TheRPGSite

I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

Honestly I can't even understand it. Maybe I'm old but it makes no sense to me. I need concrete definitions of what a character can do. For me, it utterly destroys any immersion if I have to think about "aspects" and I dislike mechanics like "fate points" except in very rare genres as they also suck me right out of the game world and back to the living room table. I just don't get it at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962729I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

 The 4dF dice mechanic is broken. Afflicts Fudge as well. A +1 or +2 bonus is basically a "I win". It because the because the bell curve of 4dF produces a steep peak so any shifts in the odds produces huge effects compared to 3d6, 2d6, and 1d20.

For me it's not about understanding it or not. I get it, I just don't care much for it. As much as it claims to be less about mechanics and more about story, you have to spend a lot of time on your aspects. As far as "story games" go, I prefer PbtA instead. I also dig Cortex Prime/Cortex Plus. It's like Fate if Fate were fun.

I'm in between, insofar that it's not something I wouldn't play and appreciate that it has it's fans. I don't buy any notion that it's particularly revolutionary though, as it's fans keep pushing it as being. To me, it's more a case of good marketing. Amber Diceless is a revolutionary game, Fate is just a continuation of certain trends in gaming.

Beyond that, like GURPS or any other generic game system, I think it's good at doing certain things well but not as good as doing others. For the most part, it's pretty much a relatively light supers system.

I'm meh about it.  It's too complex for what it wants to do, or gets used for, but it's nothing I can get angry about.  Still, I like some of the settings it has, I definitely want to retool the Venture City super hero setting for another system.

It seems okay but I've never played it so hard to say how well it works at the table. PtbA works quite well when you settle into it so I prefer it from experience.

I'm very lukewarm toward it. While I like the speed of resolution it brings and the way non-combat-focused characters can still contribute quite well when a fight breaks out, 4dF doesn't give a wide enough range of outcomes and Aspects make me want to slam my head into a wall. While I don't have a lot of personal experience with Fate, I have found using alternate dice mechanics helps a lot. I know that's why Icons stayed away from 4dF and used d6 - d6.

Tried it, didn't like it.  I don't hate it, probably because my whole group (bar one) didn't like it and we dumped it after a session.  Had the campaign gone on longer, I'd probably have dropped out and have much more loathing for it.

I suppose I should add we all enjoyed character creation immensely, but not trying to use the system in play.

Around the table, it is probably worth noting that much of the dice rolling feels like you are rolling a zero sum '0' way too often. Sometimes, when you play, you wonder why you need to bother with dice at all - you could just go entirely diceless with minimal impact to the way the game is played.

I enjoyed the single one-shot I played.  Not enough to convert anything over or switch to it for my next game though, so I'd count myself as a positive in between.  Aspects and tagging and stunting struck me as just a different kind of crunch, not any more pure or roleplay-driven than remembering your pluses in D&D.

It struck me as being a game in the same space as Savage Worlds, that really calls for a strong setting document rather than just throwing down the core rules and saying "go!", but I have no idea if that's how it's fans see it.

Quote from: estar;962736The 4dF dice mechanic is broken. Afflicts Fudge as well. A +1 or +2 bonus is basically a "I win". It because the because the bell curve of 4dF produces a steep peak so any shifts in the odds produces huge effects compared to 3d6, 2d6, and 1d20.

This was certainly my experience, what's worse anything opposed (effectively 8dF) was ridiculously swingy and unpredictable, making Skills kind of irrelevant over getting a lucky roll.

DFRPG kind of killed my interest in FATE 3.0, and the newer version is even less appealing to me. I understand it just fine, I just thing Aspects are the least interesting, and most over-used part of the system.

FATE is the antithesis of what I want in an RPG. It's built on Fudge, a game I never liked. Added to that it uses freeform character descriptors (Aspects), a concept I fell out of love with as a result of Hero Wars/HeroQuest.

I know a lot of people dig it but I can't stand it.

I like FUDGE ok, but I hate FATE.

But I understand why it is popular...

Quote from: Kiero;962794I understand it just fine, I just thing Aspects are the least interesting, and most over-used part of the system.

I agree Aspects are overused but I think the basic concept is sounds. A good way to organize the mechanics that represent your setting without a lot of overhead.

This is a link to my stab at a writing (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip) a Fudge based RPG. The following is my take on Aspects.

QuoteAspects
An aspect is a word or phrase that describes something particular about the background of a character. Up to five aspects can be taken. Any background element can be used for an aspect.

Aspects are a mix of benefits and complications. If a character chooses to be wealthy as an aspect, the referee needs to go on to define how the character is wealthy as this will define the complications that will ensue during the course of the campaign.

The same with aspects that are mostly complications. For example a player decides he wants to play a character that was a sailor but left because he suffered permanent injury. The most serious of this is a pegleg that hampers his movement.

Rather than represent the pegleg with a specific mechanic the player would buy down his initiative and reflex. Use the extra points to buy more skills or raise his other attributes up.

Before I abandoned it the only aspecst that had any mechanic impact was allowing priests to have the Turn Undead ability and cast Divine Spells. Character that had a Mage aspect could cast arcane spells. My plan was to tie various supernatural and special abilities to specific aspects. Because I am not concerned with mechanical balance it worked out well for me.

The verbiage is tedious. I liked Core, then hated it, loved Accelerated, but I've become lukewarm on that too.

It quickly dissolves into a resource management game on top of a genre emulation. It's almost like you are watching your character being played from above instead of playing that character yourself.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;962818It's almost like you are watching your character being played from above instead of playing that character yourself.

This is the feeling I get from FATE and most story games. I call this "third person role-playing". You are effectively pre-programming your character's behavior and then setting him loose like a wind-up toy.

I rarely run a game at which the system would do well.  So I'm disinterested in it.

Quote from: estar;962816I agree Aspects are overused but I think the basic concept is sounds.

My experience with FATE is limited to one campaign played with my regular group (i.e. not FATE experts). The Aspect thing bothered me. Firstly, why limit the number of Aspects to 5 (or anything) if Aspects only come into play by spending FATE points. The points themselves are a limiting factor. So having 6 Aspects versus someone with 4 would be no advantage.

Secondly, why have Skills at all? Couldn't those be also represented by Aspects.

I don't know, it seems like a Frankensystem to me more than a system that was designed from the ground up.

Played in 2 sessions of Fate, about 2 years ago. It was OK. But, it didn't really make an impact on me, and didn't give me any desire to run it myself. Not really my style of gaming.

It would be great if it weren't for rolls in the negative. If I'm rolling negative anything, it's not very exciting, now, is it? That mechanic feels the same as rolling under. Low rolls inherently feel like bummers. I'd rather see a difficulty scale changed into something where Fate Dice equals to a range of 0 to 8, which I toyed with a bit when I was a player in a Dresden Files game. Basically you count each "bar" on the Fate Dice to equal a +1 (none = 0; - = 1; + = 2). Never did anything beyond the idea of it since I wasn't running it.

I liked Aspects a lot. They were very flexible, almost too flexible, in the sense that some players clearly abuse it.

Ultimately, I think I like the idea of the game more than I like the system itself.

Everytime I ran the game I noticed the same thing : it felt like a creative writing class. Everybody's high-fiving each other for the great ideas they've just had. Didn't feel like a game, more like group writing. It can be fun, but it's not what I look for in an rpg.

Quote from: kobayashi;962881Everytime I ran the game I noticed the same thing : it felt like a creative writing class. Everybody's high-fiving each other for the great ideas they've just had. Didn't feel like a game, more like group writing. It can be fun, but it's not what I look for in an rpg.

YES! Well put!
I love that part of the game, but I'd prefer it to be the initial 15 mins of character backstory and entanglement. Not the entire game session.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;962825Secondly, why have Skills at all? Couldn't those be also represented by Aspects.

This right here is the Aspect creep I see far too often, with people overlooking the other two pillars of the system, Skills and Stunts. Aspects aren't there to replace either, but to augment them.

Never played it, so I have no feelings about it exept it does tend to get a lot of discussion.

Fate Accelerated is on my shortlist when I look for a system to use for a rules-light one-shot. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like it, for certain things.

I understand why people don't like it, and some of the stories I've heard of how people play it are... bizarre to me, so I can't speak to them.

Quote from: kobayashi;962881Everytime I ran the game I noticed the same thing : it felt like a creative writing class. Everybody's high-fiving each other for the great ideas they've just had. Didn't feel like a game, more like group writing. It can be fun, but it's not what I look for in an rpg.

Yeah, I don't really run it that way, but I could see what that would be annoying.

Quote from: Kiero;962887This right here is the Aspect creep I see far too often, with people overlooking the other two pillars of the system, Skills and Stunts. Aspects aren't there to replace either, but to augment them.

Exactly.

