Re: [FateRPG] Re: My first Fate session! :-)
>From: Greg McIntyre <puyo@...>I wanted to comment on all of this. It seems to me that the problem is with
>"Fred Hicks" <iago@...> wrote:
> > The reason they've all been named extras is because they're all the
> > same thing in the end. Most any distinction made past that point
> > would be artificial.
>Yes, but that makes it difficult for the uninitiated
the fragmented ways in which these things have been presented. One of the
cool things about Fate is that it has a Effects First sort of presentation.
That is, there are skills, and Aspects, and everything is defined in these
terms. This is good design. The problem is that, it seems to me, that these
ideas are then taken and broken down further into what seem essentially to
me to be examples of their use, but which are presented as rules.
If instead the rules were explained, as Aspects, Skills, pyramids, etc, and
then the players and GMs were allowed to determine how to use these things
to represent anything they wanted to add to the character, that would be
more effective. Then everything else would become just examples instead of
rules. So, instead of having something about minions, allies, and contacts,
or shared or personal or whatever, the player would just look at the NPC in
question and decide on how to apply the rules to the choice in question.
Then what you'd want to have is examples of many possible uses. You'd have
skills bought to represent contacts. You'd have Aspects bought as enemies.
Etc. Do enough samples, and players and GMs will get the idea of how to
simulate anything themselves, and not have to check in th book to see if
they're doing it "right". It's more important that they understand the
principles involved in creating an ability than having rules for how to do
any particular incarnation correctly.
Does that make any sense? Basically, you have the powers rules, like in Hero
System, but then you're telling us the "right" way to make our abilities,
instead of letting us select our own way. Again, see Hero Quest for how to
take one "power" and make it do anything. You have an advantage over that
system in that you have two ways of representing things (which may end up
making it a better system in the end).
I do agree that it's hard to get everything into phases of creation with
only one Aspect per phase. So what I think would be cool is discussion of
alternate pyramids, and other structures for generateing Aspects than
Phases. So, to answer Landon about what I think would make sense with these
rules I'm developing for my personal ideas for play, I'd say that simply
having other sorts of phases available rather than chronological ones would
cover it well. That is, don't incorproate what I have directly, but discuss
other ways to use the basica rules to get the effect you want. More options
on how to use the current rules, more examples, but no new rules themselves.
So, I don't like how the "structured" creation rules are presented. They
seem to be optional additions on top of the standard format. What I'd like
to see is all of "phase" criteria selection by the GM, including time, be
considerations. So, for a phase, you'd indicate if it was "timed" (for
example, Racial phases would not take time per se, but probably ought to be
done first), and then what other restrictions, professional, locational,
whatever, apply to each phase. Then follow up with a couple of examples.
Anyhow, this all keeps with the game's modular design concept, and would be
very cool, IMO. If anyone else sees what I'm saying, a restatement of the
idea would be cool to reinforce it for others (or to bring up conceptual
differences in explanations).
>I told him that this enemy would become a significantIt seems to me that an important thing to remember to add in the description
>character in the story and that he would be tied most strongly to him,
>and since he was an enemy Aspect, he'd get FPs from encounters with this
>enemy. Does that sound right?
would be what the effects of Involuntary Invokation are. That is, in the
case of an enemy if the enemy is trying to escape, and the player wants his
character to pursue, the GM can invoke the Aspect to allow the enemy to get
away without a roll (and the player gets a reward). That's really, really
cool. No more cheap GM tricks to get the enemy to escape, just the
mechanics. This can be extended a lot, too. If the GM doesn't want the
player to learn some secret, invoke the Aspect, representing the enemy's
influence. OTOH, in circumstances surrounding these events the PC will be
able to check off the enemy box to be more effective, including when the
climactic moment finally does come. That's just awesome.
>Also, is it wise to let the player have a say in how these Aspects areI think it's very cool if the player wants a hand in it. For example, if the
>spent? I asked him what he had in mind so I had a few clues and he
>shrugged his shoulders at me so I suppose I'm free to do what I want but
>I was just winging it and hoping I was doing the right thing...
character is a great swordsman, he can create the enemy as a rival in that
area. Very dramatic. I can see them engaging in repeated inconclusive
encounters, escallating the rivalry over time. In any case, the more the
player invests his thoughts in what the enemy is like, the more ownership
he'll have, and the more dramatic the encounters.
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
- On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Greg McIntyre wrote:
> Okay, I'll ask for some advice on a few things.Sorry about the three-week delay. I plead roadtrip and
cross country move, your honor. It's too bad other people
didn't offer commentary to this (not as far as I saw, at
least), so I flagged your message as a "respond to this
when you can" -- and, well, I can, finally.
