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

Re: More Expansions?

Expand Messages
  • HMT
    In Fate, isn t tyhe FU No, and ... result replaced with the compel?
    Message 1 of 38 , Mar 1 7:57 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      > flip-sides:
      >
      > "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
      > "cost".
      >
      > "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
      > shift
      > 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.
      >
    • Jon Lang
      ... 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
      Message 38 of 38 , Mar 13 10:07 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.