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

RE: [FateRPG] What Do You Call A -4 Result?

Expand Messages
  • Glenn Berry
    Borrowing from the American Military I d call it a Clusterf**k _____ From: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FateRPG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of stanshinn
    Message 1 of 53 , Nov 2, 2010

      Borrowing from the American Military I’d call it a Clusterf**k

       


      From: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FateRPG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of stanshinn
      Sent: 29 October 2010 21:43
      To: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [FateRPG] What Do You Call A -4 Result?

       

       

      Question: The default rating for a Skill is '0' (Mediocre). It seems to me that it would then be possible to get a -4 for a result, yet most renditions of The Ladder do not list a -4 description.

      Here is the Ladder:
      ------------------
      +8: Legendary
      +7: Epic
      +6: Fantastic
      +5: Superb
      +4: Great
      +3: Good
      +2: Fair
      +1: Average
      0: Mediocre
      -1: Poor
      -2: Terrible

      Sometimes I see versions with this line:
      -3: Abysmal

      But I don't think I've ever see a listing for -4.

      What am I missing? Does Fate simply not describe this scenario since it's a clear loss? You can get a -4 result if you're rated as Mediocre for a skill and roll against a difficulty of 0, right?

      -- Stan

    • David Dunham
      ... I ve lost track of some of the discussion, but I think the answer is: 1. People can in fact get lucky. (People have survived parachute failure, been found
      Message 53 of 53 , Nov 6, 2010
        > I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of an
        > open-ended result table at the lower rungs for people who don't have much
        > skill - the norms of the universe - and trying to figure out if the logical
        > implications of the rule affects my ability to accept the world on its
        > terms.

        I've lost track of some of the discussion, but I think the answer is:

        1. People can in fact get lucky. (People have survived parachute failure, been found alive in a mine, or given birth at 5. Wait, that last might not be so lucky, but it happens.)

        2. Results are relative. Maybe I spectacularly defeat you in a cross country race (you showed up late, got lost, fell down, etc.). But if I raced against an actual runner, I'd lose spectacularly.

        3. The standards aren't the same. When I lose spectacularly, I'm 10 minutes behind. But if two actual runners compete, 1 minute might be a sound drubbing.

        The dice tell you there's a monster victory, and you apply narration to make sense out of it, given the context.

        > I think part of the problem is that you are getting hung up on
        > the ladder and why I'm not a big fan of the the adjectives.

        That's true, I don't use the adjectives either. I know -4 is really awful, I don't need to memorize a name for it.

        > most of the game world doesn't use the FATE mechanics


        Most of the game world isn't a dramatic situation, so I'd agree. I'm pretty sure most lawyer shows didn't bother to show clerks filing, paralegals researching, etc. All of these are important tasks that can have success or failure, but unless the story hinges on a misfiled document or clever citation, it isn't rolled for. Whether it succeeds or not depends on the needs of the story.

        It's only the participatory part -- player characters -- that it's worth rolling for.

        David Dunham
        Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
        Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.