Quote from: kobayashi;962881Everytime I ran the game I noticed the same thing : it felt like a creative writing class. Everybody's high-fiving each other for the great ideas they've just had. Didn't feel like a game, more like group writing. It can be fun, but it's not what I look for in an rpg.

That's a big part of why I avoid almost all narrative-style games.

Almost everything I've read about FATE has discouraged me from wanting to know any more about it. Sounds like something I would never want to play, opposite of what I like in RPGs, etc.

I can get a similar feel using Dungeon World, without having to negotiate Fate Points. I DO like the use of zones and such, and may abstract my next game to use it.

Quote from: kobayashi;962881Everytime I ran the game I noticed the same thing : it felt like a creative writing class. Everybody's high-fiving each other for the great ideas they've just had. Didn't feel like a game, more like group writing. It can be fun, but it's not what I look for in an rpg.

I like the production quality of the PDFs I've seen for Fate.

I haven't played it, but in addition to being one of the people whom aspects confuses, I feel like Kobayashi does. All my players are the same on the "writing" aspects. My players like playing in a "reality" that is outside their meta-control (that's why you use a live GM, to make it like real reality) with only the character's skills and equipment and their (player's) ideas--and then rolling dice to see if it works.

Someday, I do hope to try Fate out as a player.

Quote from: Tod13;962903I like the production quality of the PDFs I've seen for Fate.

I agree to this, they put out some pretty cool stuff, and it always looks good.

But I also agree with the over use of the Aspect system (which is a lot more complex than it looks), the Fate Dice with it's really flat bell curve is also a bit annoying.  I haven't played it much though, except I had a bad experience with the Dresden Files RPG, that had nothing to do with the game system, though.  Two players were DF fanatics and backseat DM'ed the entire demo. I left halfway through it, seriously irritated.

I did pick up several of their settings to mine for ideas, though.  Masters of Umdaar, Venture City (as mentioned) and Atomic Robo.  Atomic Robo was the one in which killed my interest, the little explanatory blurbs used through out the game was very antagonistic, it felt very DM vs. Players.

Not my cuppa.

Quote from: Tod13;962903I like the production quality of the PDFs I've seen for Fate.

I haven't played it, but in addition to being one of the people whom aspects confuses, I feel like Kobayashi does. All my players are the same on the "writing" aspects. My players like playing in a "reality" that is outside their meta-control (that's why you use a live GM, to make it like real reality) with only the character's skills and equipment and their (player's) ideas--and then rolling dice to see if it works.

Someday, I do hope to try Fate out as a player.

I've offered multiple times to run an online game for folks here curious.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962729I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

I like some of the rules and ideas which can be adapted to other RPGs but I don't really care for Fate itself. I backed the Fate Core Kickstarter, and I was reading it when I had my Eureka moment and figured out how to run Marvel Heroic. Basically, it's a reference for me. I don't understand why people freak out over it.

Quote from: robiswrong;962921I've offered multiple times to run an online game for folks here curious.

I've either not seen them or was really busy.

I think also, given my confusion about the system, I'd prefer in person. I'll keep an eye out for recruitment notices though.

Quote from: Tod13;962929I've either not seen them or was really busy.

I think also, given my confusion about the system, I'd prefer in person. I'll keep an eye out for recruitment notices though.

I may try it sometime, since it turns out I have it as a ruleset in Fantasy Grounds. It's at least worth trying out at some point.

Not my cup of tea. I'm looking into Cortex Prime, but I'm worried all the ephemeral stuff will put me off. I played and ran some Fate and Strands of Fate, but in the end I prefer more traditional games.

I haven't actually tried the previous Cortex+ games, though I'm backing Prime.

It just feels like, from reading hte rules, that it kind of falls into a category of "roll some dice and then tell a story about it."  I've had this basically confirmed by fans, as well.  That doesn't intuitively appeal to me, but I'm withholding judgement until I try it.

I backed Cortex Prime. Cortex Plus Heroic is one of my favorite systems and Cam promised backward compatibility with Cortex Plus and Classic. So I can revive my game at some point and actually be able to refer players to a set of rules. Legally. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962743I'm meh about it.  It's too complex for what it wants to do, or gets used for, but it's nothing I can get angry about.  Still, I like some of the settings it has, I definitely want to retool the Venture City super hero setting for another system.

Agreed. It feels like there is more complexity than it needs to get the job done. My experience with it has been very limited. But that was the initial impression.

I'm an old school gamer. Meaning: That I cut my teeth on games highly influenced by wargaming.

I picked up Fate because it was completely outside of my experience and comfort zone. I needed a departure. Something new.

Fate was like learning a completely new language that was utterly unrelated to any I knew. But that is what I wanted. Something to expand my horizons. Something that was a completely new approach to me.

It's been a fight to learn it. But I have gotten some level of competency with it.

In the end? I think I have made my peace with Fate. That it is the tool I was looking for. To play the types of games I had been looking for.

But honestly. Different RPG systems are suited for different jobs. For bringing forward different play experiences. And that's not a bad thing at all. Diversity brings strength to every medium.

There is no one true ultimate game system. There are only those that appeal to different individual tastes. And finding a game system that suits you? That's the journey we all undertake as gamers.

I've now identified at least two of the problems I have with Fate.

The first is spending points to trigger #Aspects distracts from addressing them through character action. For example, taking #FeliciaDay's character from this game (https://youtu.be/NOFXtAHg7vU), the #Aspect 'I Want Everyone to Love Me' can be triggered by spending a point, or addressed by not showing her love through character action. In other words, bringing someone else's character into the spotlight has a cost rather than reward, so players are less likely to do it. And sure you could say the latter is what causes a point to be spent, but then what happens when you're out of points?

The second is there's no building tension. On the contrary, by the time you get to the finale you've typically accrued so many points that it ends up less tense than previous scenes. In fact, that's how you're supposed to play! Some games have a death spiral. Fate has a success spiral. And both suck.

Between these two the immediacy of any drama is snuffed out. It becomes a series of 'this happens, then this happens' with no event any more or less important than the last.

Not my shtick - but I don't think that it's badwrongfun either.

I enjoyed the Fate Core book, learned a few things from. It for my own game, and would.like to play it. But I don't put it next to other RPG's in my mind. It's more like a party game or something. Fun, but it's not the same mentality. It's just really different. Scratches a couple.ometely different itch.

I was ready to run a game, and was describing the system and everyone noped out. Oh well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962729I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

It's so far removed from what I want out of an RPG that I have no use for it.  I don't hate it, but I'm neither going to run it or play it.

No use for it at all.  If I get a hankerin' to play a game with OOC player-facing metagame mechanics I'll use 2d20, maybe an xWorld or Cortex+.

I think it is interesting and you can do some cool things with it potentially, but I loath Fred Hicks.  not as much as KS, but close.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962729I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

I like it within certain conditions.

Everything I read about FATE makes me think it's JUST NOT MY THING. AT ALL.

Fred Hicks' online fight-picking and dick-wagging is particularly odious.

But... I'm intrigued enough that I would still at least give it a try if I knew the GM was good.

IF.

I must report another non-extreme reaction. My view on FATE is a resounding "meh."

I mean, I can see how it is meant to work in theory. And it's not the worst idea in the world. I just feel like the implementation always ends up muddled. You start off with the whole Aspect-Skill-Stunt outline, which is a bit too loosy-goosy for me but also seems broadly functional, but then every incarnation of FATE I've seen keeps adding a ton of fiddly rules. And that just crosses the wires in my head. Is it supposed to be a semi-freeform storytelling exercise, where I need to think about what would be dramatically appropriate, or a rigid reality simulator, where I need to think about what would make mechanical sense? It can't be both! ... or so it seems to me, and that's why I find it hard to get along with FATE. I've still been known to join the occasional game of it, though, so it's not like I violently despise it.

I do kind of hate the way its fans claim that it's the best thing since sliced bread and the perfect system for everything and anything, but that's not unusual - I feel the same way about everything that enough people like to an excessive degree. :p

Quote from: Baeraad;963239I do kind of hate the way its fans claim that it's the best thing since sliced bread and the perfect system for everything and anything, but that's not unusual - I feel the same way about everything that enough people like to an excessive degree. :p

As a fan, I would never claim this.  No system is perfect for everything and anything.

Quote from: robiswrong;963317As a fan, I would never claim this.  No system is perfect for everything and anything.

Except D&D. :p

Hey, first time poster and this seemed like a good place to start. In my experience Fate can be great for the things Fate is great for (getting a game off the ground with little to no prep, pulpy action with no regard for physics/simulation, trying out concepts before rewriting them in a proper system) but the 8dF swinginess for opposed actions is a nonsense, and the whole 'Fate Point Economy' is borked and the 'Fate Fractal' is...I want to say Emperor's New Clothes. And I just did.

