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

Re: [FateRPG] FAE for LARPs

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan Lang
    ... I beg to differ; but then, I ve never really understood why Fate expanded the Fudge ladder to begin with. (In particular, I have a gripe with Average
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment




      On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Brett Ritter <swiftone@...> wrote:

       

      On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM, gmfangs_asmrb_org <ChristopherA@...> wrote:
      > I've written up some thoughts about FAE in light of using it with a rock/paper/scissors resolution system that I proposed a couple of years ago in Fate for LARPs.

      Why "halve" the ladder? Why not keep the same ladder and just focus
      on a smaller range of it?

      I think changing the ladder would be the hardest thing to adjust to.

      I beg to differ; but then, I've never really understood why Fate expanded the Fudge ladder to begin with.  (In particular, I have a gripe with "Average" and "Fair".  To me, they're very nearly synonyms; and to the extent that they aren't, I tend to view "Fair" as marginally inferior to "Average".  Were it me, I'd move "Fair" down to +1 and rename the +2 level as something like "Capable".  I'd also consider ditching the negative levels entirely, since Fate doesn't seem to use them: Skills are always Mediocre or better; and if opposition gets down into the Poor or Terrible range, you usually don't bother rolling.)  If you're going with a randomizer which has an even tighter bell curve than 4dF, there's plenty of reason to go with a compressed (relative to Fate Core) scale.  
    • Brett Ritter
      ... Well, I was specifically saying (perhaps not well) that switching back and forth between Fate and FFL would be confusing. (similar to switching back and
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jonathan Lang <dataweaver@...> wrote:

        I think changing the ladder would be the hardest thing to adjust to.

        I beg to differ; but then, I've never really understood why Fate expanded the Fudge ladder to begin with.

        Well, I was specifically saying (perhaps not well)  that switching back and forth between Fate and FFL would be confusing.  (similar to switching back and forth between Fate and base Fudge, but more than just a level difference)
         
        --
        Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
        swiftone@...
      • gmfangs_asmrb_org
        ... Maybe. I halved the ladder for two reasons: * my experience with other LARP approaches is that too many levels lots of this is is a +2 bonus, but this is
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Brett Ritter <swiftone@...> wrote:
          > Why "halve" the ladder? Why not keep the same ladder and just focus
          > on a smaller range of it?
          >
          > I think changing the ladder would be the hardest thing to adjust to.

          Maybe.

          I halved the ladder for two reasons:

          * my experience with other LARP approaches is that too many levels lots of "this is is a +2 bonus, but this is +1", etc. leads to unnecessary complexity or requires GM intervention when you really want players to adjudicate as much as possible themselves.

          * The rock/paper/scissors mechanism of ties "do over", one up "win ties", two up "win automatically with boost" only works for narrow ranges, so I wanted to narrow the ranges.

          -- Christopher Allen
        • gmfangs_asmrb_org
          ... I did try to use the same words, skipping the levels between, so the words would be compatible. -- Christopher Allen
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 16, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Brett Ritter <swiftone@...> wrote:
            > Well, I was specifically saying (perhaps not well) that switching back and
            > forth between Fate and FFL would be confusing. (similar to switching back
            > and forth between Fate and base Fudge, but more than just a level
            > difference)

            I did try to use the same words, skipping the levels between, so the words would be compatible.

            -- Christopher Allen
          • Brett Ritter
            ... That s the part that confuses me. if you have a small ladder (which I m not arguing against), why not use the original words for those levels? Sure, this
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, gmfangs_asmrb_org <ChristopherA@...> wrote:
              > I did try to use the same words, skipping the levels between, so the words would be compatible.

              That's the part that confuses me. if you have a small ladder (which
              I'm not arguing against), why not use the original words for those
              levels?
              Sure, this means Good is a lot harder to get to, but you retain full
              compatibility with the Fate ladder.

              --
              Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
              swiftone@...
            • Darren Hill
              ... ladder? They are separate things, and may have completely different audiences. A smaller ladder calls for clear labels with distinctive differences from
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 18 March 2013 19:40, Brett Ritter <swiftone@...> wrote:
                 

                On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, gmfangs_asmrb_org <ChristopherA@...> wrote:
                > I did try to use the same words, skipping the levels between, so the words would be compatible.

