to happen.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Yeah, Lynx has the right idea. Going for a strict "Pilot d8 equals Pilot +2" conversion is going to lead to weirdness somewhere or another, but making a Fate NPC that's vaguely similar to the original Firefly NPC shouldn't be that hard. It helps that Firefly's probably the easiest Cortex+ game to convert to Fate, since it has a traditional stat+skill structure and it's version of distinctions can be broken down into aspects and the basis for stunts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
WaywardWoodwose posted:Is anybody here familiar enough with fate and cortex+ to give me a quick and dirty way to convert one to the other? I'm running Firefly in Fate: Core and I'm trying to use the cortex adventures. Turning Distinctions into aspects is simple enough, but what about attributes and skills? I'm a little afraid of making all the NPCs flat out better than the PCs if i just pull some ratio out of my rear end and copy/paste new numbers over the statblocks. They don't really convert like that. A lot of peple have tried to blend them, but they're not really compatible. The best thing to do is take characters based on their concepts and the ideas of what they can do and recreate them from scratch using the character creation rules. [Edit] The people above me have it right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I have an idea + good plotseed that I'm gonna maybe interest check with my friends, and failing that interest check with goons  I wanna a run a "fixers" type campaign with the premise of, "What if Ghostbusters took place in The Witcher". Basically it's a world where, due to some kind of dimensional apocalypse some centuries ago, everything is lovely and medieval, and magic exists now. So, wizards and witches exist, but the flip side of magic being real is that reality is a little... malleable. Stuff like monsters and ghosts don't exist as part of "nature". They're always the result of some kind of curse, whether intentional or unintentional. A psychic black mark that takes physical form because of magic. So if there's some weird-rear end monster like a cockatrice or gryphon, those aren't part of nature. They participate in the ecosystem because they're technically alive, but they were born because something or someone made it happen, not because 2 gryphons got busy or a chicken hatched a snake egg or whatever. Also, sometimes what you think is a monster is actually a human who is abusing magic to some end. There's probably some exceptions that I'll make for some kind of "fae" spectrum of beings, which includes elves, dwarves, and probably some kinda giant or troll, mostly for the benefit of variety in player characters. I'm gonna be hacking Atomic Robo for this. The PCs are meant to deal with threats that normal people simply aren't equipped to even start handling themselves. I'll be cribbing the Faction fractalization rules from there, too, because the PCs are going to be members of essentially a monster-hunting guild. There'll be a lot of focus on detective work and figuring out the source and reason behind a curse, so it can be properly disposed of. Fighting a monster isn't necessarily a means to an end; the job isn't done until you've tied up the loose end in the fabric of reality that allows said monster to exist in the first place. Failure to do so means it'll just appear again the next time the stars are right, or whatever. Probably some bullet points:
I have a pretty good starting plot seed, involving a remote town where children are vanishing from their beds at night, that can spiral into a big weird conspiracy thing from there. I'm hoping that running it on Roll20 will help alleviate some of my normal group's kinda catastrophic scheduling issues, but otherwise I might formally extend the interest check to the forums.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Yo, Ettin came outta nowhere and released this game Fractured Skies. The description says it is a spiritual sequel to Inverse World, which is one of my favorite settings and a drat good FAE book that I've run for my group of friends. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the pitch is right up my alley, especially the bit about designing cultures derived from the work of the amazing Quinn Murphy. In other words, this game looks dope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Serf posted:In other words, this game looks dope. Yeah! It's a pre-Breakfast Cult project I polished off so I could have a little extra dosh for BCult's stretch goals, but I'm proud of it. You can thank Quinn Murphy for the culture stuff though, my culture stuff is just a trimmed version of what he wrote for the Fate Codex. The main draw for characters is the Job system, which is basically how I'd convert Inverse World's playbooks into Fate Core today. Each Job describes an archetype with a few sample aspects, a partly-filled skill pyramid, and some stunts that are optional but can only be taken by people with that Job. Here's the Outlaw: quote:SAMPLE ASPECTS There are 16 Jobs total: Arcanist, Captain, Clerk, Diplomat, Entertainer, Merchant, Outlaw, Pilgrim, Priest, Ranger, Rider, Survivor, Templar, Tinker, Tourist, and Warrior. Fractured Skies is largely about things like exploration and trade over combat, so a lot of Jobs aren't combat-focused. For example, the Clerk is a mix of faceless bureaucrat and Rock Okajima, the Templar is a paladin/freelance accountant (Death And Taxes: I Do Both), and the Tourist is a hitchhiker who blunders into life-threatening situations to take holiday snaps and somehow survives. Basically, if you liked Inverse World you'll probably like this. Incidentally, if you got Inverse World Accelerated on DriveThruRPG, you should have a coupon for 50% off Fractured Skies. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Basically, if you liked Inverse World you'll probably like this. Incidentally, if you got Inverse World Accelerated on DriveThruRPG, you should have a coupon for 50% off Fractured Skies. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I didn't. I thought we were friends, Ettin. People have been using the coupon so it should have gone out. Let me know if it doesn't turn up and we can work something out!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Stumbled across some Eberron FATE homebrew I was working on. It's unfinished, but, hey, maybe someone will find it useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Are there any good videos explaining Dresden Files? Most of the YouTube videos are pretty garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Texibus posted:Are there any good videos explaining Dresden Files? Most of the YouTube videos are pretty garbage. Not a video, but this guy's articles are fantastic. http://www.rickneal.ca/?page_id=842
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Yeah! It's a pre-Breakfast Cult project I polished off so I could have a little extra dosh for BCult's stretch goals, but I'm proud of it. You can thank Quinn Murphy for the culture stuff though, my culture stuff is just a trimmed version of what he wrote for the Fate Codex. Out of curiosity, wouldn't a Job be better handled as a Skill Mode, or even a Prismatic Skill? IE, it gives you a bunch of skills at a certain level, or several skills at varying levels of competency that all rank up at the same time when you can level the Mode or Prismatic Skill. That way you can get a competent Outlaw who goes anywhere from being like Vyse the sky pirate to a phantom thief without having your apex slots eaten up by the Job's things if that isn't your exact cup o' tea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah, could be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Lallander posted:Not a video, but this guy's articles are fantastic. Yeah, Rick Neal is the definitive source for Dresden Files RPG examples. He was so important to the product that he's in the damned index of the books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
I'm working my way through the articles too. They're helping but gently caress for a straight board game guy this stuff is impenetrable. Mainly because I'm going to be GMing this to a group of people who have also never done an RPG as a first time GM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
You may want to try a more vanilla FATE game first as a practice just to get a feel for it. FATE is one of those systems that comes off as deceptively simple and a lot of people assume it's a good "intro" game to bring people into RPGs with. It actually is quite tough to grasp if you don't have a strong understanding of RPGs already and what FATE tries to do in particular. FATE's relatively simple rules mean that a lot of the guidelines and "levers" of normal RPG play are invisible, but they're still there. Dresden Files in particular then adds a pretty deep set of additional material on top of that (of course, that's mainly the magic rules, but that's also mainly what people are interested in). Of course, that said like any game a group of enthusiastic players can stumble through the confusion and come out the other side...but I wouldn't recommend it as a way to convert a bunch of friends into an RPG group unless they're also very gung-ho about the idea. oriongates fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Well balls , this thread mentioned that it would be a good jumping off point about two months ago. Specifically the Dresden Files, in a little deep now though. But I do have the FATE core handbook as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Most of the advice in Fate Core will still apply to Dresden Files, so it's worth reading that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Is there a good guide to writing up interesting stunts anywhere? There is always lots of talk in here about doing more than just the standard +2 in x case, but never a good description on how to build a decent stunt that is both interesting and balanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