I've not run FATE before but I have played in a handful of games (one fantasy the other sci-fi). As a player I enjoyed it well enough but it does require some lateral thinking and much more player buy-in and participation from the creation of the setting/game through character generation and even all throughout play.

The one thing I really liked was the collaborative world-building and setting creation as a player buy-in mechanic. Each of those sessions has been a lot of fun and is something I'd like to see explored in more standard RPGs.

A question comes to mind after reviewing previous answers though: As someone who is indifferent or even just a non-fan of FATE, what are some key changes you'd like to see to make it more playable to you?

When I started Fate Core the aspect thing was hard for me to grasp at first, I'm a old school gamer, so I was looking for ability scores and modifiers, you know mechanics for a character, then I began thinking about the aspect system, high concept is a description of what my character does in the World , basically a class with a little more description added on to make it detailed, then comes trouble aspect, what does your character do to get him into trouble, a flaw sentence, the other aspects tie your character to other characters playing the game, I began to see it as a creative process that allowed my imagination a little more room to grow, as for the story telling game mechanics, it grew on me, what seemed restricted by a over abundance of rules like D&D, was thrown out the window for a faster paced RPG system, I like the Fate system for it's simplicity, but I will never give up other complex RPG systems, it's just another fun system to add to my collection of games. I understand people not liking the system, it's a matter of taste, I just happen to like the new spice added to the dinner table of RPG's.

I've had a printout of the free FUDGE rules for decades, and I have Fate Core and Accelerated. Never played it or ran it. I like the rules as written, except for the "pay points to create details about the setting" thing.

I was on board pretty early in the 3.x phase with Spirit of the Century and had a lot of fun with Fate. It worked very well with my group and it even saved my Traveller game. We kicked the game off with Mongoose's Traveller and it just wasn't going anywhere. Rebooted with the prototype for Diaspora and it took off.

I moved away and haven't been able to find that dynamic again using the system. Too often, as GM, if felt like I was doing too much work to push the game forward. So, I totally get that the right conditions are conducive to excellent gameplay with Fate.

Since then I've drifted away, interestingly enough, more toward Fudge.

Quote from: estar;962736The 4dF dice mechanic is broken. Afflicts Fudge as well. A +1 or +2 bonus is basically a "I win". It because the because the bell curve of 4dF produces a steep peak so any shifts in the odds produces huge effects compared to 3d6, 2d6, and 1d20.

While I agree that a +1 shift is a big deal and that more than one at a time can throw things out of balance, I don't think that 4DF is necessarily broken. I'm thinking that a +1 should be a big deal. So, we've been using an advantage/disadvantage approach, to make things a bit finer grained, where an advantage allows you to ignore a single minus and a disadvantage forces you to ignore a plus. Advantages stack as do disadvantages. I'm still tweaking but so far it's feeling pretty good at the table. Our game has included Fudge Martial arts, where the roll and the differential are meaningful, so an advantage can soften a terrible roll but it doesn't necessarily translate into greater martial effect. As I mentioned, we're still tweaking - one idea that I've had is that n advantages translates into +1. Not sure what n should be yet, if anything. Anyways, Fudge is clicking at the table.

Quote from: Eisenmann;963701I was on board pretty early in the 3.x phase with Spirit of the Century and had a lot of fun with Fate. It worked very well with my group and it even saved my Traveller game. We kicked the game off with Mongoose's Traveller and it just wasn't going anywhere. Rebooted with the prototype for Diaspora and it took off.

It's the sort of thing I never quite understand in gaming groups - how the manner of rolling different types or combinations of dice manages to determine the entire success of gameplay. For me, the actual mechanics are often the least important thing.

Quote from: Eisenmann;963701I was on board pretty early in the 3.x phase with Spirit of the Century and had a lot of fun with Fate. It worked very well with my group and it even saved my Traveller game. We kicked the game off with Mongoose's Traveller and it just wasn't going anywhere. Rebooted with the prototype for Diaspora and it took off.

I moved away and haven't been able to find that dynamic again using the system. Too often, as GM, if felt like I was doing too much work to push the game forward. So, I totally get that the right conditions are conducive to excellent gameplay with Fate.

Since then I've drifted away, interestingly enough, more toward Fudge.

I've been through a similar journey. I like Fate well enough but sometimes it feels like a lot of effort, meta-rule overheard and ooc discussion to get the same style of play I would be getting anyway. And for that reason I too have dirfted back to Fudge, at least a the system to tinker with for home brews, borrowing ideas from Fate as appropriate.

Quote from: Eisenmann;963701While I agree that a +1 shift is a big deal and that more than one at a time can throw things out of balance, I don't think that 4DF is necessarily broken. I'm thinking that a +1 should be a big deal.

I agree with that too. The lack of granularity focuses the designer mind and helps keep down the sort if bonus inflation you get in some other systems.

I don't understand it. Its like something about it just doesn't click. I've had a few people try to patiently explain it to  me and I just can't grok it.

Quote from: Krimson;962924I like some of the rules and ideas which can be adapted to other RPGs but I don't really care for Fate itself. I backed the Fate Core Kickstarter, and I was reading it when I had my Eureka moment and figured out how to run Marvel Heroic. Basically, it's a reference for me. I don't understand why people freak out over it.

Speaking of games I don't quite get. But its more on a conceptual/play level than mechanical like FATE.

FATE should have been called Cliche. Because that's really all what players assign to their characters.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;963720FATE should have been called Cliche. Because that's really all what players assign to their characters.

Unlike D&D, which is so free of #Cliché that its character classes are entirely based on them :rolleyes:

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;963730Unlike D&D, which is so free of #Cliché that its character classes are entirely based on them :rolleyes:

Those are archetypes. :D

Has anyone tried to run Fate/Fudge with just two of their funky dice?  If so, how did it work out?  If not, can you explain why not?  (Math optional)

Quote from: CRKrueger;963733Those are archetypes. :D

One man's cliche is another's time tested classic, after all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963747Has anyone tried to run Fate/Fudge with just two of their funky dice?  If so, how did it work out?  If not, can you explain why not?  (Math optional)

Same problem as 4dF a +1 is a huge benefit enough to make a opposed roll a 'I win' moment.

http://anydice.com/program/bc0d

In addition to the issues of the 4dF and the significant impact of a +1 or +2 difference that this thread has brought up, in the one Fate game I ran, there was a strong tendency for a lot of the group to use their Create an Advantage skill uses to pile on a bunch of different situational aspects, then call in all the free invocations of that aspect at once to deliver crushing successes on whatever their task were. As soon as they discovered that tactic, it was their go to thing. It soured me on the system.

The one Fate game that I've played in that's been successful has largely accepted the difference that the +1 or +2 makes, and is basically running as a diceless game with just less granularity than you might find in Amber or Lords of Olympus.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;963772In addition to the issues of the 4dF and the significant impact of a +1 or +2 difference that this thread has brought up, in the one Fate game I ran, there was a strong tendency for a lot of the group to use their Create an Advantage skill uses to pile on a bunch of different situational aspects, then call in all the free invocations of that aspect at once to deliver crushing successes on whatever their task were. As soon as they discovered that tactic, it was their go to thing. It soured me on the system.

Why? If the group uses teamwork, the terrain and maneuvering to arrive at a position where they can deliver a killing blow, that is something I personally prefer to the boring "I hit it", "I hit it", "I hit it, too" approach I have seen in other games. Remember that the enemies can "destroy" aspects via Overcome, and can use create advantage themselves.

Quote from: Pyromancer;963774Why? If the group uses teamwork, the terrain and maneuvering to arrive at a position where they can deliver a killing blow, that is something I personally prefer to the boring "I hit it", "I hit it", "I hit it, too" approach I have seen in other games. Remember that the enemies can "destroy" aspects via Overcome, and can use create advantage themselves.

And a big boss type can surround himself minions that absorb stress for him. So the situation can be mix and matched to what the GM wants.

Quote from: Pyromancer;963774Why? If the group uses teamwork, the terrain and maneuvering to arrive at a position where they can deliver a killing blow, that is something I personally prefer to the boring "I hit it", "I hit it", "I hit it, too" approach I have seen in other games. Remember that the enemies can "destroy" aspects via Overcome, and can use create advantage themselves.

Once you get the hang of hte game, a lot of Fate fights end up being more about this type of positioning than ablating through the other group's hit points.

It's different, and can feel weird, I grant that.

Quote from: Dumarest;962732Honestly I can't even understand it. Maybe I'm old but it makes no sense to me. I need concrete definitions of what a character can do. For me, it utterly destroys any immersion if I have to think about "aspects" and I dislike mechanics like "fate points" except in very rare genres as they also suck me right out of the game world and back to the living room table. I just don't get it at all.

That's my reaction as well. Everything about it just confounds me, so I won't say I like it or hate it. I sure as hell don't want to play it.

Edit: not that I haven't tried!

