|
Scrape posted:What genres are covered by Fate so far? What's missing? Just off the top of my head... Kung-Fu Horror "Hard" post-apocalyptic Non-Tolkien fantasy
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just off the top of my head... Actually, there is Tianxia, which should cover any martial arts needs you have. Well, I assume it does. Not a backer, so I haven't seen the rules yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just off the top of my head... And Jadepunk which was just successfully kickstarted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Hard postapocalyptic was one thought I had. I thought Legends of Anglerre and Ehdrigor were both non-tolkien fantasy but maybe I'm wrong; I know little of either. What about cyberpunk espionage? Like "not" Shadowrun, has that been done?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
I tentatively want to say Nova Praxis? Eh, not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Actually, there is Tianxia, which should cover any martial arts needs you have. Well, I assume it does. Not a backer, so I haven't seen the rules yet. I backed for curiosity, since I love wu xia and the description makes Tianxia look like just another "help me kickstart the setting I use with my group", and was very positively impressed. It is a respectful, insightful treatment of the wu xia genre, while also playing to the specific strengths of FATE Core as a system. I recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Hard postapocalyptic was one thought I had. I thought Legends of Anglerre and Ehdrigor were both non-tolkien fantasy but maybe I'm wrong; I know little of either. Ehdrigor is definitely non-Tolkien fantasy. It's hard to describe, but it draws parallels to some Native American belief structures. LoA is totally Tolkien derivative fantasy though, it's got elves and 'little people' and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Alpha Wave is an adventure that's cyberpunk. The Twenty Palaces guy's setting is vaguely non-Tolkien. There's no noir setting or urban fantasy horror outside of maybe No Exit. There also isn't an infantry war setting, just Kriegzepplin for flyboys and flygirls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
The actual Dresden Files books are at least influenced by noir and horror, though I dunno how well those aspects of the license translate into tabletop RPG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
I dunno how you reconciliate "horror" with "i hit the gribbly with a 12 stress attack for almost no mental stress. I guess you could call it Aliens style Action horror, which is a subgenre where the protagonists have the weaponry to fight back against the gribblies but are still hard pressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Don't give your gribblies stats like a player, make them part of the environment. Obstacles to be overcome, not enemies to be vanquished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
I guess I'm really asking " what do you want to see done in Fate?" I want gritty noir, hi-tech espionage, and shadowrun-style crime thriller's (which is just a mix of those two, I guess). What do YOU wanna see?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
So I tried something new today. Whenever a player attacked a major NPC in my 80stastic FAE game, and there was a significant gap in score, and it was viable, I'd give them a fate point and inflict the difference as stress in a counterattack. With 5 players and only one NPC, that actually seemed pretty drat viable for me, plus it seemed to make the battle a lot more dramatic. Not sure how it would work outside our game, but I though you boys would like to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:Don't give your gribblies stats like a player, make them part of the environment. Obstacles to be overcome, not enemies to be vanquished. The Bronze Rule makes them enemies to be vanquished if you don't want to make it a contest/chase. I want to see gonzo urban fantasy crossed with heroic bloodshed; a revival of Feng Shui and a re-imagining of Unknown Armies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:The Bronze Rule makes them enemies to be vanquished if you don't want to make it a contest/chase. No offence meant, but gently caress the Bronze Rule. gently caress it hard in this instance. In horror, you do not have opponents, you have scenarios and situations. Any enemy you have that can be beaten in a regular straight-on fight is going to be inconsequential. In a zombie movie, you can kill lots of zombies, but those individual zombies are pointless. It is the vast horde of the dead that is the threat, and there's no way to effectively murder that one shambling member at a time. So if you want, sure, you can have the minor mooks who exist only to inflict stress and consequences on the players. But if you're doing something like Alien where it's a single entity menacing your players, that entity does not get stats. It would have no stress boxes, it wouldn't be getting into prolonged fights. That's counter-intuitive to horror as a genre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
The Bronze Rule posted:In Fate, you can treat anything in the game world like it’s a character. Anything can have aspects, skills, stunts, stress tracks, and consequences if you need it to. Just because you can make anything a character doesn't mean you have to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with Wild Blue and its power system? I'm thinking about using it for a FAE Urban Fantasy game. It seems like it would work well for a lot of typical Urban Fantasy characters like Vampires, Wizards, and Werewolves but I'd like to hear how it has worked out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
