Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: René's defense pool variant

Expand Messages
  • René López
    ... That in this take, a +5 hit gets you a Severe Consequence. You can spend five points to make it go away, or just three and take a Mild. In the original
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 1, 2007
      > I'm not clear what the impact would be of making your MoS dictate the
      > Consequence rather than having the Consequences subtract from the MoS.
      > Is there a difference?
      >

      That in this take, a +5 hit gets you a Severe Consequence. You can
      spend five points to make it go away, or just three and take a Mild.
      In the original take, you go the usual ladder Mild>Medium>Severe
      regardless of the success of the attack.


      > To take the basic idea and run with it a bit, what if you make it a
      > simple points pool? The standard SotC track (1+2+3+4+5) then
      > translates to a 15pt pool of Defense (needs a better name). True, it's
      > not an exact translation, because of the "which box" thing, but we can
      > ignore that for now.
      >

      15 sounds like to much. I would use 10 points, but otherwise this
      sounds fine, but still I feel the length of the pool will dictate the
      pace of combat somehow, so perhaps different pool sizes for different
      games.


      > The usefulness of this idea could be that these points, if given a
      > more general label, could be used for other things, such as Movement,
      > or allowing Manoeuvres, or other options. You could even have to spend
      > a point from it to attack rather than just defend.

      ------------Yes, I like the general idea of this: you could use it to
      set up blocks, to pay for movement and the like. The rest sound like
      the province of stunts, but it sounds good to me

      And some
      > circumstances (like landing a hit on the enemy, or Spin) could give
      > you a point or two back again.
      >

      Yes, this could be a pretty good use of spin, but offensive and
      defensive spin, to refresh the pool during combat or conflict

      > Why do I like this? Because currently, taking Stress has no cost that
      > I can see. When you choose to take Stress rather than a Consequence,
      > there is no trade-off. If you were losing something (in this case,
      > tactical options) by taking Stress, the decision would be more
      > interesting. And that might suit some people/some games better.
      >

      Yes, I can see that. We could call it Physical Reserve, maybe. I don't
      really see the need to have only one type of pool. Maybe you could
      even have more pools, depending on the game.

      For instance, you could have some sort of sanity pool for horror games.
    • Dave Hallett
      ... Sorry, I meant compared to 2/4/6. Other than that your numbers are slightly different, which is obviously a fine-tuning matter. ... Oh sure. I was just
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 1, 2007
        --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, René López <elmago79@...> wrote:

        > That in this take, a +5 hit gets you a Severe Consequence. You can
        > spend five points to make it go away, or just three and take a Mild.
        > In the original take, you go the usual ladder Mild>Medium>Severe
        > regardless of the success of the attack.

        Sorry, I meant compared to 2/4/6. Other than that your numbers are
        slightly different, which is obviously a fine-tuning matter.

        > 15 sounds like to much. I would use 10 points, but otherwise this
        > sounds fine, but still I feel the length of the pool will dictate the
        > pace of combat somehow, so perhaps different pool sizes for different
        > games.

        Oh sure. I was just giving an example of translation. It also depends
        on what else you use points for, and how easy it is to get them back.

        > > The usefulness of this idea could be that these points, if given a
        > > more general label, could be used for other things, such as Movement,
        > > or allowing Manoeuvres, or other options. You could even have to spend
        > > a point from it to attack rather than just defend.
        >
        > ------------Yes, I like the general idea of this: you could use it to
        > set up blocks, to pay for movement and the like. The rest sound like
        > the province of stunts, but it sounds good to me

        You could even have to pay to attack, rather than to defend. It's a
        bit fiddly, but it might suit games where you want people to circle
        and spar looking for an opening, for example.


        > And some
        > > circumstances (like landing a hit on the enemy, or Spin) could give
        > > you a point or two back again.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, this could be a pretty good use of spin, but offensive and
        > defensive spin, to refresh the pool during combat or conflict

        Agreed. The main thing to avoid would be allowing combats to become
        tediously interminable, rather than heading towards a crunch.

        > I don't
        > really see the need to have only one type of pool. Maybe you could
        > even have more pools, depending on the game.
        >
        > For instance, you could have some sort of sanity pool for horror games.

        Well, I was just talking off the top of my head, to be honest. I think
        as you say, it depends on the game. If you want non-physical factors
        such as morale etc. to impact physical performance, a single pool
        could work well. If you want a wider variety of outcomes possible,
        more pools are probably your friend.
      • Dean Baker
        If I may offer a *completely* different hack, based off this idea.... I could see this working well with a modified version of the Fate 2.0 rules, replacing
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 1, 2007
          If I may offer a *completely* different hack, based off this idea.... I could see this working
          well with a modified version of the Fate 2.0 rules, replacing fate points completely.

          Let's call the point pool "energy". Energy can be used to add to your rolls. Gaining extra
          shifts on any roll replenishes your energy, up to a certain capped amount. Gaining shifts
          that would replenish energy beyond the capped amount instead produces "spin".

