|
That'd be me.  Already looked through the pdf, some drat fine ideas in there, but I want to get hold of hardcopy for a proper read. Granted, it's not really a 'reading' book, but pdf just isn't the same to me. I'm suprised by how good the world books look as well, given that's really not my thing usually. At this point, they put the FATEcore name on bogroll and I'd order it. e: Also, would it be worth linking to some blank dice on the OP, given fate dice aren't something most people have laying about and 'proper' ones are priced absurdly? petrol blue fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Sep 19, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Desty posted:Acrylic paint'll do it. Yep, that's how I did mine, we've been using them for about 12 sessions, and there's no visible wear. I got six sets for about £8. I got them in different colours, which I'd likely not bother with again: everyone just grabs a handful, and it deeply upsets my OCD side every time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I thought that bit was pretty badly worded. It's basically 'reduce the strength of hit by [consequence amount], then fill in the appropriate box, or higher one if it's already filled'. e: clarity. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
The hardest thing for me is remembering to compel aspects regularly. I'd definately recommend writing down the PC's aspects and keeping it handy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
If you really want to keep the feeling of "I've gained a level!", it's simple enough to just move the milestones to 'when you complete a quest', though it does mean a short break in the game while people adjust character sheets, and is harder to justifty narratively.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Not if you have my dice, you can't. I swear, NPCs average a -3.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
I think collaborative world-building sessions in general are amazing - my current sci-fi game has so many great ideas that I wouldn't have come up with by myself, and a very important bonus is that your players spend a whole session telling you exactly what they want in the game, in terms of style as well as 'things'. It also gets the players a lot more involved in the world, and means everyone has more of a feel for things outside their character. e: For me, it was using the Diaspora world-gen, which is '2 solar systems per player, roll for it's tech level, environment, and resources, then people flesh that out and figure how they all fit together'. Why does Burrackas have lush garden worlds but no resources? Because the Giant Robot Overlords are keeping people from getting at them. Suddenly, the first major plot arc is born: a galaxy on the verge of starvation, bickering over scant resources, the PCs must unite everyone and defeat the robot menace for good. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
It is hard to come up with them without space becoming not-very-empty. The diaspora system is pretty over-complex, I'd not really recommend it. In future, I'm planning on using the chase-scene rules from the toolkit, but it's not perfect by a long shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:I should say I don't know much of anything about the Diaspora system. Diaspora has a seperate mini-game for ship combat, with ships placed on a line, maneuvering for position, and so on. Ships have 5 aspects each, space itself has none. It's not a bad system, and using the line makes a lot of sense (it represents relative speed and distance, similar to [can't remember the system, WHFRP?] where you model 'distance from the centre of the fight'). The problem is that it's another set of rules to learn, which is something Diaspora does a lot (there's also advanced rules for squad-level engagement and weapons/armour). Really, if you're using all the systems, it suggests that you're after a complexity of rules that just isn't fate. The cluster (the set of ~10 solar systems that makes up the game world) generation system is amazing, but otherwise I'd recommend Bulldogs or just Core for sci-fi.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
Remember that nothing's set in stone. Aspects can be changed, and it's a lot easier to come up with good ones once you've got a feel for how they play - so there's not nearly so much pressure to get it perfect in case you cripple a character from the start. For the paranoia one, another approach could be to look at what they do about that belief - are they always heavily armed, or maybe they never take a direct route (prefering to cut through back alleys).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
 I'm starting to think I have a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
I've been working on that one myself. Bulldogs is ok, but my plan is to use the chase rules from the toolkit for ship combat, and have each ship as a list of aspects and skills (which can be used in place of a character's if they want). It's not a major focus of my game, so that should be enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Colour me more than a bit jealous. Can't find anywhere to get them in the UK yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Any chance of some photos? The previews I can see don't show the actual product, only digital versions. I really like the idea of variable effect stunts based on the moons/suns on the cards.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for that writeup... I'd be tempted to get a deck if I wasn't already working on the metal fate dice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Well, they do have effects on stress tracks - by removing them, you'd be making it so that people have to get stunts to increase tracks. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you're after in the setting. Also, you might want them for 'resisting a bribe/mild toxin/illness'.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