I think FATE in and of itself  is not a bad system, once you downplay the storygame component of it.  The problem is that most (not all, but most) FATE games are designed by pretentious twats for pretentious twats.

I tried to like FATE and failed.  I really like the idea of character aspects as an open ended creative version of traits/boons/flaws.  I gave it a real shot, but FATE goes too far in trying to be innovative and different with all of the OOC mental gymnastics with scenes, zones, and tagging aspects of the environment - its lame.

One of my astute players labeled the game "+2" because you spend the whole game out of character juggling meta mechanics trying to get a +2.  He'd come into the club and say "hay, you wanna play +2?, I sure as hell don't."

I did run a FUDGE game with FATE aspects attached to characters and NPC only, and it was better, but not great.  I like the idea of FUDGE, as a rules light tool box, but it is still a pretty clunky system. Like estar said, 4df is too thickly grained. This can be easily fixed with d6-d6 like Anglare or Starblazers, or even with d8-d8 for slightly more variation, but it is still a fairly awkward mechanic. It would be better to add 2d6 or 2d8 vs a target number.  Its the same general principal and doesn't change the math, it's just more natural to roll dice and add the numbers.  Either way, blending FATE and FUDGE, is a lot of rules tinkering and work to get a playable rules-light traditional-style game when there are so many other options out there.  For the effort, I'd just as soon play TFT or BRP.

I do think there is a decent traditional and flexible skill-based rules engine lurking in the core of FATE/FUDGE.  It would be possible to strip all the narrative and gamey crap out of FATE, keep the aspects for characters, mary it to FUDGE, replace the fudge dice with something with a wider range, and then tweek the game towards a particular setting.   If someone would do that, I'd probably buy and try it.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Madprofessor;963904I did run a FUDGE game with FATE aspects attached to characters and NPC only, and it was better, but not great.  I like the idea of FUDGE, as a rules light tool box, but it is still a pretty clunky system. Like estar said, 4df is too thickly grained. This can be easily fixed with d6-d6 like Anglare or Starblazers, or even with d8-d8 for slightly more variation, but it is still a fairly awkward mechanic. It would be better to add 2d6 or 2d8 vs a target number.

Good points, I shied away from d6-d6 is not being as elegant as 4dF but looking at the linked graphs that didn't look like to be a good way to go. d6-d6 has the same curve as 2d6 obviously and +1 in Traveller was nice but not a game changer.

http://anydice.com/program/bc52

Quote from: Madprofessor;963904Its the same general principal and doesn't change the math, it's just more natural to roll dice and add the numbers.

Probably why the group I play with regularly gravitated to the AGE system as it just as you described except 3d6+modifiers.

The FATE games that aren't done by frustrated storygamers enamored of the smell of their own farts can be good.

Starblazer Adventures was good.
So was ICONs.

Mindjammer FATE was also good, though Mindjammer Traveller is so much better.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964210The FATE games that aren't done by frustrated storygamers enamored of the smell of their own farts can be good.

Starblazer Adventures was good.
So was ICONs.

Mindjammer FATE was also good, though Mindjammer Traveller is so much better.

I picked up Mindjammer Fate just as I was starting to burn out on the system. It's excellent and I don't regret getting it because it was executed with a clear vision and was meant to be something other than yet another rad-cool mashup. By the way, your review sold me on the Traveller version.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;963934I'm going to "me, too" this. FATE is just filled with all these metagame mechanical interactions that seem to consistently add up to less than the sum of their parts.

It's like an RPG designed by a second rate philosophy professor. You ask, "How do I boil an egg?" And FATE says, "Well, first let us start by defining the egg..." before rambling on for 20 minutes about the symbolism of the yolk. Meanwhile every other RPG is like, "You put it in boiling water."

:p

Pretty much.

Quote from: Omega;963328Except D&D. :p

You misspelled GURPS.

Quote from: Eisenmann;964298I picked up Mindjammer Fate just as I was starting to burn out on the system. It's excellent and I don't regret getting it because it was executed with a clear vision and was meant to be something other than yet another rad-cool mashup. By the way, your review sold me on the Traveller version.

Hope the game designer is reading this. And other game designers...

I ran a year long DFTRPG game, which had its ups and downs. The thing I found about the system was that the mechanics never, ever faded into the background. Because you had to constantly engage in, and manage the Aspects on characters and in scenes, there was a continual effort to step out of the gamespace and re-engage with the sheet. By the end of the game we had all got fairly good at juggling this, and Fate Core's reduction of Aspects to 5 (from the 9 in DFTRPG) was a welcome change. All together, I really like Fate Core. I'm especially happy with the presence of the epub version, so I can read and reference the book on an ereader or low powered tablet*.

I've run it several times, with mixed success, and while sometimes I feel it's a good game, other times I wonder if the mechanics move too clunky for my style of play. Aspects can become like armour for any kind of intervention with a PC, and I've had a few players camp on concepts and refuse to move with the flow of the game. Ultimately, my group isn't a fan, so the game sits unplayed on the shelf.

I have to say my single encounter with Fred Hicks was so irritating, I would have thrown a beverage in his face if he'd acted that way in person. Fortunately the rest of the Fate community on G+ isn't as irritating as him. On the other hand, I play Palladium even though KS can be a twat, so wtf do I care about the author? It's my biggest gripe about the big purple folks that an author of an RPG has to be this paragon of virtue, inclusion and cultural sensitivity.

* And I seriously wish more game companies would go this way. PDFs are beasts on low powered devices, and as a GM, I don't need the art and pretty fonts. Give me the rules.

Fred Hicks is the worst thing about FATE.

One of the worst encounters I had on rpg.net was quite possibly with Fred Hicks. I can't directly recall him by name, but it was a Fate designer/promoter and sounds like the guy.

There was a long thread of gushing fan obsessive praise about how Spirit of the Century was the best game of all time along with an aggressive campaign to shill the rpg.net game index (which was a new thing at the time) so it could be ranked as the number one game. I hadn't heard of it before so I did a bit of an investigation into it (as I do with any new game I hear about) and found a negative review which I posted as a link on the thread - basically to say it wasn't being universally praised by everyone. Just one link and that comment was all I posted. This guy, assuming it was Fred Hicks, then popped up on the thread and gave an aggressive and apoplectic attack on myself and my character. He was then joined by a bunch of other fans. The mods said nothing to him or made any comment about the dogpile, but then admonished me for 'threadcrapping' and banned me from the thread. There was no tolerance whatsoever for criticising the game or impeding upon the marketing campaign in action.

This is the reason I find myself baulking at FATE (and why I don't like the moderation at RPG.net), even though I don't personally object to the game as such in terms of playing it, and I will note that some other Fate game designers were more consolidatory after.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;965030One of the worst encounters I had on rpg.net was quite possibly with Fred Hicks. I can't directly recall him by name, but it was a Fate designer/promoter and sounds like the guy.

There was a long thread of gushing fan obsessive praise about how Spirit of the Century was the best game of all time along with an aggressive campaign to shill the rpg.net game index (which was a new thing at the time) so it could be ranked as the number one game. I hadn't heard of it before so I did a bit of an investigation into it (as I do with any new game I hear about) and found a negative review which I posted as a link on the thread - basically to say it wasn't being universally praised by everyone. Just one link and that comment was all I posted. This guy, assuming it was Fred Hicks, then popped up on the thread and gave an aggressive and apoplectic attack on myself and my character. He was then joined by a bunch of other fans. The mods said nothing to him or made any comment about the dogpile, but then admonished me for 'threadcrapping' and banned me from the thread. There was no tolerance whatsoever for criticising the game or impeding upon the marketing campaign in action.

This is the reason I find myself baulking at FATE (and why I don't like the moderation at RPG.net), even though I don't personally object to the game as such in terms of playing it, and I will note that some other Fate game designers were more consolidatory after.

Sounds like S.O.P. over there for awhile (Try criticizing Exalted at some points). Its gotten better over the years but not stopped entireyl

Ah yes Fate, I have a love and hate relationship with the game...

On one side I LOVE aspects, behind all the faux quasi-postmodern language, what it boils to is a codified system to what GM have been doing for ages (hey, yeah you are trying to lockpick the door while the room is on fire, have a penalty). The system is lightweight yet flexible enough to run out-of-the-box, and it has the right tools for people who like to improvise (I can pull a whole session out of my ass by compelling 2 aspects), oh and its simplicity makes it VERY hackable, you can make any kind of sub-system with almost no risk of breaking the game (it's FUDGE after all).

