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

Re: Advantage-based combat: FATE combat variant

Expand Messages
  • Joshua OKelley
    ... hits ... Advantage, so ... Fate ... gaining and ... Here s where you made your mistake. I may have muddled this by mentioning Full Defense, so I m going
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Reyes" <isantao@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Joshua,
      >
      >
      >
      > Okay, so the attack pattern looks like this: (For Example: Jet Black vs.
      > Rocket Red)
      >
      > (Assuming Rocket Red has initiative and the Advantage)
      >
      >
      >
      > Exchange 1: Rocket Red has Advantage (as a result of a maneuver) and
      hits
      > Jet Black.
      >
      > Exchange 2: Jet Black can't attack, and Rocket Red still has
      Advantage, so
      > Jet Black does a Full Defenese action.
      >
      > On Jet Black's Full Defense action, spending
      Fate
      > points, the player rolled extremely well and generated spin. Rocket Red
      > misses and loses the advantage.
      >
      > Exchange 3: Jet Black attacks, with spin and hits Rocket Red,
      gaining and
      > keeping Advantage.
      >
      > Exchange 4: Rocket Red can't attack, so she decides to pull a tricky
      > Maneuver

      Here's where you made your mistake. I may have muddled this by
      mentioning Full Defense, so I'm going to take the time to clarify what
      I meant.

      Full Defense is a unique maneuver in FATE, because you are allowed to
      use it any time before your turn before you act. This is in the RAW
      already, and I have not changed this. If you are hit under the
      Advantage system, you have effectively lost your turn, or looking at
      it in another way, you have spent your turn being hurt. Since you
      have now not attacked since your last turn, I view it as a reset, of
      sorts, allowing you to sacrifice any existing advantage (moving to the
      back of the line), to declare a Full Defense action.

      What this means is that the ONLY action legal to perform when you
      don't have Advantage is Full Defense. Rocket Red could not have
      performed a Maneuver because under the logic of the Advantage system,
      she's still reeling from her injury, and Jet's moving in for the "two"
      in "one-two". If she was to invoke an Aspect to try and escape Jet's
      combination, it would have to be pre-existing, like a scene aspect or
      the one that she placed on Jet earlier in the fight (if it hadn't
      vanished by now).

      In all honesty, when I was talking about maneuvers and aspects being
      used in combinations in this system, I was specifically envisioning
      scene aspects in particular. Invoke "Stone Columns" to aid an attack
      to do something like kick off of the pillar to lunge at a foe, or
      "Narrow Spaces" to pin a foe's weapon against a wall on defense, etc.
      It just matches the flavor I was looking for (fighting games and
      martial arts movies. :D)

      You had everything else right though. However, I'd like to take the
      time now to mention that Maneuvers are kind of a tricky subject for
      this system. On one hand, a sweep kick maneuver that puts a "Down"
      aspect makes perfect sense to give advantage. On the other hand, an
      aim maneuver that puts the "In My Sights" aspect on a character makes
      NO sense for advantage... I'm not sure how to deal with this,
      honestly. I'm still thinking about it.

      Finally, I like the idea of using Overflow as a pass-it-on trait. It
      makes me think of knocking an enemy into an ally who proceeds to use
      that enemy's momentum to launch a crazy attack against random others,
      possibly involving swinging or throwing the same enemy into his
      buddies. Of course, such a system could easily lead to a runaway
      train of ridiculous power that could easily clear a room of even
      formidable enemies, once it got going.

      I'd call it the Massacre or Rampage System. :D
    • Joshua OKelley
      ... What exactly is this Focus system, sir? I would dearly love to pillage it for ideas. :D
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > What you suggest reminds me somwhat of "Focus" in the Sanguin Usagi
        > Yojimbo RPG, a mechanic that was as simple as it was awesome. I found
        > eventually the dice mechanics of UY let down the idea, but the
        > conceptwas great, we had fun with it. I have to try it out with FATE.

        What exactly is this Focus system, sir? I would dearly love to
        pillage it for ideas. :D
      • Joshua OKelley
        ... in detail, and added to the Wiki, please. ... I m glad you like it so much. I have another variant in the works for doing a stressless injury system,
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Aidan Grey <taalenmaple@...> wrote:
          >
          > This is freekin' FULL of Teh Awsome. I want to see this written up
          in detail, and added to the Wiki, please.
          >

          I'm glad you like it so much. I have another variant in the works for
          doing a stressless injury system, which is to say, Consequence based.
          It has a little more work to go, mainly in respect to injury
          thresholds (I'm not sure how many Consequences are a good amount, and
          I have another quibble with an additional nuance I've added. TOP
          SEKRIT!) but I should update it in a week or few.