I don't think so? I mean, there's more stunts can do than the +2 that everyone just kind of defaults to (substitute skill A for skill B, use an action with a skill that normally doesn't get it, flat-out rules exception), but there's never been anything more in-depth than what's in the Fate Core book. That said, a guide like that would probably be pretty useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I don't think so? I mean, there's more stunts can do than the +2 that everyone just kind of defaults to (substitute skill A for skill B, use an action with a skill that normally doesn't get it, flat-out rules exception), but there's never been anything more in-depth than what's in the Fate Core book. You're Dungeon World guide was what made me get DW, so I nominate you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Yeah, about 85+% of that was written by Scrape. I am incapable of writing something on my own and finishing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Yeah, about 85+% of that was written by Scrape. I am incapable of writing something on my own and finishing it. Collab? You tell me what to write and I'm bored/writer blocked enough to make it a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
To be fair, way back in the day the joking pitch I gave to Scrape was "you write the advice, I'll write a sample mini-setting, let's do this", then he went ahead and did it. I've always been very up-front that the majority of the work is his, but sadly he seems to have vanished off the face of social media. I tend to get pinged with questions/praise for the guide, but I'm always clear that he did the lion's share of the work. (It's still mind-boggling to me that the Guide is still as popular as it is like 3 or 4 years later, and that it's been translated into different languages. I have a hardcopy of the Guide, something I helped write, in Korean, for gently caress's sake. I have a fuckign RPGGeek entry. None of that makes sense.) If I did another Guide for Fate (and I'll be honest, I have thought about it a bunch of times, as well as doing a more generic version of the Guide when AW2 comes out), it'd have to be a collaboration. I mean, I'd love to do something like this but I have no idea where to start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:If I did another Guide for Fate (and I'll be honest, I have thought about it a bunch of times, as well as doing a more generic version of the Guide when AW2 comes out), it'd have to be a collaboration. I mean, I'd love to do something like this but I have no idea where to start. Well, I know jack poo poo about FATE, lack writing or design skills. But I can promise to buy the hell out of it....
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I'll take a stab at what I look for when trying to make interesting stunts. This post is just about +2 stunts, though. I'll have some more about how to make other kinds of cool stunts once I gather some of my thoughts. So there are two major issues with the default +2 to X when Y. The first is that they are, frankly, dull. The second is they're actually pretty difficult to balance. If you make the conditions too restrictive, you've made a very weak stunt. If they're too broad, then you effectively get the benefit for a spending a fate point on a large number of rolls. There are times they make a lot of sense though. As a rule of thumb, +2 stunts work much better when used on Average or Fair skills to create a specialized Good or Great skill. This is good because it allows for broader character concepts without crippling yourself in important areas of the game. As an example, say you're in a Pirate game, and you want your character's focus to be on social interaction. But you still need to be decent at the swashbuckling bit of swashbuckling adventure. This is a good time to create a stunt like this: +2 to Fight when using a Cutlass. You get a lot out of this - you can contribute to combat effectively, while leaving your best skill slots open for skills more central to your character concept. It also has clear downsides. In this sort of game, you can expect ranged combat to come up semi-regularly as well, and you're much worse at that then a combat specialists. Also, if your preferred weapon is taken away, you're in trouble. You shouldn't take +2 stunts with your best skills, and you shouldn't use them to mark something you're especially good at. Instead, use them when you find yourself selecting a Good or Great skill that you only intend to use in a very narrow way. This is very helpful where the game concept mandates you be effective at a particular task. Combat is a common example, but you could do the same for Drive in a game about racers, or Athletics for a game about sports, or Stealth for a game about thieves. The other variant is when you want to add a specific capability that would fall under a skill you don't have room for in your higher skill slots. For example, a warrior who is physically intimidating might take Provoke at Average, but have a stunt such as: +2 to Provoke when you're in a position to cause physical harm. Now your mechanics match your narrative - the character is quite intimidating, but they can't always get value out of it. Keep in mind Provoke isn't just about being scary. It's about using fear (or anger, etc) to get what you want. It's a lot harder to physically threaten someone over the phone and get the reaction you desire - which is why you can still roll it, just without the bonus. You can clearly see how these stunts let you fix disconnects between mechanics and narrative. With limited skill slots available, its easy to find yourself with too many "required" for your idea to work, and thus no mechanical backing to part of your description. +2 stunts are a way around that problem. They're the answer to the question, "I say my character is good at x, y, and z, but I only have the skills for x and y." Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
