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

Re: [FateRPG] Fate RPG: The Computer Engine

Expand Messages
  • Jacob Peck
    rpgsolo.com works a treat. There are also several available on the Mythic group. If you are a programmer-type and don t mind the command-line, I have one
    Message 1 of 15 , May 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      rpgsolo.com works a treat.  There are also several available on the Mythic group.  If you are a programmer-type and don't mind the command-line, I have one written up in python here: https://github.com/gatesphere/mythical-pie

      -->Jake

      On 5/7/2013 10:30 AM, Jeff wrote:
       
      The idea of a computerized version of Mythic sounds interesting. Do you have one you recommend in particular?


      Jeff


      On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM, gatesphere <gatesphere@...> wrote:
       
      On 5/6/2013 8:56 PM, Bill Burdick wrote:
       
      What about a system that uses a human GM?

      Could mix Fate with a computerized version of Mythic.  There are several, including one I wrote myself.

      -->Jake


    • Tobias Loehr
      I asked these questions at the Cubicle 7 LoA forums, but those seems to be all but inactive, so I ll ask them here. Question 1: On page 119 of the LoA book,
      Message 2 of 15 , May 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I asked these questions at the Cubicle 7 LoA forums, but those seems to be all but inactive, so I'll ask them here.

        Question 1:
        On page 119 of the LoA book, the description of the stunt Hard Hide says this:

        Hard Hide
        The character has a thick skin which acts as light armour (see page 48). Hard Hide may not be combined with the Outer Shell stunt.

        So checking light armor on page 48 shows that light armor has an armor bonus of -0 and can absorb one Minor Physical consequence....all good so far.

        However, when going through the bestiary, every single creature that has been given the stunt of Hard Hide has the following:

        Hard Hide: -1 armor bonus
         
        So is the description of Hard Hide wrong on page 119? Is light armor stated out incorrect? Or are all the creatures wrong?


        Question 2:
        One of my players is playing a blacksmith turned warrior. He like the idea of making/repairing/improving armor. However, by the rules, there can be no such thing as Craftsmanship light armor.

        On page 48, the armor table it shows that for Craftsmanship Armor:
        "2. See page 142 for the Armored improvement"

        On page 142 it states: (emphasis mine)
        Armoured:
        The device has 1 point of armour per improvement; the improvement can be taken 3 times. If applied to armour, the maximum increase is equal to the armour’s initial value (so plate armour, with a -2 Armour Bonus, may gain a maximum of 2 additional armour points as a result of this improvement).

        So an armor bonus of -0 can't be improved through Craftsmanship? Am I reading that correctly? Should we just go ahead and allow an improvement from -0 to -1 dispite this? Or is light armor stated up wrong (as in Question 1) and should I just change it to have an armor bonus of -1?

        Thanks for any input.
      • Darren Hill
        Caveat: I dont have LoA. Based on question alone, I d be inclined to think there is no contradiction. That Hard Hide as worn armour for humans is different
        Message 3 of 15 , May 8, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Caveat: I dont have LoA.

          Based on question alone, I'd be inclined to think there is no contradiction. That Hard Hide as worn armour for humans is different than Hard Hide as natural armour for animals.

          Question 2 scuppers that idea. 
          Is there are any armour which gives -3 or higher? If not, that limit of maximum 3 points seems out of place. I am wondering if at some point during playtesting the armours each gave 1 point of protection, so hard hide was -1 and plate was -3, but they decided that was too powerful for PCs and dropped everything by 1. But left the animals as they were without realising they needed to change the names of one of them.

          My inclination would be to do as you suggest, and allow a -1 improvement. It is also possible they decided that hard hide armour was fairly basic, and no improvement is possible with it. But if plate can theoretically be improved from -2 to -5, I see no good reason to say hard hide cant be increased by one measly point.


          On 8 May 2013 20:20, Tobias Loehr <the_bard_of_crete@...> wrote:
           

          I asked these questions at the Cubicle 7 LoA forums, but those seems to be all but inactive, so I'll ask them here.

          Question 1:
          On page 119 of the LoA book, the description of the stunt Hard Hide says this:

          Hard Hide
          The character has a thick skin which acts as light armour (see page 48). Hard Hide may not be combined with the Outer Shell stunt.

          So checking light armor on page 48 shows that light armor has an armor bonus of -0 and can absorb one Minor Physical consequence....all good so far.

          However, when going through the bestiary, every single creature that has been given the stunt of Hard Hide has the following:

          Hard Hide: -1 armor bonus
           
          So is the description of Hard Hide wrong on page 119? Is light armor stated out incorrect? Or are all the creatures wrong?


          Question 2:
          One of my players is playing a blacksmith turned warrior. He like the idea of making/repairing/improving armor. However, by the rules, there can be no such thing as Craftsmanship light armor.

          On page 48, the armor table it shows that for Craftsmanship Armor:
          "2. See page 142 for the Armored improvement"

          On page 142 it states: (emphasis mine)
          Armoured:
          The device has 1 point of armour per improvement; the improvement can be taken 3 times. If applied to armour, the maximum increase is equal to the armour’s initial value (so plate armour, with a -2 Armour Bonus, may gain a maximum of 2 additional armour points as a result of this improvement).

          So an armor bonus of -0 can't be improved through Craftsmanship? Am I reading that correctly? Should we just go ahead and allow an improvement from -0 to -1 dispite this? Or is light armor stated up wrong (as in Question 1) and should I just change it to have an armor bonus of -1?

          Thanks for any input.


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.