          As for adding it to the wiki, I'd love to... Except I don't know
          where on the wiki it would go. Eh-heheh... Can anyone help me out
          with that?

          > Then will I bow at your feet as the Master of FateFu, Guru of the
          Ladder, Master of Maneuvers.

          I'll hold you to that, btw. >D
        • Joshua OKelley
          ... And now I think I know what to do with it. It s surprisingly simple, as most good solutions are. Any time you put an Aspect on a target that is obvious,
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            > However, I'd like to take the
            > time now to mention that Maneuvers are kind of a tricky subject for
            > this system. On one hand, a sweep kick maneuver that puts a "Down"
            > aspect makes perfect sense to give advantage. On the other hand, an
            > aim maneuver that puts the "In My Sights" aspect on a character makes
            > NO sense for advantage... I'm not sure how to deal with this,
            > honestly. I'm still thinking about it.

            And now I think I know what to do with it. It's surprisingly simple,
            as most good solutions are. Any time you put an Aspect on a target
            that is obvious, they lose Advantage. i.e. "Down", "Distracted",
            "Startled", etc. Any time you place an Aspect on someone that ISN'T
            obvious, their Advantage isn't affected. i.e. "In My Sights",
            "Bugged", "A 'Kick Me' sign on their back", etc.

            Another way of looking at this is to decide if an Aspect is mandating
            a position or attitude change, or if the Aspect is simply providing an
            advantage. If it mandates a change, then it takes their Advantage.
            If it does not, then it does not. The loss of Advantage is supposed
            to represent reeling from a blow, or being otherwise occupied as a
            result of someone's action, and if you wouldn't flinch or fall or be
            hurt, you wouldn't lose a thing.

            I think it stands up rather well.
          • stabbysideways
            ... for ... based. ... and ... FWIW, I run consequence-only games, without stress, and it works pretty beautifully. Taking stress is boring; taking
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 7, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua OKelley" <heropenguin@...>
              wrote:
              > I'm glad you like it so much. I have another variant in the works
              for
              > doing a stressless injury system, which is to say, Consequence
              based.
              > It has a little more work to go, mainly in respect to injury
              > thresholds (I'm not sure how many Consequences are a good amount,
              and
              > I have another quibble with an additional nuance I've added. TOP
              > SEKRIT!) but I should update it in a week or few.

              FWIW, I run consequence-only games, without stress, and it works
              pretty beautifully. Taking stress is boring; taking consequences are
              interesting. I can't say it's made my games deathtraps, either --
              people take consequences more frequently (obviously), but it's hardly
              a one-shot-kills kinda thing.

              IMO, the standard array of consequences (Minor/Moderate/Severe) is
              fine. I have a few things that let characters take an additional
              consequence or reduce a Moderate to a Minor, but I haven't found only
              having three to be a problem.

              And I highly, highly recommend it.

              --Mike
            • Matthijs Krijger
              Has this already been put on the Wiki? fg, Thijs ... -- with friendly greetings Thijs Krijger The sky is the limit, the lower limit
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Has this already been put on the Wiki?

                fg,
                Thijs

                On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Joshua OKelley <heropenguin@...> wrote:
                >> However, I'd like to take the
                >> time now to mention that Maneuvers are kind of a tricky subject for
                >> this system. On one hand, a sweep kick maneuver that puts a "Down"
                >> aspect makes perfect sense to give advantage. On the other hand, an
                >> aim maneuver that puts the "In My Sights" aspect on a character makes
                >> NO sense for advantage... I'm not sure how to deal with this,
                >> honestly. I'm still thinking about it.
                >
                > And now I think I know what to do with it. It's surprisingly simple,
                > as most good solutions are. Any time you put an Aspect on a target
                > that is obvious, they lose Advantage. i.e. "Down", "Distracted",
                > "Startled", etc. Any time you place an Aspect on someone that ISN'T
                > obvious, their Advantage isn't affected. i.e. "In My Sights",
                > "Bugged", "A 'Kick Me' sign on their back", etc.
                >
                > Another way of looking at this is to decide if an Aspect is mandating
                > a position or attitude change, or if the Aspect is simply providing an
                > advantage. If it mandates a change, then it takes their Advantage.
                > If it does not, then it does not. The loss of Advantage is supposed
                > to represent reeling from a blow, or being otherwise occupied as a
                > result of someone's action, and if you wouldn't flinch or fall or be
                > hurt, you wouldn't lose a thing.
                >
                > I think it stands up rather well.
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > | Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
                > | SOTC * http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit
                > | DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >



                --
                with friendly greetings

                Thijs Krijger
                "The sky is the limit, the lower limit"
              • Joshua OKelley
                A update: This option has been added to the Fate Wiki, in a much more concise way. If nyone still has trouble understanding it in the form there, please let
                Message 7 of 17 , Nov 12, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  A update: This option has been added to the Fate Wiki, in a much more
                  concise way. If nyone still has trouble understanding it in the form
                  there, please let me know so I can tweak it.

                  Link is here: http://evilhat.wikidot.com/initiative

                  --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua OKelley" <heropenguin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Just now I read on Rob's blog some thoughts on adapting some
                  > principles of fighting games to RPGs. Seeing him ponder such a thing
                  > has given me enough justification to share my own thoughts that I've
                  > been bouncing around for some time with everyone here. Blame him, not
                  > me for this extremely long post. ;)
                  >
                  > Fighting games normally use hit stun to allow for momentum and
                  > combinations, which is the primary vehicle for tension in fighting
                  > games. Someone who can gain and hold the advantage wins. There's
                  > more complexity to the true fighting game than this, but this is the
                  > most basic and easiest principle to adapt.
                  >
                  > The idea is simple: If you attack, you sacrifice your advantage. If
                  > you are hit, your advantage is stolen. Whoever has the advantage has
                  > a chance of landing a blow. What this winds up doing in the mechanics
                  > is creating something that looks very much like a traditional
                  > initiative system without being locked into a laundry list.
                  >
                  > It's a relatively small change, but it has a number of consequences to
                  > the mechanics of combat that I think it could lead to nicely dynamic
                  > fights when you consider that things like positional Aspects, Full
                  > Defense actions, and Maneuvers could all lead to a constantly changing
                  > equation for determining who is likely to KEEP the Advantage. The
                  > nice point about this is that a character with a significantly higher
                  > skill can very easily and painlessly model fighting game-style combos,
                  > taking advantage of successive attacks at Advantage to pummel the
                  > opponent without them being able to counter.
                  >
                  > However, the problem with that last part is that it can lead to
                  > one-sided fights with one character seizing the advantage and ripping
                  > the opponent apart without giving the victim a say in the matter.
                  > That's where Fate makes such a nice fit to the system, with its Fate
                  > Points being the ideal vehicle for stomping on the face of such
                  > anti-climactic duels. Combined with the concept of fragile Aspects,
                  > and any combo that abuses them eventually destroying the Aspect,
                  > removing that particular source of bonuses, and any combo that takes
                  > advantage of Invocations (as any evenly-leveled conflict must) giving
                  > Fate Points directly to the victim, and the battle suddenly contains
                  > elements of give and take that traditional conflicts in a more stable
                  > initiative based system lack.
                  >
                  > All this is focussed on one on one duels. Things get interesting when
                  > you apply this system to a multi-man brawl. Since the Advantage
                  > system is based on giving up the advantage whenever you attack, any
                  > characters NOT targeted by an attack will have the advantage over
                  > those that attacked, allowing for interesting dogpile situations, that
                  > while nice for when the PCs outnumber the enemy, can potentially be
                  > treacherous when the PCs are instead outnumbered.
                  >
                  > Once again, Fate comes to the rescue, this time with that marvelous
                  > little detail of Spin, added together with the ability to take a Full
                  > Defense at any time in exchange for your next action. Spin allows you
                  > to add +1 to the next roll, which in a dogpile situation, will
                  > undoubtedly be your next defense action. If you find your defense
                  > inadequate, you can sacrifice any advantage you have accumulated
                  > (moving yourself back to the bottom of the advantage stack, as if you
                  > had just attacked) to give yourself +2 to all your defenses until the
                  > next time your advantage comes up, which is only one shy of a spin
                  > generating defense (depending on the opponent's skill). With Spin
                  > allowing a hero to do quite dramatic momentum based defenses against
                  > multiple opponents culminating in a powerful blow the next time his
                  > advantage comes up, and the Full Defense option allowing a hero to be
                  > almost certain that he WILL have that advantage, the dogpile issue
                  > almost completely disappears, unless the PC is purposefully
                  > outnumbered by opponents of a superior skill which should never happen
                  > unless they are specifically SUPPOSED to lose, which should almost
                  > never happen anyway.
                  >
                  > The main bug I've run into with this system so far MIGHT be how it
                  > would apply to non-physical conflicts, but I'm not altogether
                  > convinced that it's a real problem. The other potentially hiccup
                  > comes from the simple fact that it's more complicated than a simple
                  > initiative system (though not overly difficult to manage with the
                  > simple use of flash cards shuffling behind each other). However, I
                  > think that the added tension afforded by a multi-man brawl, as well as
                  > its suggesting of an invocation-rich combat environment when the chips
                  > are down would be worth the marginal complexity.
                  >
                  > However, there's another aspect to fighting games that I specifically
                  > avoided. Many games use a kind of Rock Paper Scissors system to
                  > introduce mind games and decisions of high/mid/low level attacks,
                  > horizontal vs vertical, strike vs guard vs throw, and other such
                  > details. The reason I decided against an RPS system for this system
                  > (though it could probably be added on top of this system with minimal
                  > difficulty, I think) was because I find the RPS aspect to be a little
                  > too high resolution, especially for Fate. I feel that the style of
                  > attack is mostly a vehicle of description and suggests the type of
                  > Consequence that would result from the attack if the defense fails.
                  > Also, it allows defense rolls to be unpenalized by poor player
                  > guesses, and allowing a failed defense to give you descriptions
                  > involving a bad guess, unlike a Rock Paper Scissors system, where a
                  > failed defense will have already been defined as a specific type of
                  > reaction.
                  >
                  > If anyone has any additions or comments to this concept, I'd love to
                  > hear it. Especially if they're unforeseen consequences to such a
                  > change to a traditional initiative system.
                  >
                  > I should note that the default assumption here is that basic
                  > initiative (which is really just who starts with the advantage) is
                  > determined by Alertness.
                  >
                • bachelornewtling
                  ... found ... FATE. ... Sorry it s taken 2 months to get back on this one, took me while to find UYRPG, as I ve re-arranged my study [I also leant the damned
                  Message 8 of 17 , Nov 12, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua OKelley" <heropenguin@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > > What you suggest reminds me somwhat of "Focus" in the Sanguin Usagi
                    > > Yojimbo RPG, a mechanic that was as simple as it was awesome. I
                    found
                    > > eventually the dice mechanics of UY let down the idea, but the
                    > > conceptwas great, we had fun with it. I have to try it out with
                    FATE.
                    >
                    > What exactly is this Focus system, sir? I would dearly love to
                    > pillage it for ideas. :D