My FATE game, Base Raiders, is now available for sale. It's a superhero game about dungeon crawling in abandoned superhero or villain bases for fun and profit. It has some new features, which you can read about on the Drivethru page or the Kickstarter page http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rosspayton/base-raiders-the-superpowered-dungeon-crawling-rpg PDF http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/120708/Base-Raiders Print https://www.createspace.com/4341851 If you buy the print copy, forward your order confirmation email to rpprpodcast at gmail and I'll send you the PDF. Note that this uses Strange FATE, not FATE Core. I preferred the complexity of the Strange FATE power system to Core.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
I understood the Bronze rule to mean that you can but not must represent anything as a character. Evading the Maze of Traps could be a conflict of attacks and defenses whittling down the Maze's Stress track until you're free. But it could also be a a Contest or whatever, it could even be a single Overcome roll if no one is interested. It's a tool, not a straitjacket, right? Horror often means enemies that are difficult to directly fight. This can be modeled in many ways using Fate, as I understand it. I'm quite smitten with this system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Also, the Bronze Rule totally lets you model some parts of any particular thing and not model other parts. For Horror, for instance, I might give a horrific entity an attack skill and aspects or stunts but not stress boxes or consequences. It's meant to be an enabling guideline, not one that restricts you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:No offence meant, but gently caress the Bronze Rule. gently caress it hard in this instance. In horror, you do not have opponents, you have scenarios and situations. Any enemy you have that can be beaten in a regular straight-on fight is going to be inconsequential. In a zombie movie, you can kill lots of zombies, but those individual zombies are pointless. It is the vast horde of the dead that is the threat, and there's no way to effectively murder that one shambling member at a time. Settle down, thiefcorg. Disregarding things like mental/wealth/psychological stress, Poltergeist or every slasher flick ever, you can use bits and pieces of building a character in order to create a long-form challenge. Long-form challenges are handled as Conflicts unless you run a long sequence of interlocking Contests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
For the zombie survival scenario, maybe something like... - The horde of zombies milling around outside and trying to break in are a "Bronze Rule" threat. You can interact with them as an environmental character when dealing with them as a whole: nailing boards over windows, blocking doors, piling up heavy obstacles, etc. - When the "horde" character succeeds, it doesn't inflict any specific penalties on the PCs, nor does it necessarily create aspects. On success, it creates Zombie NPCs -- success for the horde means getting a few individual zombies inside. Once a zombie gets inside, the PCs must deal with it as a specific threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
There's a cool zombie survival hack for Spirit of the Century. I think it's called After The Rise and I remember it being neat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
I've been thinking about what to do with Unknown Armies, since I don't really like its system. Then it struck me that it would, in principle, work very well in FATE because it supports the duality of obsessions and passions in the form of invokes and compels, and it has built-in stress tracks. For now I'm only thinking about a street level game. This is what I thought: Aspect creation: You start out with an Obsession. This works like your High Concept, as your obsession defines who you are and how you view the world. Instead of a Trouble, you have a Trigger Event. This is the weird thing that happened to you in your life that let you know the world is a messed-up place and the occult underground exists. It is unique to you. Make a "first adventure" and two "guest-appearance" aspects as per usual. They are your passions. You've got a rage passion (something that enrages you), a fear passion (something that terrifies you) and a noble passion (something you make sacrifices for). When you're done with them, choose which is which among your first adventure and guest-appearances. Stress Tracks: You've got a physical stress track that works as per usual. You've also got five special mental stress tracks, corresponding to the five kinds of madness in UA: Violence, the Unnatural, Helplessness, Isolation and Self. These stress tracks work a little different. They are attacked by "madness attacks". For instance, seeing a friend being beaten unconscious could be a +1 Violence madness attack. These stress tracks don't clear after a scene. But when a box is marked, you can ignore hits with magnitude equal or lower than that box (i.e. if you take a 3-shift hit and mark the 3rd box, form now on you're immune to 1-, 2- and 3-hit shifts). These represent you becoming callous and hardened. If all your stress boxes of a particular track are full, the next hit you take will make you turn mad. You are so callous you disconnect from the world. Consequences from these madness tracks represent UA's "failed notches". You become more afraid and more affected by that sort of stress. For instance, a 2-shift consequence from a failed Unnatural defence could be "compulsively checks the horoscope". It's all very, very early, these are just random thoughts. I'm not really happy with it, but I think there's something to the idea that FATE can handle UA. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Question to throw to the thread since I'm thinking of running a FATE game in the future: How would you go about statting a major boss monster? More specifically, say I've got a party of 4-5 characters who are all not too far removed from newly-built characters, with the typical Skill Pyramid running up to +4, with a general mix of fightier and less fighty characters. What should an NPC look like in order to not casually TPK the party, but also be a serious and exciting threat instead of going down in a round or two of attacks covered in stacked boosts while barely getting any attacks off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Put the boss at +1 above your best fighters combat stats, flavor for the bosses style. This makes for them hard to touch if they go at this normally. Toss in some weird features. Really weird stunts, terrain stunts, whatever. Don't just make this a fight, make it different. Encourage your noncombatants to exploit these side features as much as possible, and let them boost your main fighters so everyone feels useful. Don't be afraid to inflict a few consequences. This is what boss battles are for. Have a backup plan if the players just outright fail, if you don't want a total party wipe. This can take the form of the boss getting distracted and not hitting the players for a few turns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
My lazy way to pump up a normal npc into boss levels is to say that for every pc it is outnumbered by, it gains a temporary fate point for that round, and those points refresh/reset at the start of each new round. So say you pit a dragon against 4 heroes. The GM starts the scene with 4 fate points, plus the 3 temp fate points each round because it's 4 vs 1. I put the monster's attack or defense at +4, with the other at +3. If I want to put in some extra work, I'll spend some of those initial fate points on stunts, with stuff like Riposte as a baseline for giving some out of turn actions. Lastly, limit it to only spending 2 points per action, so I don't burn 7 points on the first attack and seriously cripple one pc for the whole adventure. A bit more combat advice. With Create Advantage, don't make actions that affect the player or zone a +0 difficulty while actions that affect the target a resisted roll. That's boring. It encourages the fighter to always try to use Fight to apply a Master Fighting Style aspect on himself and easily succeed with style, while doing something like a Trip or Grapple aspect on the foe he's facing is much more difficult. Instead, set the difficulty of the action based on how logical and cool it is. The fighter tries to trip a schmuck? That's +0. A fellow warrior? +2. A dragon? +4. The fighter tries to apply Master Fighting Style to himself? Set boring poo poo like that at +4. They're in a one on one duel and want to use Fight to tackle the villain off the airship and create a "Falling to their doom" aspect? Set that at 0 or 8. 0 if rescuing the fighter before he dies of the fall is hard and an midair fight sounds awesome to you, 8 if the fighter knows how to fly and the villain doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:My lazy way to pump up a normal npc into boss levels is to say that for every pc it is outnumbered by, it gains a temporary fate point for that round, and those points refresh/reset at the start of each new round. This is terrible no good advice and should be ignored. Don't punish the players for trying to succeed and using their edges smartly, you'll just bore them or depress them as they can't get things done. Instead, encourage them to get creative. The chief example of this I can think of is when I was up against a bunch of mooks and a named enemy who outnumbered me four to one and had guns primed at my head, and to even things up I Created an Advantage on myself called Suppressive Fighting so that I could get to perform active interference using Fight against anyone who tried to shoot me, getting to hit them for each shot they made. Get your players thinking in terms of blocks, active opposition, interferences and the like and they'll stop trying to build pure navel-gazing advantages all day erryday since those have no payoff beyond being an invoke and can even be compelled by a wily enemy to ruin a PC's day (say that a PC creates a Spell Focus Aspect to amp his next spell. The enemy team can spend a Fate Point to compel Spell Focus and say they get an attack against the PC as if he were Surprised, since he's in such a deep trance). Don't ever punish a player for doing something smart like dropping people off the side of an airship with tackles when they can fly. quote:Question to throw to the thread since I'm thinking of running a FATE game in the future: How would you go about statting a major boss monster? The first thing you want to do is give the Boss some extra actions. This is a core tenet of literally every single RPG with character-to-character conflict ever: Action Advantage Is God. Unless you make your boss a boring overpowered piece of poo poo who rolls