On the other side... the game only works with certain groups because it's clunky as hell, so unless you belong to the Fate church (or are an indoctrinated freshman) the game can quickly crash and burn:

A. As others have said, the difference between 4Df and 8Df is abysmal http://anydice.com/program/9ba8 the difference in variance and spread is huge, so FP are more valuable in opposed checks (to compensate for the added "swinginess"),    

B. The fudge dice are fun killers, there is nothing less appealing than rolling dice and ending worse than where you started; I know that O'Sullivan wanted to simulate behavior as a curve (FUDGE)... but GURPS did it better, you don't feel like you are getting punished every time you roll the dice (Basic psychology 101, if you take something away from someone, like ending up lower on the fate ladder, you end up with a sense of loss, which is cool sometimes, just not 1/3 of your rolls).
My fix: I play fate with 2d6 and the GM never rolls dice (so every roll is like 8df without the extreme results), I just add 7 to any opposition and be done with it.  

C. The game really needs a better writer / someone who comes from outside the Fate diaspora, to properly explain it/write it in a manageable manner; as it stands you have to do something akin to bible hermeneutics, finding the truth within the words. Take aspects for example, the book states that they provide narrative permission and then they leave it at that, nowhere in the core text they explain that a blinded character cannot take actions that involve seeing, (in other system that's handle with a penalty/status effect), it's obvious but even the most sensible things get lost in a sea of complex terminology (once again post-modern discourse at it's best).
Fix: Check out the book of Hanz, the guy did Evil Hat a HUGE favor, that book is gold.

D. Invoking... who thought that it was a good idea the way it is right now, every fucking opposed roll ends up like this "So, you are winning, I tag my A aspect" "HAH!  So I invoke my b aspect" "HAH!-HAH! I have a free invoke bring it ahole!" "YOU HAVE A CONSEQUENCE I CAN INVOKE MWUHAHHAHAHAHA". And then a simple attack becomes a battle of FP... yes the game is not supposed to work like that, but guess what, it's the optimal strategy, and it's conductive of that type of behavior, unless you are newbie and are taught that It's a big no-no or you are part of the Fate diaspora.
My fix: Attacker rolls, defender spends FP then attacker spends FP (remember I use 2d6)

E. Create an advantage is an awesome idea, but in the end it's clunky unless you use it in a certain way... for example, let's say the group is fighting a legendary dragon, the obvious choice is to let the dragon attack first (thus spending it's action for the turn), afterwards, stockpile CaA and close the round with an attack that uses all invokes in a magnificent epic strike. (Quick tip, attack is the least useful action in fate, if everyone attacks combat takes millions of years)

So, if you have 3 players rolling CaA (let's say 2 got a success and the third one a Success with style, so 4 free invokes), the final attacker gets a hefty +8.
Where it breaks down is that now you have 4 new aspects on the table to deal with, add to that the scene aspects (let's say 2) the dragon's aspects (let's say another 2) and player aspects (20+ consequences), you end up with 28 aspects to think about.  And if the GM is a prick she could force you to describe how each of those 4 aspects helps you against the dragon.

Now, you could decide to create a single aspect (overwhelmed, distracted) and stockpile invokes on the aspect, that makes it parsimonious an easier to handle (albeit less evocative).

oh, and for those keeping count, that means that the whole turn took at least 9 rolls (some of  them simultaneous) where FP could have been spent or stress dealt.

I haven't found a fix for this issue that doesn't involve asking the players to keep it simple; there has to be a middle ground between no aspects and having a phone book list of aspects.  

So yeah, I would play Fate Core in a heartbeat... but I'm the first to admit that the game desperately needs a new edition + a strong designer... in a way I feel like the book would be a completely different beast if it came out today, there is a lot to be learned from systems in the last couple of years (Apocalypse World and it's derivatives for example)  


TL: DR - The game has a bunch of loopholes and clunky rules which are actually enforced by the game; and the best Fate tables have a silent agreement to consciously avoid them, still I love the game.

Does Create Advantage create an Aspect that hangs around a while, or does it apply for that round only?

Quote from: CRKrueger;965347Does Create Advantage create an Aspect that hangs around a while, or does it apply for that round only?

In general, that depends on how well you roll to create it. Do just okay and it stays temporarily as a one-time boost. Do better and it sticks around to be used more often, but even then others can take action to remove/change it or in more rare situations the narrative may alter it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965347Does Create Advantage create an Aspect that hangs around a while, or does it apply for that round only?

If you fail the check you either don't create the advantage, or you create something that your enemy can use against you (GM's call)

On a tie you get a boost (an unnamed +2)

On a success you get full fledge aspect with a free invoke (+2 once without spending FP) that lasts until the narrative changes in some way (someone rolls to get rid of the aspect, the scene changes, or it doesn't make sense anymore)

On a success with style, same deal, only you get 2 free invokes

FATE is probably my go to system for RPGs now. Fate Core specifically, as it eliminates a lot of the jargon used in the ruleset from games like Dresden Files.It's the easiest for me to run "On the Fly" I took a couple short campaigns to really get my head around Aspects and how they work in play, but it's been a great time since then.

I really like how Aspects reinforce story elements like character concepts and story themes. If you've written "Greatest Archer in all the land" on you characters sheet, then it is true. Whenever bad luck would go against that conceit, you have the ability mitigate it with a bonus or re-roll. If a house has a "Dark and Spooky" Aspect, it gives players a nice little incentive for their characters to act accordingly.

I can see why some players wouldn't love it though.  The results of an action can feel like a retroactive continuity as Aspects can be used after rolls to sort of "negotiate" the outcome. Anyone who strongly favors first-person roleplaying would probably have a hard time with that. Same with players/GMs who don't like to do the creative "heavy lifting" at the table.

It's also not great if you are into tactics/strategy. Hiding behind a wall for cover doesn't matter unless you've spent the Fate point to make it relevant. There's some tactics in generating advantages and utilizing Fate Points but it's a game that's about telling the story of a conflict over the action-reaction and tactics of a game like D&D 5e.

Quote from: KrakaJak;965385It's also not great if you are into tactics/strategy. Hiding behind a wall for cover doesn't matter unless you've spent the Fate point to make it relevant. There's some tactics in generating advantages and utilizing Fate Points but it's a game that's about telling the story of a conflict over the action-reaction and tactics of a game like D&D 5e.

I think this is ultimately what sours the game for me. It's not even about tactics, it's about realism. I have similar problems with games like Cortex Plus. There are some solid settings for Fate out there, but I'd honestly much prefer stripping out the Aspects (or stripping them back like in the first edition of Icons) and running such games in a more traditional manner.

Quote from: tanaka84;965067Fix: Check out the book of Hanz, the guy did Evil Hat a HUGE favor, that book is gold.

Thanks!

Quote from: CRKrueger;965347Does Create Advantage create an Aspect that hangs around a while, or does it apply for that round only?

The question makes a few presumptions that are kind of wrong - mainly, that it's the Create Advantage action that determines how long an aspect sticks around.

So you don't Create Advantage.  You do something.  You start to provide covering fire, or you trip someone, or you gather magical energy, or you stick someone in a web, or climb on some pipes above the bad guys, or whatever.

Since it's not obvious that you actually succeed at those things, we go to the rules, and use them to figure out what happens.  In this case, those are probably Create Advantage actions (depending on the situation).

So, if you succeed, then you actually do the thing.  Like, in "the world", you're actually doing the thing - laying down a hail of fire, or gathering magical energy, or knocking someone on his butt or whatever.

We make a note of that fact with an aspect, so that we can refer to it later, and it gives us a few mechanical hooks.

Now, if you do something that means that, "in the world", that aspect is no longer true?  Then it's no longer true, and goes away.  If you're providing Covering Fire, and you walk away, you're not providing Covering Fire any more, and so the aspect goes away.  If you're Above the Bad Guys, and you drop down for some reason, you're not above them any more and the aspect disappears.

But if someone gets knocked down and is On The Ground, or is Stuck In A Web, then those things will be true until somebody does something to make them not true.

Quote from: KrakaJak;965385I can see why some players wouldn't love it though.  The results of an action can feel like a retroactive continuity as Aspects can be used after rolls to sort of "negotiate" the outcome.

This is where the ellipsis trick comes into play.  I don't retcon.

GM: "Okay, looks like you didn't quite parry in time and the orc's blade is coming straight at you..."
Player: "Um, as a Renowned Orc Hunter I, of course, expect this and am already in the middle of my dodge to the side."
GM: "Cool.  The orc's sword slices into the air where you used to be."

Quote from: KrakaJak;965385It's also not great if you are into tactics/strategy. Hiding behind a wall for cover doesn't matter unless you've spent the Fate point to make it relevant.

Not so much.

If you're behind a wall, and the wall is big enough and sturdy enough that you can't logically be hit behind it, then you're not going to get hit (of course, in that situation, you're not going to be shooting back because you're stuck behind a wall).  On the other hand, if it's not quite that good of cover, or you're sticking your head out periodically, you might get some Passive Opposition from it.