That is a really good post about +2 under circumstance stunts. They really do work better as a "knack" type thing to sort of fill in a gap left by lower skills/approaches. "Yeah, I'm not good at fighting, but I can handle myself with a sword if need be."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Some more about stunts. The key thing to making any kind of stunt is to remember that Fate is ultimately all about description. That's what aspects are - capsule descriptions of salient features of whatever they're attached to. Even Skills act this way - they describe how you accomplish a task. This is why you can often overcome obstacles using a variety of skills. The corollary here is to remember that Aspects Are Always True. In other words, description matters. The what and the how should have add-on effects. Success is success, but its important to string narrative together in Fate so that solving a problem with one skill puts you in a different next situation than if you had used another skill. So what does this mean for Stunts? The sort of secret implication is that stunt names matter. Think of your stunt names as mini-aspects. Why you can do something should matter. Not as much as what that stunt lets you do, but at least a little. In some games there'll be a specific mechanical variation for this (like Gear in Atomic Robo) but in core Fate it's up to you. This also matters from a GM's perspective. You can't compel stunt names like you would true aspects, but you should respect them and use them as narrative levers when appropriate. If someone deals extra damage because they've mastered The Forbidden Palm, that should mean different things in game than someone who deals extra damage because they have A Gigantic Sword. The second and more important thing to Stunt design is that your mechanics should follow from description. Spend some time away from the mechanics thinking about what cool things you want your character to do, and how you would describe those cool things. Think about how your character makes those things happen, purely in narrative or descriptive terms. Explain why you can do things others can't. That will give you a good starting point in terms of what stunts you need, and what you need them to do. Figuring out how to make that happen mechanically is the next part. So once you've figured out what kinds of things you want to cover with stunts, you need to make it happen mechanically. To make interesting stunts, there are six broad categories I tend to look at (seven when you include +2 stunts). Better Skills: This is probably the second most common kind of stunt. This lets you do additional things with a Skill you already have by adding a new action to an existing Skill, usually under a circumstance. In some cases you might be able to add a new action whole-sale, particularly if its an action everyone in the game needs to have a way to do. This is typically done for the same reason as +2 stunts, and the mechanical effect is often ultimately the same. The reason to prefer this over a +2 is when you have some other stunt or extra that keys off a particular skill, in which case you'll get additional synergy bonuses. It also might be useful if you're truly strapped for skill ranks. Sometimes this fits a narrative description better than a +2 stunt. In truth though, these stunts are often even duller than the +2 stunt. More Aspects: Aspects are incredibly useful things, as mentioned above. Stunts that get your more aspects in some way are pretty strong. They give you additional narrative control (Aspects Are Always True) as well as the obvious mechanical benefits of more things to invoke. There's a couple ways to do this. The main one is a limited ability to create Aspects without rolling. This should either be use limited - that is to say, "Once per scene" or "X times per adventure" or something like that - or have an under circumstance feature. The other common options are to upgrade boosts to full aspects under certain circumstances, to let you roll to create an aspect when you normally wouldn't be able to, or to let you make multiple aspects with a single roll. As above, use and circumstance limitations are a good way to balance them, though especially in the last case spending fate points might also fit. As an example, a character in a game I ran was notable for being exceptionally beautiful. That character had a stunt that allowed him to place either Infatuated or Jealous on an NPC whenever he entered a scene. If that NPC managed to remove the aspect they were immune to this ability in the future. This reinforced mechanically a core aspect of the character's concept with a narrative and mechanical effect. Different Invokes: Once you have placed an aspect, what do you do with it? The default options let you get very generic bonuses, but stunts are a good way to add more narrative or more unusual effects. The most basic is getting a +3 instead of a +2 on an invoke. This can be written fairly broadly as a stunt on its