everything at base +10 and requires a billion invokes or free tags to even scratch, he's going to get brutally swamped by the PCs because they simply have more actions to throw around, and it'll get particularly bad if they coordinate to place down blocks and straight up stunlock the boss. Instead, hand out anywhere from one extra action per two PCs after the first (so 2 actions for 3 PCs, 3 for 5...) to one action per PC, and spread them across the initiative ladder evenly. This way you'll have a lot more play and counterplay instead of players engaging in an FP burning war with the boss. Second, set the boss' skills at the same level as the party's apex skills, or 1 point higher, like Krysmphoenix said - you want your boss to be tough to take down, except for maybe a couple skills or approaches he's not so hot at and that act as his Achilles Heel. Third, think about what the boss is going to fight like (whether it's a social conflict or a fight scene) and give him stunts that help model that. Is he a domineering politician who can silence fools with a staredown? Give him a stunt that places Intimidated Aspects with no free invokes down whenever he succeeds at a Provoke attack on PCs to block them from acting unless they can pull themselves together. Does he fight with a long ranged polearm and controls the battlefield? Give him stunts so that he can attack from one or two zones away, automatically make attacks against characters who exit a zone within his range and so on. Use the tools at your disposal to model the way the fight would play out in a movie or game through the mechanics. If you keep all these things in mind, your boss should be a scary son of a bitch and your players will talk about him for weeks. 
Transient People fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Transient People posted:This is terrible no good advice and should be ignored. Don't punish the players for trying to succeed and using their edges smartly, you'll just bore them or depress them as they can't get things done. Instead, encourage them to get creative. The chief example of this I can think of is when I was up against a bunch of mooks and a named enemy who outnumbered me four to one and had guns primed at my head, and to even things up I Created an Advantage on myself called Suppressive Fighting so that I could get to perform active interference using Fight against anyone who tried to shoot me, getting to hit them for each shot they made. Get your players thinking in terms of blocks, active opposition, interferences and the like and they'll stop trying to build pure navel-gazing advantages all day erryday since those have no payoff beyond being an invoke and can even be compelled by a wily enemy to ruin a PC's day (say that a PC creates a Spell Focus Aspect to amp his next spell. The enemy team can spend a Fate Point to compel Spell Focus and say they get an attack against the PC as if he were Surprised, since he's in such a deep trance). Don't ever punish a player for doing something smart like dropping people off the side of an airship with tackles when they can fly. Like I said, the difficulty should be set by how logical and cool whatever it is they are trying to do, rather than trying to figure out how to simulate such a contest. The same mindset that rewards a PC by letting them skip a bossfight with falling damage punishes the PCs when they try to do something that looks stylish but difficult. By being upfront with the players about this, you're encouraging them to think creatively and do what their players would do in the kind of story you're all telling together. I don't like your Suppressive Fighting example. Using Create Advantage once to get 4 extra attacks a round for the whole combat is dumb. You can take a "make up the rules as we go along" approach if you want, but that limits you because at that point it's just the gm telling you what you can and can't do, rather than playing using a consistent set of tools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
What, you mean using Create an Advantage to generate a real advantage is bad? Not according to Lenny Balsera and Fred Hicks. CTRL+F to 'NPCs and Characters can provide active opposition when this is supported by the fiction'. Turns out CaA works a little differently than you thought, and this is why you don't need to hold back from making stylish and difficult actions be actually difficult - the reward from thinking creatively exists and it's big! There's no need to punish players if they want to hedge their bets, and conversely, big awesome moves are rewarded not by being easier, but by having clearer payoff. EDIT: Post was previously too assholish. Edited into something nicer. Sorry for lashing out Q_W, had a long day. Transient People fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Of course aspects are always true. Using an aspect to create active opposition is fine. quote:I Created an Advantage on myself called Suppressive Fighting so that I could get to perform active interference using Fight against anyone who tried to shoot me... quote:...getting to hit them for each shot they made. To quote from the system toolkit: quote:If you are designing a power that only some characters will use, then you It's the same deal. Why wouldn't you use Create Advantage to get free attacks while raising your defense and getting free invokes? Yes, using Create Advantage should have a payoff. The two things we disagree on are that 1. I think that Create Advantage should be reasonable in what it can and can't do, not an option that trivializes everything else and 2. the difficulty of the action should be judged by the action itself, rather than the kind of opposition you're facing. Spell Focus shouldn't be against a difficulty of +0 while Grappled is at +4. Really, it's about taking the advice on Overcoming an Obstacle they give in that article you linked and applying it to create advantage. quote:“Setting the level of passive opposition for anything is the GM’s province unless a player is making a hard statement by spending a fate point. You can talk about it, like you can talk about anything, but the GM retains the last word.” Quadratic_Wizard fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
I'm in agreement with Quadratic_Wizard here: if suppressive fire gives you a bunch of free attacks out of turn, it's not only too powerful in terms of game mechanics but also in narrative terms: the whole point of suppressive fire is that you're taking shots to keep whomever it is you're shooting at on the defensive while sacrificing accuracy. By the rules it should thus be modeled as something that interferes with enemy attacks, but if you actually want to shoot to kill that should be modeled as an attack that you can only do on your own turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I'm in agreement with Quadratic_Wizard here: if suppressive fire gives you a bunch of free attacks out of turn, it's not only too powerful in terms of game mechanics but also in narrative terms: the whole point of suppressive fire is that you're taking shots to keep whomever it is you're shooting at on the defensive while sacrificing accuracy. By the rules it should thus be modeled as something that interferes with enemy attacks, but if you actually want to shoot to kill that should be modeled as an attack that you can only do on your own turn. It's not Suppressive Fire but Suppressive Fighting, mind. The context of it is mentioned in the original post: the character started swinging indiscriminately to keep enemies on the defensive because if they tried to stop and aim they'd simply get cut in half. It makes more sense when you think of it that way as opposed to unleashing a ton of lead in the air while people dive behind cover. quote:Right there. Once you say that Create Advantage can give you a ton of free attacks, balance goes off the rails. Why would you not try to do that every single fight? With every single character in every single game? Why wouldn't the gunman use Suppressive Fire to do the same thing? Or the wizard casting Rain of Fire to not only boost his average defense and get free attacks to boot? Because trying to suppress the zone you're in has a really obvious counter to it - you just use your free action movement to get out of it, overcoming it without rolling. It worked in this particular instance because this character had a stunt to generate opposition to attempts to move out of his zone automatically, meaning he stuck his enemies in a Catch-22: Try to move out, fail and get punished, or stick around, make the attack and hope to not get punished. Other characters wouldn't get the same luxury, because their circumstances wouldn't be suited to it. For example, a gunslinger would need a weapon capable of attacking areas or a stunt to target them to do what you suggest, and a wizard likewise. What stops a player from trying something like this is the same thing that prevents him from chaining block after block after block to stunlock an encounter: Context. Considering how much better the Attack action is than CaA normally, I don't think allowing CaA to do impressive things is off the hook, since it'll get a player thinking instead of just stacking bonuses to Hit It With Sword and KOing everything in one go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Wow. So it had a counter, except that you were munchkin enough to make a stunt to get rid of it, and it's entirely something you can use in every single encounter to gain a ton of free attacks. It's fine for Create Advantage to do impressive things. The article has a ton of examples of those fun and impressive things. What you did and you GM allowed was just taking it too far. I'd agree that Attacks are usually a better option than Create Advantage. My solution to that was to nerf attacks. They can't succeed with style, and consequences don't give free invokes. The current setup, where succeeding on an attack with one shift means you can spend one Invoke to succeed with style, which gives you the invoke right back and increases the shifts of damage by one. If you inflicted a consequence, you just paid one invoke to get two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Wow. So it had a counter, except that you were munchkin enough to make a stunt to get rid of it, and it's entirely something you can use in every single encounter to gain a ton of free attacks. No, the stunt existed before the advantage. This is kind of obvious enough that I'd assume it'd go without saying, but apparently not! And of course you're ignoring the fact that the Aspect only allowed me to apply active opposition and punish fails only against enemies who were trying to shoot in melee, or that it only granted 'free' attacks because I was getting swarmed by enemies who were all applying the gang-up bonus against me. Trying to apply that in the context of a different fight might not go so well, since Aspects can be compelled and of course melee opponents won't care about this at all. Coupled with your talk of nerfing attacks by removing the entire point of Consequences and referencing how players should be punished for trying to generate advantages they can succeed at reliably, I'm starting to suspect you haven't played FATE all that much. The system doesn't really work the way you think it does. Transient People fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Transient People posted:No, the stunt existed before the advantage. This is kind of obvious enough that I'd assume it'd go without saying, but apparently not! And of course you're ignoring the fact that the Aspect only allowed me to apply active opposition and punish fails only against enemies who were trying to shoot in melee, or that it only granted 'free' attacks because I was getting swarmed by enemies who were all applying the gang-up bonus against me. Trying to apply that in the context of a different fight might not go so well, since Aspects can be compelled and of course melee opponents won't care about this at all. Coupled with your talk of nerfing attacks by removing the entire point of Consequences and referencing how players should be punished for trying to generate advantages they can succeed at reliably, I'm starting to suspect you haven't played FATE all that much. The system doesn't really work the way you think it does. It was totally obvious, don't worry. Chalk up our differences to personal preference then, because the way you play the game where players make up new rules and the GM doesn't know any better or care just seems so arbitrary and encouraging the worst kind of cheesy, exploitative play to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
What new rules? It's right there in the link I posted, give it a look.Active and Passive Opposition posted:Situation aspects now fill the role that was previously occupied by barriers, representing obstacles that apply to crossing between zones (e.g. “Sheer Cliff”). Other situation aspects, like “Blacker than Midnight” or “Slippery Floor”, may provide constant passive opposition to certain actions (FC 131). The type (passive or active) and level of opposition is set by the GM. For instance, “Slippery Floor” might provide passive opposition at Fair to any action involving rapid movement while an “Imposing Wall” might provide Great passive opposition to moving between zones. You can also mix in the rule about treating Aspects as characters – for example “Moat of Fire” might provide Good active opposition when you try to cross it and also inflict damage with a “Burning Things” skill if you fail (FC 208). You're really, really freaking out about FATE working differently than you thought it did by the developers' word. It's not as punishing and formulaic a conflict game as you think it is!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Transient People posted:What new rules? It's right there in the link I posted, give it a look. If you think making 5 attacks a round is balanced and fair and totally creative and not cheesy or exploitable, there's just too much of a gap and nothing I say is going to sink in. But for the record, here's how I would have handled it. You use Create Advantage and create Suppressive Fighting. That's fine. It's a dangerous situation and it makes sense, so the difficulty is zero. Roll +4 fighting and get a 4, so the aspect has two Invokes on it. Because you're at such close range and actively fighting, you get to use your Fighting skill to defend instead of athletics. Yay. Three of the goons attack, but with their +2 bonus only one of them hits for one shift, and one misses by a wide enough margin to give you a Boost. The boss guy hits you can inflicts a 3-shift hit. You could have spent one of the invokes of your aspect to turn the goon hit into a miss, but decide to save it. If you had a stunt like Riposte, you could have inflicted 2 stress on one of the goons when you succeed with style, but it's fine. Now on your next turn, you've got the 2 Invokes from before and that boost. So you attack the goons, roll and inflict a shift. You want to take them all out though, so you Invoke your boost and suppressive fighting twice, making that 7 shifts, which is enough to Take Out the three goons. There's still the boss to deal with though. Just using the rules as they are presented in the book and the fiction is entirely the same. edit- Are you sure you're not projecting with the freaking out? I have a hard time getting the frothing at the mouth image of you out of my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
I think this whole argument is silly... Fate is a pretty cool system that asks for a bit of trust between GM and players. Both of you have valid points but your arguing over balance in the FATE system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Suppressive Fighting could easily be justified to let you Defend regardless of who an NPC in the zone attacks. And guess what, the section of the blog you refer to, titled "NPCs and Characters can provide active opposition when this is supported by the fiction", tells you to do exactly that. At no point does the blog mention any kind of action advantage. Attack back to me sounds like Stunt territory, the 1/scene and fate point to do again kind maybe. If you are looking for FATE system rules to attack back, some systems had rules where if the NPCs choose to ignore (and therefore bypass completely) a Block that would trigger an automatic attack. Some systems that used Blocks had that as part of their Block rule. Nevertheless there's no such rule in FATE core nor is such a thing recommended in the blog you linked. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 17:28
|
|