If you've got a Broken Leg:

Things might be harder to do with it - this is Passive Opposition and takes no Fate Points.
Your leg might give out at an inopportune moment - this is an Invoke, and takes a Fate Point.
You can't really climb a tree - this is just truth, and takes no Fate Points.
The thing you need, of course, is at the top of a tree - this is a Compel, and takes a Fate Point.

Quote from: Brand55;965411I think this is ultimately what sours the game for me. It's not even about tactics, it's about realism. I have similar problems with games like Cortex Plus. There are some solid settings for Fate out there, but I'd honestly much prefer stripping out the Aspects (or stripping them back like in the first edition of Icons) and running such games in a more traditional manner.

This is a common, but generally false, misconception.  It was pretty well confirmed by the Evil Hat folks that they amped up "Aspects are True" in Fate Core because, previously, they didn't think they needed to tell people that they can't climb a ladder with a broken leg.

Quote from: robiswrong;965431This is a common, but generally false, misconception.  It was pretty well confirmed by the Evil Hat folks that they amped up "Aspects are True" in Fate Core because, previously, they didn't think they needed to tell people that they can't climb a ladder with a broken leg.

It's not a misconception at all. The problem is in how the game ties invocations and Fate Point expenditure to bonuses/re-rolls. As long as players are having to rely on burning FP to take advantage of situations that really should be giving them a constant advantage (such as attacking a disarmed opponent or ganging up), then any sense of realism is going to suffer mightily for those who care about such things.

Quote from: Brand55;965433It's not a misconception at all. The problem is in how the game ties invocations and Fate Point expenditure to bonuses/re-rolls. As long as players are having to rely on burning FP to take advantage of situations that really should be giving them a constant advantage (such as attacking a disarmed opponent or ganging up), then any sense of realism is going to suffer mightily for those who care about such things.

I listed above ways that would have a constant impact. That would seem to solve your problem - why are you insisting that these solutions don't exist?

So lets say I disarm a guy.  That's a Create Advantage so the guy picks up the Disarmed Aspect and I get a +2.

Brand55 is saying that I would have to keep paying Fate Points every attack to Invoke that Disarmed Aspect.  In other words, it's only "True" when I pay for it to be True.

Rob is saying that since the situation is the guy is disarmed, then the Aspect always applies until something happens that makes it not apply (like the guy picks up his weapon or draws another).

First of all, do I have your opinions right?
Secondly, who is right according to the game?

Quote from: CRKrueger;965447So lets say I disarm a guy.  That's a Create Advantage so the guy picks up the Disarmed Aspect and I get a +2.

Brand55 is saying that I would have to keep paying Fate Points every attack to Invoke that Disarmed Aspect.  In other words, it's only "True" when I pay for it to be True.

Rob is saying that since the situation is the guy is disarmed, then the Aspect always applies until something happens that makes it not apply (like the guy picks up his weapon or draws another).

First of all, do I have your opinions right?
Secondly, who is right according to the game?

Well, disarmed might be a bad example, because there (if using weapon rules), you might have just denied the opponent his weapon. If we go with "Overwhelmed" instead, as if the character had been scared in the middle of the fight because of a monstrous roar (I'm going with your Hulk picture here for inspiration), this is how it works.

Check out the Create Advantage action on https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/four-actions

So if you passed your Create Advantage roll, for example, you would create this Overwhelmed situational aspect on the target, and get a free invocation. If you wanted to use it over and over, should it last (the opponent could get rid of it if able), you would need to spend a FP. The idea here is to create an incentive to do new things each round and keep interactions lively, rather than spam the same action over and over and be boring. That part of the rules, I like.

The how to stop people making the Alphabet Aspect Rangers attack, that's easy: insist that it will be rare that more than one Aspect will be useful against most targets, and don't let players (and GMs) ruin a game by using what are meant to be fun rules in silly ways. I did this in my Dresden game right off the bat, as it made sense - I didn't want people just reading lists of phrases to explain how they got rid of an opponent. Where I wanted them to try and overcome a serious threat by teamwork, I might note, out of character, that stacking Aspects was on the table. It set the tone, the game went, on, etc. etc.

I really like a more story gamy approach to rpg's except I don't care for the systems those games use. If that makes any sense. I usually go for a more rules light traditional system to achieve more roleplaying and less quote unquote roleplaying. So Fate is in a way similar to the WoD to me. It has nice ideas, but I don't really know what to do with it. I need my games to be as simple and straightforward as possible.

To use a more relevant example: flanking/ganging up. That's something that isn't meant to go away on its own and should be useful in a fight. Say you see a buddy fighting a minotaur so you run over and start swinging at the creature from the other side.

In most traditional rpgs, you and your friend are now receiving some sort of attack bonus or the minotaur's defense just went down to represent how difficult it is to defend against multiple attackers coming from different sides.

In Fate, you create an Advantage. For this example, we'll say you succeed with one free invocation of the new "Flanked by Enemies" Aspect that you just created on the minotaur. You can either use that free invocation yourself or pass it on to your friend. Either way, once that is used up you will both have to spend Fate Points to receive any mechanical benefit from flanking your opponent even though you're still doing it. If you're out of FP, then too bad.

If anyone has a reference to rules that say otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Personally, I think the biggest mistake they made with Fate Core was not adapting the Persistent Aspects from Strands of Fate. That would at least cover some scenarios where characters should be receiving mechanical benefits from Aspects but aren't because they've already done so and are out of FP.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965447So lets say I disarm a guy.  That's a Create Advantage so the guy picks up the Disarmed Aspect and I get a +2.

Brand55 is saying that I would have to keep paying Fate Points every attack to Invoke that Disarmed Aspect.  In other words, it's only "True" when I pay for it to be True.

Rob is saying that since the situation is the guy is disarmed, then the Aspect always applies until something happens that makes it not apply (like the guy picks up his weapon or draws another).

First of all, do I have your opinions right?
Secondly, who is right according to the game?

Ok, so, here is the answer you don't want to hear, both are right.

First, yes, you do get a free +2 the first time you invoke the aspect, and then you have to keep spending FPs to keep getting the +2.

Second, While the guy is disarmed there are certain things he cannot do, for example: he can't roll his shoot skill. If he wanted his gun back, he would have to beat an overcome roll if something is preventing him from reaching the gun, otherwise he would have to spend an action to get it back -getting rid of the disarmed aspect-.

What I'm getting to is that Fate does not model advantages with modifiers, but rather with the consequences of what's happening in the fiction (I hope I'm making sense). Actually, there is no such thing as a modifier in Fate, you only get a +2 with stunts (this models proficiency in an area) or with FP expenditure, which is a metagame resource which models the luck/awesome factir heroes have in most pulp fiction.

Free invoke are just invokes where no FPs are exchanged, but they aren't there to model that things are easier, but rather that the character is a freaking badass.

Quote from: Brand55;965513To use a more relevant example: flanking/ganging up. That's something that isn't meant to go away on its own and should be useful in a fight. Say you see a buddy fighting a minotaur so you run over and start swinging at the creature from the other side.

In most traditional rpgs, you and your friend are now receiving some sort of attack bonus or the minotaur's defense just went down to represent how difficult it is to defend against multiple attackers coming from different sides.

In Fate, you create an Advantage. For this example, we'll say you succeed with one free invocation of the new "Flanked by Enemies" Aspect that you just created on the minotaur. You can either use that free invocation yourself or pass it on to your friend. Either way, once that is used up you will both have to spend Fate Points to receive any mechanical benefit from flanking your opponent even though you're still doing it. If you're out of FP, then too bad.

If anyone has a reference to rules that say otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Personally, I think the biggest mistake they made with Fate Core was not adapting the Persistent Aspects from Strands of Fate. That would at least cover some scenarios where characters should be receiving mechanical benefits from Aspects but aren't because they've already done so and are out of FP.

It's not a reference in the rule book, but rather an expansion:

http://www.faterpg.com/2013/richards-guide-to-blocks-and-obstacles-in-fate-core/

Another way to model the advantage of flanking is to force the Minotaur to check twice to attack or defend, the first check is against a character running interference, the second for the attack/defend itself.

You can also do it strictly by the book, the flanking character can keep adding free invokes to the Flanked aspect with further Create an advantage actions, once again, distracting the minotaur.

Finally, I do have a in-house advantage-disadvantage (roll 3 D6 keep highest or lowest) and before that when I used 4DF, if you have advantage, roll 3DF and add a + to the final result, If you have disadvantage, roll 3DF and add a - to the final result. Simple and effective.

Cheers :)

Quote from: tanaka84;965542Ok, so, here is the answer you don't want to hear, both are right.

Yeah, this.

The only time you get a +2 (and bonuses are how most games model things) is when you use your free invoke or spend a Fate Point.  Since this is how most games model things, and you see that you only get the bonus in those circumstances, it's very, very easy to presume that that's the only time that aspects are true.

But.