                    Sorry it's taken 2 months to get back on this one, took me while to
                    find UYRPG, as I've re-arranged my study [I also leant the damned book
                    out I discovered], then I forgot why I was looking for it.

                    Sanguines UYRPG's focus system comes down to this.

                    Initiative determines if you have focus or not, PC's always act before
                    the GM, focus is the vital part of initiative. Focus lasts only one
                    turn, and takes and action to recover. Focus is essentially a floating
                    Fate point.

                    Focus can be spent to interupt the sequence of action, to leap the
                    intitiative order & act out of sequence. Interupts can be interupted
                    too. I can be spent to power certain gifts [stunts] that might help you
                    avoid damage, act while wounded, switch to a special tactic or perform
                    a more powerful attack.

                    Another interesting part of UUYPRG is the counterattack. Each round
                    each Character can counterattack once, or just parry once instead, and
                    dodge all you like. Combat is quite fast and deadly when your opponent
                    can deal out damage on your turn as well.

                    The Counterattack and Focus systems together make UYRPG a damned
                    dynamic little combat system. I highly recommend bying it as a read for
                    a game designer, or as a generic Samurai game [we ran a couple 1-off's
                    using this system]. I feel the dice mechanics are the weakest part of
                    UYRPG, but I haven't played enough to really comment or the long term
                    feel for it. I've been thinking of how to use another dice mechanic,
                    like L5R or FATE to suit me. I hsould stick to theirs for 6 sessions
                    first before I make changes though.

                    Bach
                  • Chuck Cooley
                    The wiki write-up is extremely clear. I think you need to explain how the guy who starts the conflict without the Advantage can work to reclaim it, using Full
                    Message 9 of 17 , Nov 12, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The wiki write-up is extremely clear. I think you need to explain how
                      the guy who starts the conflict without the Advantage can work to
                      reclaim it, using Full Defense or whatever.
                    • Joshua OKelley
                      ... Oh snap, you re right, I forgot all about Full Defense in the write-up. I ll fix that right now, thanks for the reminder.
                      Message 10 of 17 , Nov 13, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Cooley" <zpambox_cooley@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > The wiki write-up is extremely clear. I think you need to explain how
                        > the guy who starts the conflict without the Advantage can work to
                        > reclaim it, using Full Defense or whatever.
                        >

                        Oh snap, you're right, I forgot all about Full Defense in the
                        write-up. I'll fix that right now, thanks for the reminder.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.