                That's the part that confuses me. if you have a small ladder (which
                I'm not arguing against), why not use the original words for those
                levels?
                Sure, this means Good is a lot harder to get to, but you retain full
                compatibility with the Fate ladder.

                If playing a LARP, why bother maintaining compatibility with the Fate ladder? They are separate things, and may have completely different audiences. A smaller ladder calls for clear labels with distinctive differences from each other. If I was reducing the number of ladder rungs, the first thing I would do would be to merge the Mediocre, Average, and Fair levels into a single rank. (I tend to drop one of them even in normal games, and add another one or two higher up.)

              • Brett Ritter
                ... Because any players that play both will have to remember the ladder. Given that some players work better from numbers and some work better from words,
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
                  If playing a LARP, why bother maintaining compatibility with the Fate ladder? They are separate things, and may have completely different audiences. A smaller ladder calls for clear labels with distinctive differences from each other. If I was reducing the number of ladder rungs, the first thing I would do would be to merge the Mediocre, Average, and Fair levels into a single rank. (I tend to drop one of them even in normal games, and add another one or two higher up.)

                  Because any players that play both will have to remember the ladder.  Given that some players work better from numbers and some work better from words, breaking the correlation seems like a bad thing unless you are positive your players only play the LARP.

                  It'd be like saying "on every other day, all pronouns are gender reversed".  Easy enough to do, but complicated to switch back and forth on, and I saw no benefit other than being able to use "Good" and "Epic".

                  --
                  Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
                  swiftone@...
                • Darren Hill
                  ... That benefit is a really big one. Clear differences between label meanings are necessary with fewer ranks. Plus, regarding the remembering differences: I
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 19 March 2013 14:27, Brett Ritter <swiftone@...> wrote:
                     

                    On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
                    If playing a LARP, why bother maintaining compatibility with the Fate ladder? They are separate things, and may have completely different audiences. A smaller ladder calls for clear labels with distinctive differences from each other. If I was reducing the number of ladder rungs, the first thing I would do would be to merge the Mediocre, Average, and Fair levels into a single rank. (I tend to drop one of them even in normal games, and add another one or two higher up.)

                    Because any players that play both will have to remember the ladder.  Given that some players work better from numbers and some work better from words, breaking the correlation seems like a bad thing unless you are positive your players only play the LARP.

                    It'd be like saying "on every other day, all pronouns are gender reversed".  Easy enough to do, but complicated to switch back and forth on, and I saw no benefit other than being able to use "Good" and "Epic".

                    That benefit is a really big one. Clear differences between label meanings are necessary with fewer ranks.

                    Plus, regarding the remembering differences: I really don't think that's an issue. Memory is contextual. You can remember several different but similar schemas, as long as you have different mental contexts to put them in - like, say "my tabletop experience", and "my LARP experience". Heck, i have no problem remembering the original FATE ladder, Fudge Ladder, and Castle Falkenstein ladders, but maybe that's just me. 

                    But also, even if it were an issue, it's not an issue for *this game*. The design has to fit the game, and if you are, say, reducing to 5 levels, you really don't want three of them to be Mediocre, Average, and Fair (for example). The amount of confusion that would cause is greater, I'd argue.

                  • Brett Ritter
                    ... It may be a me thing then - I can remember all the different schemas too, but I ll fail at remembering which is which. This is why I m terrible at
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 19, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
                      Plus, regarding the remembering differences: I really don't think that's an issue. Memory is contextual. You can remember several different but similar schemas, as long as you have different mental contexts to put them in -

                      It may be a "me" thing then - I can remember all the different schemas too, but I'll fail at remembering which is which.  This is why I'm terrible at remembering how to pronounce names - I actually remember how, but I'm also remembering every other way as well, with no clue which is which.  It's like my mind is an evil schemer against me.  Even mnemonics fail to work: My mind takes them as a challenge.  "Was it 'In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue', or 'in 1493 Columbus sailed the deep blue sea'?". 

                      If the different ladders aren't a problem for other people, that removes my major concern.  It's worth confirming though, I'd think.

                      --
                      Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
                      swiftone@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.