Re: More Expansions?
- In Fate, isn't tyhe FU "No, and ..." result replaced with the compel?
--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, John Rudd <johnkzin@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Jim Montgomery <frontendchaos@...>wrote:
> > **
> > I like the FU system, I used it a bit in one of my recent sessions. Ask
> > a question, roll a d6 to determine if it's "Yes, and...", "Yes.", "Yes,
> > but...", "No, but...", "No.", "No, and...". If it's more likely, roll extra
> > dice and take the highest... if it's less likely, roll less dice and take
> > the lowest.
> I saw that same stuff from the FU system as well, and I have an inherent
> dislike for flat dice systems... especially a flat d6... I like that they
> add extra dice into the mix, but I still prefer a generally triangular or
> bell shaped curve.
> And, I've been thinking about how to map it into 4dF. Here's my thoughts:
> "Yes, and" -- in general, it's Success With Style. But more emphasis on
> narrative than mechanics -- you get what you wanted, in the best possible
> way, with unexpected dividends.
> "No, but" -- failure, but with a boost. You got the most basic, barely,
> failure (no shifts, etc.). But you got some consolation prize for it.
> Maybe it's a boost and "try again", maybe it's a failure with a new
> opportunity that you didn't see coming, etc. Or, you failed to pick the
> lock, but you're making small amounts of progress, roll again next
> exchange. Or some other form of partial success, but not enough to "move
> on", yet.
> Those are sort of already supported by Fate. All you really need is their
> "Yes, but" -- you got the most basic/rudimentary success (no shifts, just
> the most basic definition of success)... but, at a cost. Maybe you picked
> the lock, but in the process you broke your lock-pick. Or you picked the
> lock, opened the door, and there's a guard there (at this small level of
> penalty, he probably didn't hear you picking the lock, so he's there, but
> not necessarily ready to ambush you). Or like "a boost", but it's not in
> your favor... it gives your opposition a temporary aspect that they can use
> on you. Similar to a "Tie", in the FC rules, but with a more definite
> "No, and" -- Lets call it "Failure With Style". You fail, and the
> opposition gets two boosts against you, or something like that. (maybe the
> guard _did_ hear you picking the lock, he has sounded a silent alarm AND
> he's waiting in ambush)
> I was thinking "combine it with a 'first die' mechanic".
> +4 shifts or better: "Yes, and" for all results
> +3 shifts: "Yes, and" unless the first die is a minus. If it's a minus,
> you get "Yes" with 3 shifts in your favor.
> +2 shifts: "Yes" = succeed with two shifts.
> +1 shift:
> with the first die being a plus or zero/blank: regular success with one
> with the first die being a minus: "Yes, but"
> zero shifts:
> first die is plus: Yes, but
> first die is blank: Tie
> first die is minus: No, but
> -1 shift:
> first die is plus: No, but
> first die is blank or minus: No with one shift against you.
> -2 shifts: regular failure, with 2 shifts against you.
> -3 shifts: "No, and", unless the first die is a plus. If it's a plus, it's
> just "No" with 3 shifts against you.
> -4 shift or worse: "No, and" for all.
- On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jon Lang <dataweaver@...> wrote:One of our rolls is going to have to be a "no" of some sort; but it can be a compensated no, where that person doesn't get what he was after but does get something useful.Sure, I feel you, but it's sort of splitting hairs at that point.Yep; which is a big part of why I'm comfortable with "no, but" being a possible Tie result: it is splitting hairs, as "yes, but" and "no, but" are a hair's breadth apart from each other, and it's largely a matter of perspective as to which is which.--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang