|
veekie posted:Simply due to how magic works, Evocation, Thaumaturgy, and Sponsored Magic basically lets you substitute your spellcasting ability for nearly any skill out there on the fly, with ritual magic or focus items, you can also push the numbers well past anything else the group could pull. Thaumaturgy (and Ritual, since they're nearly the same thing) doesn't really allow the player to pull out more than the group-- it allows the group to pull out whatever is necessary to skip parts of the story that they don't find interesting/want to play. Maybe Rick Neal's blog should go in the OP. Even though it's a little outdated for Core, we do get a lot of questions on Dresden, still. [Edit:] vvv Yeah, that's the one. Thanks, I didn't have the link where I am. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Sep 26, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
jivjov posted:Well, first off, aspects help define the fiction. I'll go ahead and quote from the Fate Core book: You're focusing too much on the simple numbers, I think. I read his question as asking, "Is there something besides +numbers that you can do with Fate Points." I was going to reply "invoking for effect," but I think they stopped calling it that in Core. There's still an analog to that, though, right? Evil Mastermind posted:... [edit] It's also important to know that when there's an aspect stating something, such as tied up, that statement is true. "I run away from the spinning sawblade." "You can't, because you're tied up." When the statement stops being true, the aspect goes away. "I cut his ropes." "Roll an overcome using [...]" "Your ropes are cut, you're no longer tied up." vvvvvvv jivjov posted:"Invoking for effect" is now just a compel that's player initiated. Player-driven compels are the most powerful thing a clever person can do with Fate Points. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Qwo posted:Is there an example of good ship combat mechanics for Fate? I'm reading Diaspora now and its mechanics aren't exactly what I'm looking for. I'm also currently working on this. It's tied into my mash-up of Fate with Cortex+, however, and will likely not be "finished" until the beginning of next year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
slut chan posted:...Also, question to contribute more to the conversation, would fractal-ing a consequence to give it an attack to simulate bleeding damage be a little too much? Like if you have the consequence Run Through placed on you, would having that aspect occasionally inflicting one or two stress until it is put on the mend be too fiddly? This could be cool, but I'd consider it a set-piece "encounter." If you've seen The Princess Bride (and if you haven't, you should) think of the final scene, between Humperdinck and The Man in Black. For spoilery reasons, TMiB is fighting against not just Humperdinck, but a major injury that results from a previous concession/take-out (depending on how you look at it). This scene could have been constructed in a similar way to your suggestion above. Instead of occupying a spot on his consequence track, as well, I'd simply stat it up as an opponent for the duration of time to which it applies. His character would totally see it as a consequence/wound, but it would function like an additional enemy; attacking -- and being attacked -- in a different way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Transient People, This has gone on long enough. Your high-content posts and knowledgeable replies paired with your newbie persona have finally gone too far. For your crimes against this thread, this forum, and the world, I hereby sentence you to a new avatar. May whatever deific force you hold most dear take pity upon you. Congratulations. With Love/Hate, ~ Blasphemeral
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Vanilla stunts are so terrible. +Numbers... yay? All of mine tend to be like Rob Donoghue posted:What is Lovely Cannot Stay
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:... No guest-starring. I think that FATE's insistence on shared backstories and guest-starring in each others' phases was a noble experiment that mainly resulted in character creation taking longer and being more fiddly than it needed to be... Uh, what? Are you serious? The guest star phases are one of the best innovations in table-gaming ever made, and prevents even novice GMs from sitting down and saying, "So, you meet some people in a bar, introduce yourselves."
