Re: SotC and FATE 3.0
- --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "soldier.unknown"
>I hear you, but my take on this is that FATE is very modular, and
> From what I've looked through and seen, SotC removes what I liked
> about FATE, and adds a serious degree of complication that makes me
> think...where the hell did the FUDGE like simplicity go?
> Anyone else get this feeling/impression and or not like SotC? I'm
> considering printing the 2.0fe rules and having them bound so I will
> always have a copy.
> Maybe I just like them TOO much.
generally easy to simplify to your taste. So I'm wondering how you're
Don't like Stunts? Ditch 'em!
Find Spin and Overflow too fiddly? Forget 'em!
Don't like character creation tied to phases and all this novel-based
stuff? Well just pick a pyramid of skills and ten (or fewer) Aspects.
You can always leave some blank and add them during play.
You can houserule who narrates what, and whether Declarations are
allowed to suit tastes.
That leaves...what? The basic FUDGE skill ranks and rolls. Which you
like. Plus an Aspect system, which is pretty simple at base. Spend a
FP to get a +2, get a FP when you take a -2. Say which Aspect is being
The rest is stress tracks (simple enough) and...what? I can't think of
anything else. Zones, I suppose. You could do without them if they
seemed too much.
Anything else bothering you? :-)
- Rob, can we put that on the wiki, instead?
DavidOn 10/4/07, Bill Burdick <bill.burdick@...> wrote:
May I recommend Rob's stuntless rules in the Files area of this group?
--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Baker" <deanjbaker2@...> wrote:
> --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "soldier.unknown" <soldier.unknown@>
> > From what I've looked through and seen, SotC removes what I liked
> > about FATE, and adds a serious degree of complication that makes me
> > think...where the hell did the FUDGE like simplicity go?
> > Anyone else get this feeling/impression and or not like SotC? I'm
> > considering printing the 2.0fe rules and having them bound so I will
> > always have a copy.
> I'm torn, actually. I really, really love SotC for what it is: a
pulp fiction game. It excels at
> what it does. However, when I compare it to FATE, I still like FATE
2 better. The simplicity
> of FATE 2 is what gets me. I like simplicity.
> However, many things are made simpler in SotC too. Aspect levels are
history. The skill
> pyramid is balanced for you. The combat system works well with the
stress tracker and
> consequences, even better if you use the "faster combat" optional
rules. I like zones, like
> 'em a lot.
> Stuff like environmental aspects, tagging, and aspect-related
skills...while they do add a
> degree of complication to the game, they really, really strengthen
the game. They bring it
> all back to aspects. It's the fractal thing. It's all about the aspects.
> I don't like the stunts. They're cool, but they add a level of
complexity to the game that I'd
> rather avoid. So, I don't use 'em. I also don't like using a combat
system without weapon
> When I made my own FATE game, I based it largely on SotC, then
modified it to suit my
> needs. I brought back weapon modifiers from Fate 2. I eliminated
stunts. I changed aspect
> bonuses to the +1 of Fate 2 days, then gave the aspects extra uses.
I simplified overflow
> and spin. I added a "luck roll" to allow for (un)reasonable
cooincidences. And many other
> things. The end result? A game that suits my needs for the non-pulp
game I am running.
> And it suits my needs quite well.
> So, yes, I do like SotC. It does not fit most other genres, but it
is an extremely adaptable
> system that takes well to serious hacking. Nothing wrong with that. ^^