I'd really suggest playing it before you decide to mod it, especially with something that involved - it's a pretty elegant system, and changes might have more ripple effects than are apparent just by reading the rules. My turn: I'm working on a semi-hard scifi game, but psychic powers exist. I'm thinking of this system for them, and wanted to get people's opinions. quote:Requires Psychic Skill plus at least one stunt. Each stunt gives access to one of this list, though others are possible (talk to me, and we'll add it to the list). I'm going to fine-tune this list a bit, but just wanted to get general thoughts on it as it stands. The idea is to give an 'always on' ability to reward the big investment, and a turbo-charged ability in exchange for fate points. I've tried to balance more useful 'always' powers with weaker 'special' powers. Every stunt should give a use for the Psychic skill on the 'always' power if not both. e: Also, please, someone come up with a better name than 'crush'! I want it to be the 'Screw that, I make her head explode!' option. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Just checking if anyone's come across somewhere in the UK to buy the system toolkit (and ideally the worlds books)? I've got the toolkit on pdf, but it's just not the same.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Tulul posted:I have no idea if you've tried it already, but Amazon's selling all three for what looks like the normal price.  No joy on Leisure Games, either. Thanks for the suggestions, though - I'll post when I track somewhere down.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Leisure Games has the FATE toolkit and worlds books listed for UK!  They're not in stock yet, expected to arrive on the 10th.e: They arrived today! I've only read Worlds in Shadow so far. If people have interest, I can write up a Fatal & Friends style look at it? In short, it's awesome. The First section is Crime World. It's one of the best-written articles I've read for GMing - rather than a setting for fate, it's actually an extended look at running heists and cons. I think it's written by one of the writers for Leverage, and it shows - hell, this section alone is more than worth the  . It's not too fate-specific, it'd be a good read for any GM, but it does cover statting security as a character-ish, and what sort of aspects are appropriate for marks and so on. There's a small section on replacing 'Lore' with 'Specialty', but it's a tweak more than a mod.For me, pretty much every session turns into 'how do we get X off of Y', so it's definitely going to see a lot of use. It's not going to radically change my games, but it's all drat useful (and interesting) advice. Honestly, if I could buy a book of just articles like this, I'd do it in a second. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
That's a combat, to my mind - they're using empathy to attack, the clown is failing badly at provoke. You could do it with a contest, I guess, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Well, core already has success-with-cost/normal/with-style, so that change should be pretty reasonable. I agree on making stunts more like moves, it's much more interesting that way, but you couldn't have them as direct move-analogues, without breaking the skill system. Off the top of my head, maybe you could use re-tooled approaches (a la FAE) for hack'n'slash, etc, and then stunts-as-moves for class-specific ones?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Seconding No Exit as being perfect for what you described - I've not gone through it too much, but I think I recall it also includes rapidly changing aspects based on the character's memories.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Part of me wants to sign up for that - I like giving money to the people who made thing-I-like. But I'm skint, and really 'pre-made lego kits' isn't something I have the resources to fund. I guess it's a problem with the whole PRG industry, how do you charge or get rewards from people using your tools to make new things? I bought the Worlds and Toolkit books mainly to give them money, rather for how useful they'll be. 'Ongoing donations' is a bridge too far for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the writeup. It's a real shame, the idea of generations of mechs and, well, a load of the rule ideas seem like great concepts. Shame about the execution. Could you share a bit more about the setting? The rpgnow description basically just says 'mecha'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Transient People posted:everything goes to poo poo when random assholes gain access to unstoppable killer machines and start doing what they please because there is no government ready to punish them for treating others like dirt and no one to restrain them anymore. That sounds oddly familiar.  Sounds like a fun setup, but your description reads like it's assumed that PCs will pick a single side and stick to it, is that correct? Because I can see my usual group instantly deciding 'screw that, let's make our own faction with blackjack and hookers'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
The middle one seems vastly more powerful than the others - the first and third look fine to me (I've used the third as a racial stunt in my scifi game), but the second looks excessive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
"The Package" is the best stunt I've used - one of the players owned a suitcase nuke. Campaign ended in a nuclear fireball, and it was awesome. If you're going to go with something broken, at least make it fun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Has anyone come across Omegazone? It looks awesome, but with international shipping costing more than the cards, I'd like to know if someone's tried it before I shell out. E: this review seems pretty glowing. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Yeah, honestly I'm as much thinking "Nice idea, I'll make my own!" as "I must have this". Now I just need a good look at a set...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
As far as I can see, all it would involve is splitting skills by approach, then averaging them, or maybe just get the players to 'make their character under FAE' - shouldn't take more than 5m? I should point out I've not actually run FAE yet, though I'm looking at it for my next game - skills seem the most clunky/(usually needlessly) granulated parted of FATE, and I'm totally in favour of combining stress tracks. Are there any other differences that I'm missing?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
In that case, let me hit you up for some advice - what sort of skill level should opposition be in FAE? My FATE campaign was pretty awesome, but I really struggled to put enough challenge against the PCs. They were happy being Utterly Awesome At Everything, but it was a bit too one-sided. Then I made a big bad to be a bit more of a threat, rolled +4, and one-shotted a PC (though she saved the universe in her death, and the player was happy to have a 'heroic death fighting the big bad'.)  . e: The PC was only taken out, bleeding out on the floor, and then the other players set off the suitcase nuke they'd been toting around all campaign.It's about the only problem I have with FATE, the core book does a shite job of telling you how to work out a decent threat for the players, and it's something I still don't have a feel for after more than a year of running it. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Thanks for the writeup, EM, those cards do look pretty awesome. Not the first review I've seen that says it felt like it was lacking something though.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Myself, I'd do it with a single aspect "Feeble scientist, strong when angry" or whatever. As said before, the important part is that everyone knows what you both mean by it; my take is that a relevant aspect emphasising the difference should be enough unless the game is based around it (like if all the PCs were werewolves, etc).