own - anyone who invokes one of your aspects under circumstance (either if you made it with a certain skill, if they're using it for a certain task, and so forth). Even more than the +2 stunt, this is fairly dull. A better use of the +3 is to have a very tight circumstance and pair it with another more interesting effect that isn't quite strong enough on its own. As an example, a stunt that lets you invoke an aspect created with Provoke to make an monster's attack target you instead of an adjacent ally is a very flavorful and useful stunt, but the circumstance is tight enough that you may not get to use it often. Adding an ally not adjacent to you may invoke aspects you create with Provoke for a +3 bonus instead of the usual +2 when defending against physical attacks further reinforces the narrative thrust of the stunt, and gives it that little extra mechanical power to be interesting and useful. The key thing about these stunts is that the sky is more or less the limit. Because the stunt requires two steps - placing an aspect and then invoking the effect - it can balance some fairly powerful benefits. Allowing you to roll a specific skill on someone else's behalf when you aren't present, making an NPC answer one question truthfully, or discovering things other than aspects on another character (such as stunts or skill ranks) could all fall under this. Balancing these stunts involves two factors: circumstance and cost. The narrower the circumstance the new invoke option operates under, the more powerful the associated effect can be. But remember - too narrow and you'll never get to use it. Costs basically comes down to whether you need to spend a Fate point for the effect instead of using a free invoke. A neat variation of this is allowing you to spend your fate points on someone else's behalf. Extra Declarations: Declaring features about the world and narrative is one of the most powerful abilities in Fate. Stunts that let you do so without spending a fate point are a good thing to explore. They're also great narrative support. A cat burglar might have a stunt that lets them declare there's always a back way in, for example. The key to declaration stunts is that it provides you something to leverage with other mechanics, by placing aspects and using skills. Good declaration stunts allow you to modify the circumstances to favor your best skills. You generally want to balance these with use-per limitation - once per session is a good benchmark. A variation here is the free knowledge stunt. Essentially, this lets you ask the GM for details without having to roll. You are effectively asking the GM to make a declaration. These stunts are less powerful, so you should be able to use them more often. New Abilities: Any time you simply state "can do X" in a stunt. A common one is Flight. These stunts have strong narrative influence, but they are united by the fact that in mechanical terms they almost always simply mean that you either never need to defend against a particular kind of effect, or that you always automatically overcome certain types of obstacles. There is one other possibility that deserves specific attention: free compels. Normally players have to spend a fate point to even propose a compel on another character. A stunt that lets you make compels on others without having to spend fate points under certain circumstances can be quite useful. Stolen Extras: This is sort of a catch-all for any mechanical ability that doesn't fit above and requires more detail than simply declaring it as a possibility. These stunts let you do things that aren't covered in the core mechanics, and are effectively new subsystems you've grabbed specific to your character. In other words, they're effects that would be Extras in another game. Things like healing magic or robot companions fit well under this. These sort of stunts often require you negotiate with the GM more than with others. After all, if the ability was a normal thing for the setting it would probably just be an Extra. This isn't always true, of course - in some cases your GM may have explicitly allowed a narrative feature (say, magic) that would be covered by stunts for those who wanted it. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
These essays are great. Like, really, really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
I'm working on another stunt post, but while I'm at I'd like to ask the thread for help. I like Fate generally, but I've never care for combat in the system. It feels like it takes too long and often feels repetitive and boring. Adding stuff to fix the second problem has always made the first worse for me, and trying to make it shorter makes the second problem worse. I keep fiddling with some ideas for it, but I haven't quite hit on something that makes it quick but also satisfying. One thing I've been considering lately is not having combat at all in the standard sense, just having it be a descriptive thing - basically overcome obstacles through attack options. This doesn't quite feel right either. One set of ideas I keep circling back to is making it so as the GM, I don't (or at least rarely) roll in combat, and to make it so the opponents don't work the same as the PCs in terms of statistics. Basically, players