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Been a while since I stopped in to this thread (I think my unread post count was 500+?) But I figured I'd pop in long enough to tell you guys that I got a chance to play Save Game for Core over the weekend and it was lots of fun. It's basically Wreck It Ralph the Fate game. I played Star Badger, an anthropomorphic space fighter pilot with attitude. My party included Solid Snake, The Contra Red and Blue Marines, Long Tetris Block, Link and Fantasy Red Mage. It all worked out quite well  It would be really great to play a MegaMan-based game, too, if that's up anyone's alley.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Still working on an idea for a setting/supplement, I don't know if I'm on the right track... Part of what made those shows you take as inspiration so good was that the complications felt natural. Part of what made Fringe specifically feel (at least to me) more rewarding at the end was that most of the overall story arcs concluded, somehow. Unlike how in other shows with a similar keep-twisting-the-knife structure, like X-Files, Lost, etc. we never get resolutions because something new comes along and there was no looking back. Maybe, whenever the players encounter a supernatural plot or organizational mandate, they add it as a card in a deck. Eventually, they would draw cards (new season planning?) and they are "forced" to resolve all the cards they draw in some manner during the coming episodes. For example, let's say that a season has 10 episodes (sessions). They'd have at least 10 (probably more!) cards in their Twist deck. Next season, they'd draw some percentage of the deck (let's say 80%) and have to resolve it. Maybe, instead of drawing, they'd sit as a group and pick the most interesting ones. "Season planning" could be a thing in such a deadly_pudding posted:Please tell me what Long Tetris's Aspects and Stunts were Our house is the place where, basically, all table-gaming happens. As such, we have a filing cabinet for all of our character sheets and game-centric information sorted by campaign. It's the only way we don't come pouring out of our doors and windows on tides of PbtA playbooks, AEDU power cards and forever-lost poo poo farmers from countries whose names contain far too many apostrophes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:... Perhaps. Ideally you'd want to always have a surplus, and you'd want to have enough growth in that surplus to simply eject ideas occasionally if they were uninteresting or contrived while still having enough to go on. You'd want to be sure you conclude all of the interesting ones eventually, but the deck adds a nice sleeper mechanic to never know for sure when a problem will re-emerge. Maybe, in season 1 planning (world-building) you'd generate three times the number of hooks you'd normally expect to use in a season. Then, you'd track how many items you add in the season and draw that many card when planning the next season--discarding any unpopular or no longer relevant threads--and building the remaining threads into the season plot. Finally, when you are reaching a point where you'd like to reach a series finale, you'd draw the remainder and plan the finale using all of the ones that seem to fit, either discarding or using the rest to the players advantage somehow (like how Walter used a bunch of old Fringe cases against the final "enemy" in Fringe). Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Any thoughts add to running fate a little closer to dungeon world? That is, eschew the turn order for the sake of drama, and potentially give someone a run of actions where appropriate? Any idea how you could move a little more towards the "only players take actions" style of play? In my experience, this kind of thinking is a trap. The two *seem* like they would slot together well at a glance. After all, they're both very narrative and player-focused. But they're just too different at the very root of how the systems work. The reason "character building" is done the way it is in *World--that is: someone other than you makes a playbook of associated mechanics and similar ideas--is because a cohesive system of abilities based around a core mechanic or two can be tailored over time to make something fun to play. Fate is all about making a character that can "do anything" with skills rather than someone who does one thing really well and in a mechanically unique way. In DW, if you want to do something that your class isn't built for, you describe it, maybe roll Defy Danger, and get some reasonable result. In Fate, you figure out what skills it falls under, maybe you suck at those things, you describe what you're trying to do, roll that skill (poorly) and then sorta figure out what that means. I've thought a lot about how one could reconcile these differences to make a mash-up, and I have yet to come to a positive conclusion. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Covok posted:...responding to every situation in the same general way got a little same-y and boring. No real breaks from it. And, to be frank, I usually ended up regretting not using my best approach to a degree, but responding to everything the same way all the time was just getting a little boring. So, you'd like to respond to things differently, but would rather not use a lower-rated skill lest you regret it... so, everyone just has every skill at max value? Would that remedy your complaints? The thing that makes FAE and, possibly, this varient you've posted (I haven't tried it) work well, is that everyone is capable of responding to nearly any situation, they just have to do things their way. Think about it: are there very many situations that Han Solo couldn't solve that Luke could? What makes them different characters? They're clearly almost as effective in close combat, while piloting a ship, while wooing the girl... what's different? Simply how they approach a situation. That's it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
It's only going to come into play in 5/81 rolls (the odds of rolling a -3 or -4) otherwise the reroll or straight +2 from an invoke or another stunt is likely to be better. It might actually be under powered at only one use per session. I'd say run with it on a probationary basis and see how powerful it feels before finalizing it. If you never seem to get to use it, buff it a bit. If it's always pulling your rear end out of the fire, maybe nix it. Golden Bee posted:This equivalent to either a perfect reroll or a +8. Plus, it doesn't make sense IC; your character doesn't know they're rolling dice. It's not the equivalent of a +8, though. You don't get to decide on any roll that you want to auto-succeed. It relies on unlikely circumstances to mean anything. Also, it's a great move, flavor-wise. Your character doesn't know he is represented by a FATE character, sure; that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a flavorful stunt name, c'mon. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Kaja Rainbow posted:Flipping a -4 to a +4 is pretty much a +8. -2 to +2 is a +4. Strictly better than rerolling because you get a pretty reliable huge bonus. When you roll a -4, it's absolutely a +8. You roll a -4 one out of every 81 rolls. Four more out of that 81, it's only worth a +6; ten out of 81 it's a +4; sixteen out of 81 it's worth exactly a +2; and the remaining fifty (50!) times out of 81, it's worth less than a +2. That means it's worse-than a +2 61% of the time. And it's still not adjusting your maximum total at all. Your maximum doesn't get any higher, like it would with an actual bonus. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Transient People posted:It's not a +2, it's a +4. A reroll averages you out to 0. Using a flip gives you a +2 or higher. It'd take you two FP expenditures to take a -2 and make it a +2, for example... Yeah, that's what I said. The issue is you can't always flip. You can only flip a small percentage of the time: If you roll -4, it's a +8. That happens 1.2% of the time (1/81). If you roll a -3, it's worth a +6. That happens 4.9% of the time (4/81). If you roll a -2, it's worth a +4. That happens 12.3% of the time (10/81). If you roll a -1, it's worth exactly +2. That hapens 19.7% of the time (16/81). The remaining 61% of times (50/81), it's strictly worse than a +2. So it's unreliable. Most of the time (61% of the time) it's worse than a +2 stunt. Transient People posted:It's a very good, strong stunt. [edit] for clarifying bolds [edit2] moved bolds slightly Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Piell posted:Except odds are if you roll a +1 or higher, you wouldn't spend a fate point anyway since you probably succeeded, This is highly questionable, but let's move ahead... Piell posted:... so in a large portion of times when you would actually spend an FP it's a bunch better. Right, but in all those situations where you roll a 0 or better, a static +2 stunt would be better for you. And that +2 stunt is still good in a bad-roll scenario, too, albeit less so. [Edit] Alright, look, you guys all hate it. Fine. That's cool. It's still not world breaking. That's all I'll say about it. Even if I were a player at a table where this stunt were allowed, I probably wouldn't even take it. Blasphemeral fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:... Dungeonworld for like 3... Think of it this way, then: In Dungeonworld, one of the GM principles is "Draw maps. Leave blanks." The idea is you, as the GM of Dungeonworld, create many of the broad strokes and wait to fill them in until players get to places and, often, let them fill in many of the details using their Spout Lore and Discern Realities responses. In FATE, you kinda weight the process in the opposite direction. You let the table draw the maps and leave blanks, and later you fill in many of the details, with the players filling in only some using their invokes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
oriongates posted:
Actually, both a more interesting and... educational approach might be to say, "Ok, so you want to be Literally God. What are your goals, then? What sort of challenges does Literally God face? Why are you occupying a human avatar? And what are the rules you've put in place in reality that even you won't (or can't?) break? Show them that, even if they pick the most "powerful" thing they can think of, there's still a story to tell--just a different one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 19:14
|
|
"
|
Lynx Winters posted:On the other hand, you as GM don't have any obligation to Yes And someone that's clearly just being a dick. They may be being a dick, sure--or they might just have years of positively-reinforced gm/player antagonism that they need to realize and correct. I guess the approach you take depends on what you know about the person. If they're your friend, you should at least try and work out where the problem lies rather than dismiss them entirely. Sure, it might turn out that FATE isn't the game for them, but I find that anyone I'm generally willing to sit down at a table next to is probably just not in the right mindset, yet, if they do something like this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Often, people who want to sit down and play P&P RPGs are a little under-socialized and just need some help adjusting to a new system or set of expectations. Its easier to teach with a gentle hand than with a backhand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If Dresden Accelerated is gonna be anything like regular Fate Accelerated, it'll be dirt cheap to acquire when it comes out anyway There's certainly going to be licensing fees. Butcher's no slouch and Hicks is his buddy. Just look at the price hike on the Dresden-branded Fate Dice. They were like $2 more than the others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Texibus posted:Welp, quick update. Got my books Saturday for the Dresden Files RPG and dove in yesterday with about 70 pages behind me in the first Volume. Pretty happy so far with the way they're presenting the material, has some great humor and lends itself to the dresden files theme very well. Buuut woooow is it long. Oh hey D buddy.   Are you in downtown or the 'burbs? I'm along the Telegraph corridor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
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
|
|