Re: [FateRPG] Re: Attacks in a Contest
- At a basic level there's 'how many shifts did I succeed/fail by?' While that's not used so much in Core any more, in previous versions you could use those shifts to 'buy' improvements like reduction in time, etc. I think that would be an appropriate starting point.If the Overcome roll is for a battle result, then an even result is a stalemate with heavy losses. A success by one becomes a success with heavy losses, and additional shifts can be used to 'buy back' your losses, however that's defined. If you wanted to get further defined, you could set a number of 'buy this for one shift of success' things and allow the players to buy those after the roll to define their success.I don't know if I'd want to super-'systemize' that, though, as I think especially for actions larger in narrative scope that the options would be dependent on the exact scenario.On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:54 PM, loconius2 <loconius@...> wrote:
I wouldn't mind a little bit of a formalized mechanic for different kinds of rolls or comparisons; like "yes, but; or no and" that's variable enough to be used in "single overcome" resolution... though i have never had an issue having them roll a couple extra times when they have done the first roll. but somehting like apocalypse world's seize by force options for a success; where if your modeling a fight, even success may still lead to consequence of some kind; but you got what you were after.
--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Robert Hanz <rhanz@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:
> > One caveat: With overcome actions as the "deal broadly with a high-stakes
> > situation" move, you really have to hit hard with major and minor costs
> > (even though it says minor!), IMO. If people aren't making the "oh, man,
> > that's rough" face, push harder. (Stop when they're making the "you're an
> > asshole" face.) That's a bias that comes from me and my own GMing style, so
> > YMMV.
> Yeah. I think the key for me there is that "minor" and "major" are
> relative to the scope of what you're Overcoming. Climbing a fence? Maybe
> you get a painful hangnail as a minor cost. Is that Overcome
> representative of a whole battle? "Minor" is going to represent something
> a lot more serious - loss of an important but not key resource, maybe, or
> capture of someone important.
- New change to my rules
Attacks in a Contest
Attacks are assumed in Dangerous Contests and their actions may include direct attacks on someone else, whether their attack inflicts harm is determined by who rolled the lowest.
Consequences in a Contest
If you got the lowest result you suffer a consequence at the end of the exchange; mild first then more sever afterwards. If you're tied with someone else you both suffer consequences.
The GM can deem that everyone suffers a consequence in exceptionally dangerous contests. A participant can choose to give up the contest to save their own skin; if they are the only contestant then the winner gets his goal immediately!
--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "loconius2" <loconius@...> wrote:
> I thought about adding this action for a game that won't be using the conflict rules. Does this have any obvious snags?
> Attacks in a Contest
> During any exchange, you can try to attack a contestant knocking them
> out of the contest, they get to defend normally. If this is successful,
> the defender either has to absorb the hit with stress or consequences or
> gets taken out of the contest. If the defender is the only person in the
> contest then being taken out forfeits his goal and the attacker gets
> what he was after.
> Like creating an advantage, doing so carries an additional risk-failing
> the attack means you forfeit your contest roll, which means there's no
> way you can make progress in the current exchange. If you at least tie,
> you get to make your contest roll normally