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Not generated "Owns a Suitcase Nuke" yet, so I'm still beating the machine  Turns out 'beating the machine' was exactly what said nuke was used for. e: Honestly, I'd be more interested in a breakdown of the rules it uses than in the random generator. Designing and balancing stunts has been a sore point for me with fate: it feels kinda like "an aspect, but a bit better, but more specific". I've been tempted to start with an assumption of zero stunts, and let them be taken in exchange for refresh as normal. That is, stunts are 'My character is paying to break the rules in this way.' Phrasing it like that sounds like gimping players, but I've only had one character so far where the player has been "codifying awesome character bits" rather than "making up stuff that kinda fits to fill the free slots". petrol blue fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
 breakdown of Stunt Generator says:Actions Add a +2 opposition to a specific thing (ex. block moving; writing in code) Add an action to a skill (ex. you can now Attack; now Defend) Create an Advantage (no free invoke) that takes a Fair +2 roll to remove Create an Advantage (no free invoke) that takes a Good +3 roll to remove Use a specific skill in a way that lets you ignore multiple laws of physics Grant +3 to a specific action using a specific skill Grant +2 to a specific action using a specific skill Grant a stress 2 hit Ignore a simple rule (ex. can't use a skill twice in a challenge) Inflict a mild consequence Switch ANY skill with a specific skill Upgrade a boost to an aspect (with free invoke) Use a specific skill in a way that lets you ignore one of the laws of physics (ex. Athletics to fly) Riders ...for a specific action (Attack, Create an Advantage) ...in a specific circumstance (ex. when you're On Fire; when you're Surrounded) ...once per scene ...replacing a boost, optionally, when you succeed with style for a specific action (Attack, Create an Advantage) ...when you invoke the aspect related to the stunt (this costs an invoke or fate point, and replaces the +2 bonus) ...when you pay a fate point Notes: -Most actions have been generated with both one or two riders. One rider is more common, I'm not doing this high-tech enough to spot if specific stunts are more likely to have two riders.  -In my opinion, the generator has only the vaguest balance, and should be viewed as 'source of inspiration' rather than 'GM will accept this by default'. Again, my opinion, but some choices from the list are just plain better than others - I've generated both extremes. -For the sake of transparency, I should note that I'm biased; I don't like the idea of characters having stunts by default, I think it defeats the point. e[many]:  I think I broke it.  petrol blue fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
I kind-of agree - to my mind, stunts not only need to be non-generic, they also need to be non-assumed: for a super-hero game, it makes sense for the characters to have stunts like 'super strength'. But a stunt should be special. By saying 'everyone has three' it stops being special. Maybe 'everyone has one stunt' at most, but even that seems against the whole feel of them being 'stunts' to me. *ok, they don't have to, but show me anyone who ever didn't take the full free allocation of anything e: I'm aware I'm splitting hairs here. My ideal would be "5 refresh, no stunts, spend refresh for stunts like normal", hardly a big deal. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
I'm not saying 'more stunts are worse', but that 'assuming every PC has stunts' is worse. Coming from Diaspora as my first FATE game (10 aspects, 3 stunts, 3 stress tracks per character, another 5 aspects, 3 stunts, separate minigame for their ship), I've been very impressed by Core's slimming-down approach, and just want to see how far it will go before being too few 'things' on a character, then add them back in if they're missed. e: Transient People posted:He had a Shapeshifter stunt that let him automatically, perfectly assume any human guise, no matter how unusual (think Mystique, minus clothes copying), at will I totally agree, but in that sort of game I'd have done this as an aspect - I absolutely agree that everyone should have their thing, but that's what the high concept aspect is for imo (if it's the sort of power that's standard in the setting). I guess it depends on the GM as to whether it's an aspect or a stunt. Thing is, these are still examples of superpowers. I have no problem with superpowers at all, but if you tell players that every character will have superpowers, they become kinda less super. e[fivethousand]: You mention Dresden Files - I've not played that one, so could you be more specific about how it works out in practice? I'm willing to accept that my theory doesn't stand up to actual play. Having said that, I can't think of a Dresden Files character who doesn't have at least one stunt. High concept: SKELETAL T-REX
petrol blue fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Hugoon Chavez posted:His powers don't define him as much, and are instead a bunch of things he can do. e: soundbites are cool, right? posted:Aspect = I am petrol blue fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
The other advantage of one-offs is that they let you dabble in lots of styles of game and try different PCs without feeling pressured to "get it right". Not that you'd pressure her, just that she might pressure herself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:55
|
|