roll to overcome enemies and take stress depending on how well they roll; most NPCs don't use stress at all or even make attacks, they're entirely reactive. What do you folks think? Has anyone else managed to hack fate combat to be better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I'm working on another stunt post, but while I'm at I'd like to ask the thread for help. I think that if your combats are taking a long time, it might be good to step back and figure out why. Combats in my experience generally come in two different flavors. One is the pack of mooks who are basically buying time or representing a minor obstacle, and the other is a fight against a for real Named NPC and probably some henchmen. I feel like neither of these usually lasts very long. Players are usually pretty single-minded, and will dog after the enemy NPC like they're being paid to; usually the first encounter with a named NPC will be a kind of asymmetrical conflict where the PCs want to take out the NPC, and the NPC wants to accomplish some other task, like arm a time bomb or something. I try to make named NPCs last longer than one scene by giving them certain victory conditions like that, and then having them make a break for it. The PCs then either have to let him go, ignore the mess he left behind, or split the party resources to half-rear end both things. I think a pretty good conflict is a skirmish in a city square while, a couple of zones away from the square, an NPC villain is kidnapping the PCs' employer. If the PCs can't reach him in like 3 exchanges, then the conflict ends with a player loss and they now have to pursue the NPC who has a VIP hostage as a pre-existing Advantage in some kind of chase contest. If they reach the NPC before the time limit is up, then he still makes a break for it, and the chase contest would now determine whether they catch up to him or get led into an ambush. Of course, there's also the possibility that some good rolls or clever actions also prevent the chase phase from occurring. Either way, most of your conflicts shouldn't necessarily be simple deathmatches. There should be some kind of time pressure if it's mooks distracting the PCs, or at least one side should have some kind of weird indirect victory condition. Fighting a guy with "Immortal Vampire King" as his primary, for example, requires that the PCs secure some way of killing a vampire, as their regular modes of attack would simply not work. The conflict may consist of leading him on a deadly game of hide and seek through his castle zones for several exchanges, trying to build up various advantages involving distraction and frustration, until somebody can tear down some curtains and reveal the rising sun. Or, if they come prepared for a more direct approach with garlic and stakes, the vampire may be the one leading them on the chase, trying to split up the party or lead them into various deathtraps. He still wants the PCs dead here, but he doesn't want to risk a direct engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Let me blunt: I'm not looking for ways to make current FATE combat better. Even when I use a lot of the tricks you suggest, it doesn't erase the core problem. Which is that FATE combat far too often degrades into a slog or is simply unsatisfying. Whether its three rounds of it or ten, I have never seen it (as a GM or PC) consistently fall in the sweet spot. Either its too easy and no one has to make any interesting decisions, in which case it should have just been a series of obstacles, or it takes too long to have a consequential outcome. Applying outside time limits works sometimes but too much and it feels - and is - an artificial limit imposed, and worse its obvious that it's being imposed because it stops being fun if it goes on too long. Ultimately the problem is there is a severe disconnect between the mechanics of how combat works in FATE and the way it gets described. It should be dynamic and cinematic - not necessarily over quickly, but each turn should progress things more than it does, with a real back and forth. But because of how attack/defense, movement, and damage work, its obvious that each exchange uses up relatively few resources. Some of this can be solved by expanding the descriptive aspects of whats going on, but that can only carry so much weight. Essentially, the core issue is that each round requires as many rolls and nearly as much book keeping as a more tactical game but there simply aren't as options or consequential decisions to be made in this system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Let me blunt: I'm not looking for ways to make current FATE combat better. Even when I use a lot of the tricks you suggest, it doesn't erase the core problem. Which is that FATE combat far too often degrades into a slog or is simply unsatisfying. I think a couple of things that might help is to remember the rule that defines what a conflict is, in the context of a "scene", and think about what stress and consequences really are. A conflict is two or more parties actively exchanging attacks with intent to harm. In addition to that, a scene's scope should only zoom in to the point where it's interesting. So, for example, if the fight is going to be totally one-sided, then