Aspects are true:
https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/using-aspects-roleplaying
https://fate-srd.com/fate-accelerated/how-do-stuff-outcomes-actions-and-approaches

So let's say you're stuck to the floor, maybe by magic.  So the rules of this spell might be that you can't move until it's broken.  Now, you've got this aspect on you - can you move to another room?

If you go by the "+2 when Invoke, only" rule, then yes, you can.  Worst case you might have to beat a +2 to do so.  This doesn't make sense.

If you go by "aspects are true", then, no, you can't.  Because you're stuck to the ground.  It's true that you're stuck to the ground, so you can't do things that are impossible if you're stuck to the ground.  This is not spelled out.  It's assumed that this happens in "the world" level before the rules are consulted.  Given the amount of confusion over the years, it probably *should* be spelled out.

Same with passive opposition.  The rules clearly state that aspects should play into what passive opposition exists:  https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/four-outcomes
Again, it doesn't explicitly say that situational aspects are included.  It probably should.

It also doesn't explicitly say that passive opposition is a fallback if active opposition fails, but in most cases, it makes sense (and therefore gets stuck under the golden rule).  If you're behind half-cover, say, and do a bad job of dodging, you're *still behind half cover*.  So in most cases, most Fate GMs I know (and this is with folks communicating with the devs as well), will grant the better of either passive or active opposition.

Quote from: tanaka84;965549... good flanking stuff...

I'd also probably allow a flat +1 while flanking, presuming you're getting the "assistance" rule without actually having to use your turn.

Alternatively, you could declare that being flanked is a source of passive opposition, providing a "floor" to either attack or defense rolls by the opposition.  Actually, that's probably what I'd do.

So Aspects are actually "True"...as long as people aren't rolling dice.  

If they are rolling dice, it's only effectively "True" (as in, affecting the die roll) if someone pays for it to be true, or they get a free invoke.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965557So Aspects are actually "True"...as long as people aren't rolling dice.  

If they are rolling dice, it's only effectively "True" (as in, affecting the die roll) if someone pays for it to be true, or they get a free invoke.

Passive Opposition.

They're still true.  They still have an effect, it's just not via a bonus.

The other problem is that people often choose aspects that aren't really good at being aspects.  "Really Strong" is a crappy aspect.  It's a much better stunt.

Not to mention that the aspects can prevent the dice rolling in the first place...

Edit:  But, to be clear, if you are expecting aspects to provide a constant bonus to you in some situation, and for some reason don't want to use as stunt?  Then no, they don't do that.  That's presumed to be rolled into the justification for your Fight skill or whatever skill is relevant.

This is, in my mind, a good thing.  It means that, as a GM, I know that the peak skill people will have is +4, with maybe a bonus in certain circumstances.  I don't have to worry about charop meaning that some people have a peak of +8 while others have a peak of +4.  But it doesn't work like most other games, and you either accept that, or you don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962729I've noticed it tends to cause extreme reactions in people. So, do you love all things FATE, hate it, or like it within certain conditions?

When I tried it, it felt like an attempt was made through the rules to apply mechanics to role-playing, but the people who applied them had no concept whatsoever about what role-playing actually was. The whole experience just left me cold.

Whew. Too many replies and not enough time to respond to them all.

Quote from: robiswrong;965558Passive Opposition.

They're still true.  They still have an effect, it's just not via a bonus.

Yes and no. Passive Opposition is not meant to apply in every situation; its primary purpose is to provide a resistance number when there is no one actively rolling in opposition. This works great for lots of things, no doubt, but it hardly applies to every single situation. Thus, you have people taking the situations like the flanking example and coming up with various solutions for how to handle them.

And there's the rub. If I sit down to a game of D&D or Savage Worlds or any of a hundred other games, I know exactly what I'm getting into in that situation. Even the ones that don't explicitly spell out their effects are often pretty clear; usually it'll just come down to the GM handing out a small bonus.

Fate? When I sit down to a game of Fate, I have no clue what I'll be looking at if I flank someone because the game itself doesn't know how best to handle that situation. GM A gives a small +1 bonus for cooperation, GM B treats flanking like the old Block maneuver, GM C uses a variant of the current Passive Opposition rules, and GMs D & E play it strictly by-the-book with the only advantage of flanking coming from invocations of the Aspect.

I'm not saying the game is bad, or that solutions to issues in the rules can't be found. They absolutely can be. I'm just saying that the RAW is not to my liking in how it models certain things. If the game works great for you, that's awesome and all that really matters.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965557So Aspects are actually "True"...as long as people aren't rolling dice.  

If they are rolling dice, it's only effectively "True" (as in, affecting the die roll) if someone pays for it to be true, or they get a free invoke.

If you define "True" as in a direct modifier to your dice roll, then yes; the confusing point Fate tries to make is that you can model how "things" happening in the fiction do not need to equate to a number when you roll.

One thing to keep in mind is that an aspect is not just words, they represent something, just like an 18 in Con represents the pinnacle of human health (with all that implies), so, they are not prescriptive but rather descriptive.

Let's say your character is trying to sneak inside a building in the middle of the night, you make your sneak roll and add a +X because it's very dark,

So, on Fate-land, we have the aspect "middle of the night", why does it exist?, because the character is trying to infiltrate at a certain time, in theory there are few guards, and no personal. You make your sneak roll and depending on what the GM and the player negotiate you can:

- Roll like normal
- Roll, but we set a floor,  the least you can roll is a +2 (Fair), since that's the absolute worst anyone could do in this darkness.
- Don't roll, since it's so dark and you have the aspect "gentleman thief" you have enough of a reason to succeed automatically (Take 10)
- Roll like normal, but against an active opposition (a security guy) they have a ceiling of +2 (fair) ceiling, since that's the absolute best anyone could  do in this darkness.

And then, you can spend a FP and gain a +2 or reroll if you so like. I can't stress this enough, gaining a +2 is NOT a function of the aspect, but a function of the Fate Point itself that requires an aspect to work.

Fate simply does not like modifiers, and that has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Quote from: Brand55;965589Whew. Too many replies and not enough time to respond to them all.

Yes and no. Passive Opposition is not meant to apply in every situation; its primary purpose is to provide a resistance number when there is no one actively rolling in opposition. This works great for lots of things, no doubt, but it hardly applies to every single situation. Thus, you have people taking the situations like the flanking example and coming up with various solutions for how to handle them.

And there's the rub. If I sit down to a game of D&D or Savage Worlds or any of a hundred other games, I know exactly what I'm getting into in that situation. Even the ones that don't explicitly spell out their effects are often pretty clear; usually it'll just come down to the GM handing out a small bonus.

Fate? When I sit down to a game of Fate, I have no clue what I'll be looking at if I flank someone because the game itself doesn't know how best to handle that situation. GM A gives a small +1 bonus for cooperation, GM B treats flanking like the old Block maneuver, GM C uses a variant of the current Passive Opposition rules, and GMs D & E play it strictly by-the-book with the only advantage of flanking coming from invocations of the Aspect.

I'm not saying the game is bad, or that solutions to issues in the rules can't be found. They absolutely can be. I'm just saying that the RAW is not to my liking in how it models certain things. If the game works great for you, that's awesome and all that really matters.

You are so right it hurts, when I said that Fate is at times like Hermeneutics, I wasn't kidding; the freaking rules have more interpretations than the bible, and the Fate Diaspora dukes it out trying to figure out which interpretation is "best", every table plays a different game under the same set of guidelines, if you can live wih that flexbility awesome, you found your game, if you can't, do yourself a favor and run away from that mess  
:o

Quote from: tanaka84;965600You are so right it hurts, when I said that Fate is at times like Hermeneutics, I wasn't kidding; the freaking rules have more interpretations than the bible, and the Fate Diaspora dukes it out trying to figure out which interpretation is "best", every table plays a different game under the same set of guidelines, if you can live wih that flexbility awesome, you found your game, if you can't, do yourself a favor and run away from that mess  
:o

Well, and deliberately so.  It's a rulings game, not a rules game.  The presumption is that how things are handled will vary based on the genre/setting you're playing, as well as table preference and the specific situation.

The Golden Rule of Fate is, after all, "figure out what you want to do, and then figure out how to use the rules to accomplish that."

Quote from: TrippyHippy;965030One of the worst encounters I had on rpg.net was quite possibly with Fred Hicks. I can't directly recall him by name, but it was a Fate designer/promoter and sounds like the guy.

There was a long thread of gushing fan obsessive praise about how Spirit of the Century was the best game of all time along with an aggressive campaign to shill the rpg.net game index (which was a new thing at the time) so it could be ranked as the number one game. I hadn't heard of it before so I did a bit of an investigation into it (as I do with any new game I hear about) and found a negative review which I posted as a link on the thread - basically to say it wasn't being universally praised by everyone. Just one link and that comment was all I posted. This guy, assuming it was Fred Hicks, then popped up on the thread and gave an aggressive and apoplectic attack on myself and my character. He was then joined by a bunch of other fans. The mods said nothing to him or made any comment about the dogpile, but then admonished me for 'threadcrapping' and banned me from the thread. There was no tolerance whatsoever for criticising the game or impeding upon the marketing campaign in action.