          Now, to replace fate points: use the old Fate 2.0 aspect levels. The level of each aspect
          determines the maximum amount of energy points you can use on a roll that relates to
          this aspect. As such, a Knight (3) can use a maximum of 3 energy points on any roll that
          relates to him being a knight. Skill rolls that do not relate to any of your aspects can't
          benefit from energy points, except:

          Give each character a bonus aspect called "self-preservation" or something like that. The
          aspect's level always equals half the total number of aspect levels (or some other set
          number). This aspect can only be used for defense rolls, although another aspect may be
          used instead. (Do not allow aspect stacking on the same roll.)

          When aspects are used, don't "tick off" aspect level boxes. Simply pay out the effort points.
          Effort points are regained when you earn shifts on a roll, 1:1 ratio.

          Compelling aspects -- Instead of having compels reward the players with fate points, work
          it like this:
          1. Compels that the player accepts earn that aspect an extra temporary level. The
          temporary level goes away after a set amount of time (perhaps after the scene, or a few
          scenes, or the session). This makes that aspect 1 point more powerful for a short duration,
          at the cost of the consequences of the compel.
          2. Compels that the player rejects make the character temporarily lose an aspect level. The
          temporary level is regained after a set amount of time (the scene, the session, etc). This
          makes the aspect temporarily weaker for a short duration, at the cost of "going against"
          the character's aspect by rejecting the compel.

          Basicly, it's the same thing, with more "fate points" flying around. Use fate points for stress
          too, why not?!

          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Hallett" <thriddle@...> wrote:
          >
          > This is too interesting not to start another topic, IMO.
          >
          >
          > --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, René López <elmago79@> wrote:
          > > > > I thought of another suggestion to your problem: stress as a defense
          > > > > reserve pool. Under these idea, you use stress points to add to your
          > > > > defense for blocking a blow (+1 per stress point), so if you take
          > > > > stress, it means you actually blocked the blow, and you describe
          > it as
          > > > > such. If you don't want to use your defense reserve for blocking or
          > > > > evading the attack, you take a consequence.
          > > > >
          > > > > Mathematically and mechanically, it is just the same thing, but it
          > > > > color the actions differently.
          >
          > > This gave me another idea, to sort of mix the FATE 2 with this
          > > take. Suppose the severity of the consequence you take depends on the
          > > Margin of Success of your attack: 1-2 Mild, 3-4 Medium, 5+ Severe. You
          > > can then lower the consequence you take, up to nothing at all, by
          > > taking stress instead. You could add some extra MoS depending on the
          > > weapon after the attack is succesful. You can also tweak with the
          > > stress and the consequences ranges to go from grit to heroic and set
          > > the conflict's lenght.
          > >
          > > In this take, stress is sheer luck, your ability to stay out of harms
          > > way, quick reflexes and pure stamina (hence the Endurance Bonus)
          > >
          > > I think social combat could easily mirror physical combat here.
          >
          > I'm not clear what the impact would be of making your MoS dictate the
          > Consequence rather than having the Consequences subtract from the MoS.
          > Is there a difference?
          >
          > To take the basic idea and run with it a bit, what if you make it a
          > simple points pool? The standard SotC track (1+2+3+4+5) then
          > translates to a 15pt pool of Defense (needs a better name). True, it's
          > not an exact translation, because of the "which box" thing, but we can
          > ignore that for now.
          >
          > The usefulness of this idea could be that these points, if given a
          > more general label, could be used for other things, such as Movement,
          > or allowing Manoeuvres, or other options. You could even have to spend
          > a point from it to attack rather than just defend. And some
          > circumstances (like landing a hit on the enemy, or Spin) could give
          > you a point or two back again.
          >
          > Why do I like this? Because currently, taking Stress has no cost that
          > I can see. When you choose to take Stress rather than a Consequence,
          > there is no trade-off. If you were losing something (in this case,
          > tactical options) by taking Stress, the decision would be more
          > interesting. And that might suit some people/some games better.
          >
          > I think in this variant it might be good to have a single pool
          > (Energy, or something) that covers both social and physical conflict.
          > High scores in useful skills such as Endurance or Resolve could give
          > pool bonuses. Players could be encouraged to narrate either desperate
          > moves, taking the pain and disregarding it, dumb luck, or anything
          > else that result in them escaping serious consequence without relying
          > on their skill.
          >
          > Thoughts?
          >
        • yasmine_bint_salim
          I think Renge s inspired here. Haqndling stress and consequnces this way opens up some nice ideas. We could even get away with eliminating consequence roll
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 2, 2007
            I think Renge's inspired here.

            Haqndling stress and consequnces this way opens up some nice ideas. We
            could even get away with eliminating "consequence roll up" if we
            wanted to, allowing character to surivive mutiple minor woulds, but
            dropping from one really nasty hit.

            It would handle 2.0's armor rules easily as well.

            I also like how the voulntary nature of the check off adds to the
            tension. A player will get the feeling like his defenses are being
            worn down as he keeps checking off stress boxes.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.