it's really more of an Overcome action. Outright sneak attack assassinations fall under this category; you're not likely to Take Out most characters in one exchange, but if you've already established that you're making your strike against a totally unaware target, then that sounds like you're making a Stealth or Fight overcome to just ice that dude. It'll save you a lot of time if one of your "bad fight" scenarios is the stealthy character not really being able to do their job. Additionally, if the fight against a bunch of mooks isn't going to be very interesting, or if your "enemy force" is just one of several kinda faceless obstacles to an actual goal, just zoom out of that conflict. Let the players describe what they're doing and do it as a Challenge if there are some stakes, or just a Fight Overcome if we're talking about a room full of skeletons. You can use "succeed with cost" as a means to apply whatever minor injuries or issues the party might have encountered. Basically, if you're zooming into a conflict against lesser enemies, then it should either be a vehicle for information delivery to the party, or it should be somehow interesting, like a car chase battle or something. Otherwise, only zoom into Conflict if there are factors to make the stakes actually kinda high, like the presence of a more powerful NPC or some kind of environmental hazard, and also if actually getting into a fight accomplishes a goal for either the PCs or enemy forces. Otherwise it's probably best to resolve it in 1-3 skill checks plus a punchy one-liner. Another reason why combats in Fate could drag on is that you fall into kind of a D&D mentality of using your character sheet as like the full and comprehensive list of things you can do, which frankly isn't much in Fate. Fights will get a lot shorter if party members are setting each other up. If you've got 4 player characters, you can potentially have one guy getting like +6 on his attack because one person set the roof on fire, one person weakened a support beam, one guy distracted by bad guy, and then the fourth guy took all three of those free invokes to Attack by shoving the bad guy into the support beam, collapsing the flaming roof onto him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Yeah, you're still entirely missing my point. I'll figure it out on my own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I'm working on another stunt post, but while I'm at I'd like to ask the thread for help. When I first read this, my mind went to Apocalpyse World, for some reason. A system that summarizes combat into one roll, for the most part. That sparking any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
I've had some ideas for a single action fate that would make things more free-form and reactive for the gm, Apocalypse World style. I'll see if I can't dig up my notes for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:I've had some ideas for a single action fate that would make things more free-form and reactive for the gm, Apocalypse World style. I'll see if I can't dig up my notes for it. Could be useful. There are two ways to change FATE combat: either make it simplier (like this approach) so its quick or give more options/make more traditional so it isn't boring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:I've had some ideas for a single action fate that would make things more free-form and reactive for the gm, Apocalypse World style. I'll see if I can't dig up my notes for it. Combining the combat style of AW with FATE would be like mixing PB and Chocolate to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Yeah, you're still entirely missing my point. I'll figure it out on my own. My best experiences with Fate have been when I reduce the resources each side has available. Smaller stress tracks, fewer consequences, fewer Refresh, less aspects, and so on. That puts a higher burden to offer or accept compels and means that needing to spend round upon round stacking up more and more +2 to repeatedly break a bigass stress and consequence track doesn't happen... unless the GM wants it to. Most of the time we used FAE instead of a full Fate system, mind, but I don't think that's a bad thing and this basic idea can be applied no matter what Fate system you use. It also means fewer things are modeled mechanically. Gear would be the prime example of something that doesn't need to be represented mechanically. This is just off the top of my head but, using FAE as a base: Three stress boxes One single consequence Three aspects Divide four between Refresh and Stunts Something like that. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
So over in the "Recommend a system" thread the other day, the point was brought up that there really hasn't been a generic Fate-based traditional-style fantasy game at all, apart from Fate Freeport and Legends of Anglerre (which is based off two-iterations-old Fate). And since I really don't want to focus on work this afternoon, I've kind of been thinking: what would make for a good Fate Core/FAE powered fantasy game? I mean, I know trad fantasy is the easiest genre to implement, but what would be some interesting Fate subsystem hooks to put on there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:06
|
|