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

Re: [FateRPG] Re: Everyman skills... Long

Expand Messages
  • Mike Holmes
    ... I agree with Ron s assessment. It s hard to explain. I think you definitely want Narrativism. But you don t want to do anything to force it. Which is fine.
    Message 1 of 45 , Sep 1, 2003
      >From: Landon Darkwood <jhudsui@...>

      >and Narrativism seems to be sort of a moving target depending on
      >whom one asks about it; examination of my own priorities in communique
      >with Ron leads him to believe I'm a straight-up Narrativist with no
      >funky techniques, whereas this discussion supports my original analysis
      >of myself as primarily a Simmer who likes to emphasize the impact of

      I agree with Ron's assessment. It's hard to explain. I think you definitely
      want Narrativism. But you don't want to do anything to force it. Which is
      fine. I'm just willing to be a lot more forcefull about getting the sort of
      play I want. I worry that, for instance, one player will ignore all the
      juicy stuff that's available as far as backgroundy sorts of options, and
      that other players will follow. Especially if I were to do it in some strict
      chronological order, which seems to me to emphasize certain sorts of
      development, and de-emphasize background stuff. Bucause background
      attributes are aquired, um, in the background of other development. Either
      previous or concurrent. So I just want the players to feel that the "phases"
      that they buy things in seem plausible. So that they can create this sort of
      data for their characters, and still have the Sim feel as well.

      Any how, in the other post I talked about how decoupling phases from a set
      chronology (but not all chronology) is key to how I see this all being
      implemented in the text. I'm starting to envision a method whereby players
      make timelines that end at the current date. Doing so, I think would give
      players the ability to link up characters if they like. In any case, by
      having the same sort of background info, players can link characters in a
      way that doesn't require chronology, and is potantially much tighter, and
      more mechanical.

      For instance, if we both have the same Family Aspect (brothers), we'll
      probably both have the empowerment that this Aspect gives in the same
      situation. Meaning that we have mechanical incentive to have the characters
      intersect. This "fixes" the problem of needing player complicity or
      co-incidence to bring characters together. If two characters have
      relationships with a village, they're both hookable by threatening the
      village. That sort of thing. Sure this'll happen with PCs in the current
      system (they both learned their sword skills in the village), but there's no
      mechanical reinforcement in many cases. Take it as a Village of Dorn Aspect,
      and there is, take it as Swordsman, and there's not.

      As it stands, Fate is "abashedly" Narrativist (no impedence). I'm just
      trying to ensure that player decisions have thematic meaning.

      >Anyway. Point being, it's really not so bad in HKAT because the actor
      >subsumes the role most of the time.

      Agreed. Extreme vengeance has similarities that way, but can also be
      confusing. The hardest, however, was this game made by Scott Knipe called
      Human Wreckage, a horror game where each player was not only an actor and
      their character, but an associated "Body Count" of NPCs, and a director as
      well. That one was so tortured that it collapsed under the weight of it's
      own design. But I've gotten OT here.

      Was your idea to have Apects for each role, or separate pyramids or


      Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
    • Mike Holmes
      ... Oh, not at all. I ve changed this four ways from Sunday since starting. That is, I have my own version that I m hacking out over time. What I ve only
      Message 45 of 45 , Sep 2, 2003
        >Rob Wrote:
        >This may have been what you've been saying all along, but that just
        >clicked with me, so let me take a swing at it, and see if this is
        >what you're thinking.

        Oh, not at all. I've changed this four ways from Sunday since starting. That
        is, I have my own version that I'm hacking out over time. What I've only
        recently come to is a potential understanding of how to get it into the
        mechanics with the least amount of hassle.

        >So lets keep phases as they stand, but with one key difference, we
        >make them non-sequential.

        Well, no. Or rather I would keep them sequential for purposes of
        development. That is, one would be done after another. The phases would just
        not neccessarily be chronological.

        >Let's say that for character generation, I say there are going to be
        >10 phases. Normally, we'd line them up sequentially, but in this
        >case, I would instead say that I want you to group them by some
        >thematic schema. Soemthing like the 4/3/2/1 is fine, but it could
        >also be entirely player driven, so I could say:

        >snip example<

        Actually, I might still want a little more structure for a sort of balance.
        And I'd leave it the GM's prerogative in the final analysis. But other than
        that, so far it's cool.

        >Now, according to that breakdown, I use the phases as normal. Since
        >things are non sequential, I'm really just building a complete
        >pyramid, rather than balancing it every phase, so life is easier that
        >way. All told, I'm buying 40 skill ranks and 10 aspects. And hell,
        >the GM may give me an additional 10 aspects that equate to my phase
        >distribution (Family [][], Military [][][], Educated [] etc.)

        This isn't at all what I envision. I'm not sure how you'd write this in as
        an option. I still think it should be done sequentially. It's just that the
        rigid chronology shouldn't be always required.

        >And at the end of the day, the two option are not exclusive. The
        >descriptive model simply can be used to account for everything up to
        >the point where the timeline begins. Thus, Phase Zero would no
        >longer be its own beast, but rather a switchover point, from
        >descriptive to narrative - th epoint when the characters story
        >begins. Given that sort of thinking, mechanics like potential seem
        >to work even better.

        That's mor how I see it working. You do a Racial Phase, maybe a childhood
        Phase, maybe a School Phase, maybe an Adolescent Phase, maybe a
        Socilaization Phase. And then you say, OK, that puts the character at 17,
        and ready for his first Chronological Phase (which we'll also do as a
        Geigraphically Hometown Phase).

        Basically, think of it like this. Fill in the following slots for each


        So, here's an example:

        Phase 1
        Type: Racial
        Location: NA
        Chronology: Birth

        Player chooses Elf Aspect

        Phase 2
        Type: Racial
        Location: NA
        Chronology: Birth

        Player chooses High Elf Aspect

        Phase 3
        Type: Childhood
        Location: Palace
        Chronology: Childhood

        Player chooses Father Aspect

        Phase 4
        Type: Court Education
        Location: Sylvarian Capitol
        Chronology: Adolescence

        Player chooses Educated Aspect

        Phase 5
        Type: Social
        Location: Sylvarian Capitol
        Chronology: During Childhood and Adolescence

        Player chooses People of Capitol City Aspect

        Phase 6
        Type: Professional
        Location: Sylvarian Capitol
        Chronology: start age 17 end age 21

        Player chooses Diplomat Aspect

        Phase 7
        Type: Professional
        Location: Dwarven Capitol
        Chronology: start age 22 end age 235

        Player chooses Diplomat Aspect

        Etc, etc.

        The point is to keep all the structure, even adding more, potentially, but
        allowing for all sorts of variations on what can inform the Apsect choice
        for a phase. In the end, it's like the player did it completely freeform,
        but they had to consider all the structural elements each step of the way.
        Even if it's just to ignore them. I mean, this way a player can do a
        amnesiac. He just has to consciously declare that all the structural
        contexts aren't important to the Apsects that they take (and then probably
        take most as Potential to be fleshed out when he regains his memory).

        This is still quite unfinished, but I think there might be something behind
        the idea. In any case, the vision I have is all wrapped up in the "Extras
        are Aspects too" idea. Who knows, maybe I'm just talking smack. ;-)


        Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.