> It seemed to my player who invested an Aspect and 4 SkillHe'd certainly be a candidate for getting an FP from that
> Ranks in an enemy to give himself a powerful and
> interesting arch-rival, that he was spending an awful lot
> on it. He wanted to know what effect those skill ranks
> would have. I told him that this enemy would become a
> significant character in the story and that he would be
> tied most strongly to him, and since he was an enemy
> Aspect, he'd get FPs from encounters with this enemy. Does
> that sound right?
aspect whenever the enemy showed up to complicate his
plans, make his life more difficult, or otherwise restrict
or impede him in some nefarious fashion. So, sounds right.
Plus, that aspect can be viewed as a "knows thy enemy"
sort of thing, allowing him a reroll when fighting him.
It's an aspect after all -- so it can cut both ways.
> How should I handle building this character? 1 Skill RankI'd look at this enemy as a Shared Extra. Meaning, 4
> translates to 1 Aspect for his enemy so I have a 4-Aspect
> enemy who will be fairly prominent. At some point the
> rules suggest that skill ranks could be weaknesses for an
> enemy but I think that sounds misleading. Good aspects are
> positive and negative (so strengths _and_ weaknesses). So
> when asked what they'd do I said they might be weaknesses
> but that I'd think about it (in other words I was a bit
> muddled on the topic).
> Also, is it wise to let the player have a say in how these
> Aspects are spent? I asked him what he had in mind so I
> had a few clues and he shrugged his shoulders at me so I
> suppose I'm free to do what I want but I was just winging
> it and hoping I was doing the right thing...
aspects are the minimum for the guy -- and the GM can add
more. Those four aspects that the player has _paid_ for,
to me, means they're aspecst that the player should either
determine, or at least get to know about. More of the
'know thy enemy' thing. If your player selects uniformly
"negative" aspects (Weak-Willed, Crippled, whatever), then
there's a big excuse for you to have the villain show up
to every encounter with a nice big handful of fate points. :)
> Another thing I'm not sure about is when negative skillsI may have to look to Rob to comment on this one, as I
> can come into play. It seems from the rules that they
> never do, however this seems like a neat way to represent
> those times when a character is just _bad_ at something.
> The problem is that because the skills are open-ended,
> normally it's the players who say "I want to use _this_
> skill!" but if it was negative, the onus would be on the
> GM to spot them and apply a negative modifier.
don't recall us having much discussion about negative
_skills_ -- just negative aspects.
> But I think the Fate GM should only have to worry aboutIs it possible the writeup meant to say 'skill levels the
> negative Aspects not negative skills (for simplicity). So
> in other words, I don't think negative skills'd work. But
> they're never mentioned in the rules. I think a note that
> negative skill levels are not allowed/recommended would be
> worthwhile (this was something a player asked me and I was
> a bit stumped but I've cleared it up now -- we changed an
> Aspect slightly to make its negative side clearer).
PC spends to buy aspects for the enemy could be used to
define negative aspects (thus weaknesses for that enemy)'
> Ah... what else? "Extras" isn't in the index at the back.Rob! Take note!
Fred Hicks <iago AT iago DOT net>
"Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Fate RPG - http://www.evilhat.com/fate/
Check out my famous friend - http://www.jim-butcher.com/
- From: "Iago" <iago@...>
> Sorry about the three-week delay. I plead roadtrip andI'll apologise for this list - I can't remember seeing the original post.
> cross country move, your honor. It's too bad other people
> didn't offer commentary to this
> > It seemed to my player who invested an Aspect and 4 SkillOne suggestion that has come up on this list is that skill points spent on
> > Ranks in an enemy to give himself a powerful and
> > interesting arch-rival, that he was spending an awful lot
> > on it.
an enemy are things the player gets to define about the enemy, and which his
player knows about and can take advantage of. So, for example, a player
could spend 4 skill points to give an enemy
* Aspect: Gentleman's Code - always fights fair, never breaks word
* Aspect: Hate Frenchmen (which the player might be able to find ways to use
to his advantage)
* Aspect: Fear Snakes
* Aspect: Loves [PC's] Sister (who the villain knows would be a little upset
if her kid brother was offed by the villain, leading to less-lethal combats
or subterfuge in which the villain tries to hide his part in the offing of
The GM naturally can veto any choices, but the player has an opportunity to
build in weaknesses so that he can predict certain behaviours on the part of
The enemy would have as many aspects as needed to fill the role he is
supposed to fill - the GM gets to choose the others, though the player may
know a few of them too and be able to take advantage of them. But the GM
chooses them so he can't count on this.
> > Another thing I'm not sure about is when negative skillsNegative skills? I missed them - what are they?
> > can come into play.