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

Re: Good at Everything

Expand Messages
  • huntybunz
    F# addresses situations like this: http://studiohunty.com/f-sharp/ In a nutshell I would recommend that you treat it either as THINKS he s good at everything
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      F# addresses situations like this:

      http://studiohunty.com/f-sharp/

      In a nutshell I would recommend that you treat it either as "THINKS he's good at everything" or "good at everything, but especially good at bad things" or "so diversified that he's frequently overwhelmed by how many possible ways he could solve a problem". These interpretations all create a lot of good fun and dramatic potential. If the player is hesitant to go along with one of those interpretations, remind him that this is a storytelling game, not a points-based game, so a character plagued by neurosis and past secrets is actually worlds better than a "perfect" character.

      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "rian1990" <rian90@...> wrote:
      >
      > I held a character creation session last week at our Guild for an upcoming SotC mini-campaign. I have 6 very enthusiastic players, some who have played my SotC games before, some who have never played SotC.
      >
      > The players took home their sheets and I allowed them to look them over and make minor changes. A day later (very enthusiastic) one of the players sent me his character sheet via email..with a few changes. One of the changes he made was to change one of his aspects to "Good at Everything". By the way, he purchased the pdf copy of the book and I am guessing spent hours reading to find a way to make the 'best' character. This seems to be a problem with some players.
      >
      > Anyway, this is the sort of fellow who likes to debate so I am tempted to allow the aspect but am trying to thing of some way to limit it. Since it is an aspect, I am considering limiting it to once per scene. Another idea might be to use it more as a luck sort of aspect..He is not necessarily Good at the skill based on the pyramid but he is lucky enough to sometimes pull off doing something better than he normally might. Another idea might be to just allow him some extra dice during a roll using this aspect. Obviously, I don't want him to be 'Good' at every skill but I want a way to allow him to use the aspect.
      >
      > As for compelling him, I figured I could use this to compel him to walk into a situation that might be too dangerous or too difficult for him, even if he rolls the skill as Good.
      >
      > Does anyone have any ideas that might help in this situation? Thanks.
      >
    • Brad Murray
      ... This is my position too, and the rationale is simple: his skill pyramid declares unambiguously what exactly he is good at and how good. Consequently the
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:09 AM, huntybunz<huntybunz@...> wrote:
        > In a nutshell I would recommend that you treat it either as "THINKS he's
        > good at everything" or "good at everything, but especially good at bad
        > things" or "so diversified that he's frequently overwhelmed by how many
        > possible ways he could solve a problem".

        This is my position too, and the rationale is simple: his skill
        pyramid declares unambiguously what exactly he is good at and how
        good. Consequently the Aspect cannot reasonably be interpreted
        literally. Perhaps it's essential when teaching the game to emphasize
        that no part of the character sheet has any more impact on play than
        its mechanical component: skills are the basis of resolution checks.
        Aspects are potential sources of bonus or re-roll. An interpretation
        that gives one more or less weight than this would be a mistake
        because it won't survive contact with the rules in play.

        --
        Brad Murray (halfjack)

        Expletive deleted.
      • Jetan
        And should a gm interpret American Hero as Thinks he s the american hero but really isn t ? As someone said earlier in the thread, it s his character;
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          And should a gm interpret "American Hero" as "Thinks he's the american hero but really isn't"?  As someone said earlier in the thread,  it's his character; misrepresenting it seems inappropriate. The game mechanics will keep it in bound.

          All the recommendations from disallow it as boring, ask how he thinks it might be compelled, ask what he thinks his character would do if he fails a roll when he's supposed to be good at it, *occasional* compels like "but you are good at everything", etc. all seems reasonable.  But deliberately misconstruing an aspect seems like the wrong thing.

          On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:
          On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:09 AM, huntybunz<huntybunz@...> wrote:
          > In a nutshell I would recommend that you treat it either as "THINKS he's
          > good at everything" or "good at everything, but especially good at bad
          > things" or "so diversified that he's frequently overwhelmed by how many
          > possible ways he could solve a problem".

          This is my position too, and the rationale is simple: his skill
          pyramid declares unambiguously what exactly he is good at and how
          good. Consequently the Aspect cannot reasonably be interpreted
          literally. Perhaps it's essential when teaching the game to emphasize
          that no part of the character sheet has any more impact on play than
          its mechanical component: skills are the basis of resolution checks.
          Aspects are potential sources of bonus or re-roll. An interpretation
          that gives one more or less weight than this would be a mistake
          because it won't survive contact with the rules in play.