This is the reason I find myself baulking at FATE (and why I don't like the moderation at RPG.net), even though I don't personally object to the game as such in terms of playing it, and I will note that some other Fate game designers were more consolidatory after.

I have first hand experience with Fred Hicks being a dick to me in a customer service context with Evil Hat, but to hang this story on him (or anybody) on the basis that you don't remember it being Fred Hicks, but you could see it having been Fred Hicks, so it must have been Fred Hicks is a pretty  "some Puerto Rican guy" level of uncool.

I had a conversation with the guy who'se not Fred Hicks (the other guy) about how much more powerful Aspects (or at least clear) in Fate Core. So you have this situation where aspects are kind of always true. So, if you're the "Strongest Man on Earth" you kind of are always that person, so it permits you do do anything that a super strong person can do, but also at the same time doesn't, because you might need a fate point, etc. Turned me off on Fate Core. I'm looking forward to Strands 2, which tones them down a bit and puts mechanics/constraints around them.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;965616I had a conversation with the guy who'se not Fred Hicks (the other guy) about how much more powerful Aspects (or at least clear) in Fate Core. So you have this situation where aspects are kind of always true. So, if you're the "Strongest Man on Earth" you kind of are always that person, so it permits you do do anything that a super strong person can do, but also at the same time doesn't, because you might need a fate point, etc. Turned me off on Fate Core. I'm looking forward to Strands 2, which tones them down a bit and puts mechanics/constraints around them.

I'm personally of the opinion that aspects like "Strongest Man on Earth" are kind of.... I dunno, not quite right?  Like, you have your Physique score, so max that.  One of the "issues" with aspects seems to be when people write "get out of jail free" aspects, and they kind of don't work that way.

Also, your skill and your roll isn't really to determine how strong you are.  It's to determine how effectively you can use that strength in the situation at hand.  So if you can't bend some bars, maybe it's because you couldn't get a grip or some garbage like that.

I mean, I can't imagine another system (well, okay, Amber, but that's clearly an outlier) where you can just say "I'm the strongest" and then, that's it, game over, you just automatically win, no rolling required.  So I'm not entirely sure why this example or ones like it are used as a criticism.

(I'm also curious about this interaction, do you have a link to it?)

Quote from: Natty Bodak;965608I have first hand experience with Fred Hicks being a dick to me in a customer service context with Evil Hat, but to hang this story on him (or anybody) on the basis that you don't remember it being Fred Hicks, but you could see it having been Fred Hicks, so it must have been Fred Hicks is a pretty  "some Puerto Rican guy" level of uncool.

What you think is cool or not has little interest for me, but despite not recalling an exact name from an exchange made about ten years ago, the events are still truly what happened and it was certainly one of the people involved directly with the game. They had the link in their signature and said so in their post. The basic point is that, whoever it was, was unreasonably aggressive in promoting their game - to the extent of personally attacking someone who provided a link for a bad review.

That is the basis of what turns me off from Fate.

If you're not going to buy a game because the designer is a dick make sure to never speak with a musician or author, a large number of them are assholes as well.

Quote from: Voros;965703If you're not going to buy a game because the designer is a dick make sure to never speak with a musician or author, a large number of them are assholes as well.

Eh, there are degrees and context matters. Being an "dick" is one thing. Steve Long is kind of a dick, allot of geeks are dicks. Being, for example, a virulent racist is another and, frankly, if someone is a out and out douche to me personally? Fuck no I'm not giving them my money. Just like I wouldn't patronize a store where they treated me like crap. Game designers aren't special unique creatures doing a task no one else can .They're in the service and retail industry. Learning to deal with customers in at least a semi professional manner comes with the territory.  There's literally hundreds of them to chose from or do things yourself. Some of them are more talented than other but I've yet to find one so irreplaceable that I'd have to forgive their personal behavior no matter what.

I agree about being an out-and-out racist or rabid nutter. Just saying I've encountered so many musicians who were super arrogant ego maniacs I decided a long time ago to not interact with anyone whose music I really liked too much. Otherwise everytime I listen to their record I end up recalling what a douchebag they were. It is a pleasant surprise when they're not coke-fueled pricks. In the immortal words of Danny Fields: 'Musicians are assholes.'

Quote from: TrippyHippy;965702What you think is cool or not has little interest for me, but despite not recalling an exact name from an exchange made about ten years ago, the events are still truly what happened and it was certainly one of the people involved directly with the game. They had the link in their signature and said so in their post. The basic point is that, whoever it was, was unreasonably aggressive in promoting their game - to the extent of personally attacking someone who provided a link for a bad review.

That is the basis of what turns me off from Fate.

Sure.  I get that your experience being dogpiled turned you off Fate, but that's no reason to turn around and dogpile somebody that you freely admit that you have no idea was the person actually involved.  

Why would you do that? It's the sort of thing I'd see at SA, and it's just as distasteful here.  

Your point could have been just as well made without it.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;965780Sure.  I get that your experience being dogpiled turned you off Fate, but that's no reason to turn around and dogpile somebody that you freely admit that you have no idea was the person actually involved.  

Why would you do that? It's the sort of thing I'd see at SA, and it's just as distasteful here.  

Your point could have been just as well made without it.

You're objection is absurd. It WAS noted in the post that my memory of the name was not clear, but seeing as there is only about three individuals it could have been and they all were collectively involved with promoting their game at the time, it's hardly a case of smearing. Fred Hicks was in charge of the promotion of the game which makes him the most likely individual it could have been, and even if not him directly he would still be responsible for the interaction. Why would I highlight it up? Because it is was a real experience of mine, and totally relevant to the dialogue in this thread as it was unfolding.

It's got lofty intentions, and lots of neat ideas. I think it's a reasonably fun game for conventions or one-shots.

My main gripe with it is the few times I've tried to run the game, I got overwhelmed with keeping track of all the exceptions and tokens, and extra aspects, and, and, and...

I think like many games, if it's run by a competent GM who's well-versed in the system it could be a lot of fun (and in fact, that's been my experience playing it a bunch).

So, in short, it's a game I like fine as a player, but doesn't work for me as a GM.

Quote from: Herne's Son;966014It's got lofty intentions, and lots of neat ideas. I think it's a reasonably fun game for conventions or one-shots.

Totally agree with this. My group and I don't really have the wherewithal for long term campaigns. Fate is my current favorite game, but I don't think I could recommend it for long term campaign play.

QuoteMy main gripe with it is the few times I've tried to run the game, I got overwhelmed with keeping track of all the exceptions and tokens, and extra aspects, and, and, and...

A few things that helped me:
I use Post-It notes. Lots of post-it notes. Any time an Aspect is added to a scene, put it on the table with a post-it note. Put Fate tokens on it to represent the free invokes from create advantage. I can't imagine trying to play this game without doing this. I use notecards for more permanent things: NPC's, Locations etc. If a Location has a permanent Aspect, I put it on the notecard. If an NPC gains a temporary Aspect (from create advantage, stress consequences etc.) I hit it with a post-it note. This way it doesn't feel like bookkeeping as it's all out on the table in front of everyone like the pieces of a board game.

I don't have a great memory, so I have every player's Trouble and High Concept aspect written down on a single notecard. They can keep track of their other Aspects themselves. Also, as part of game prep, I try to think of Compels for those Aspects (especially troubles) related to the adventure ahead. Makes it look like I'm quick witted and clever when I'm really just deliberate :P

It was interesting how many of the complaints leveled at Fate mirrored the issue I had with Cortex (Marvel Heroic Roleplay). I've heard they're surprisingly similar games. That seems to support that conclusion.

Quote from: Nexus;966030It was interesting how many of the complaints leveled at Fate mirrored the issue I had with Cortex (Marvel Heroic Roleplay). I've heard they're surprisingly similar games. That seems to support that conclusion.

Hell I ran into these when my group used Whimsy Cards back in the early 90s. The last session was known as the Whimsy War and afterwards we agreed to put them away and never use them again. It a problem caused anytime you add metagaming to a campaign.

Quote from: estar;966043Hell I ran into these when my group used Whimsy Cards back in the early 90s. The last session was known as the Whimsy War and afterwards we agreed to put them away and never use them again. It a problem caused anytime you add metagaming to a campaign.

That hasn't been my experience in running games with different levels and styles of metagaming involved. I think in my case its the level of abstraction is too high (or too low as enjoy games like Fiasco and Slasher Flick which are more abstract) for me. But MHRP does model many aspects of the medium well. I suspect Fate does its job but does it in a way I can't seem to get into.