        • Brad Murray
          ... American Hero is not otherwise represented mechanically. -- Brad Murray (halfjack) Expletive deleted.
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jetan<dtribble@...> wrote:
            > And should a gm interpret "American Hero" as "Thinks he's the american hero
            > but really isn't"?

            "American Hero" is not otherwise represented mechanically.

            --
            Brad Murray (halfjack)

            Expletive deleted.
          • Jetan
            Hi Brad! I ll admit I m responding on this thread because my SotC players moved away :D. I interpreted Good at everything to be the generic adjective
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Brad!   I'll admit I'm responding on this thread because my SotC players moved away :D.

              I interpreted "Good at everything" to be the generic adjective rather than mechanically significant. If the player thinks otherwise, that just a misunderstanding of the rules and needs to be clarified. If the problem is that simple overlap of a perfectly good English word, then clarify it or fix it by changing the aspect to an equivalent (e.g., "Competent/decent/superior/etc. at everything").  That's still boring, but you really have to play the game to let go of the power-gamer misconceptions :).  Having a language overlap between aspects and mechanics really isn't a problem as long as people are not confused by it.  Similarly, the aspect "Faster than a Leopard" does not automatically convey the stunt, "Faster than a Leopard".

              None of this requires GM misinterpretation or punishment, and the mechanics should handle any attempt at powergaming abuse just fine.

              On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:
              On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jetan<dtribble@...> wrote:
              > And should a gm interpret "American Hero" as "Thinks he's the american hero
              > but really isn't"?

              "American Hero" is not otherwise represented mechanically.

            • Jetan
              BTW Rian: I d be interested to hear how you player interaction about this ended up, how the games worked out, etc.
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                BTW Rian: I'd be interested to hear how you player interaction about this ended up, how the games worked out, etc.

                On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jetan <jetan888@...> wrote:
                Hi Brad!   I'll admit I'm responding on this thread because my SotC players moved away :D.

                I interpreted "Good at everything" to be the generic adjective rather than mechanically significant. If the player thinks otherwise, that just a misunderstanding of the rules and needs to be clarified. If the problem is that simple overlap of a perfectly good English word, then clarify it or fix it by changing the aspect to an equivalent (e.g., "Competent/decent/superior/etc. at everything").  That's still boring, but you really have to play the game to let go of the power-gamer misconceptions :).  Having a language overlap between aspects and mechanics really isn't a problem as long as people are not confused by it.  Similarly, the aspect "Faster than a Leopard" does not automatically convey the stunt, "Faster than a Leopard".

                None of this requires GM misinterpretation or punishment, and the mechanics should handle any attempt at powergaming abuse just fine.


                On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:
                On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jetan<dtribble@...> wrote:
                > And should a gm interpret "American Hero" as "Thinks he's the american hero
                > but really isn't"?

                "American Hero" is not otherwise represented mechanically.


              • huntybunz
                ... If your game is set in an insane asylum in the distant future on the other side of the universe where none of the characters have ever visited Earth let
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Jetan <dtribble@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > And should a gm interpret "American Hero" as "Thinks he's the american hero
                  > but really isn't"? As someone said earlier in the thread, it's his
                  > character; misrepresenting it seems inappropriate. The game mechanics will
                  > keep it in bound.

                  If your game is set in an insane asylum in the distant future on the other side of the universe where none of the characters have ever visited Earth let alone America and only know about it from ancient legends, then yes, it would make sense to interpret "American Hero" as "thinks he's the American Hero but really isn't". I once played in a game of SLA Industries (which is set in a Warhammer-40K-ish far future and far away) in which my character was a "cowboy"; if it had been a modern or wild west setting, then that attribute would've meant that he was a literal cowboy, but in the setting of SLA Industries it meant that he was a delusional psychopath who had trouble distinguishing between ancient John Wayne movies and reality, thought he was living in the old west, and talked to his hovercycle like it was a horse.

                  Conversely, if your characters are all immortal deities and it really would make sense for one of them to be "good at everything", then you can interpret that literally.

                  It's a matter of scope, and tone, and reaching a compromise between your players' desires for their characters and your intentions for the setting.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.