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

Re: [FateRPG] Ride v. Drive

Expand Messages
  • John Rudd
    For sentient mounts: There s both riding and rapport I think. For the rider, I d probably use the lesser of Ride vs Rapport, and apply both physical and
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 30 10:54 AM
      For sentient mounts:

      There's both "riding" and "rapport" I think.

      For the rider, I'd probably use the lesser of Ride vs Rapport, and apply both physical and social modifiers to the roll (ie. whether you're rolling Ride or Rapport, if you're making a tight maneuver you have both a penalty from the maneuver AND any penalty from not getting along with your mount, or bonus because your mount and you have a strong social bond, or whatever).

      For the mount, I'd use something like Athletics for the physical side and Rapport for the social side.


      For non-sentient mounts, I might allow Empathy to be a substitute for Rapport (by either the rider or the mount).  I might also allow it to be used as a substitute for Ride, either if there's no explicit Ride skill, or with the use of a stunt (Empathy's description sounds a lot like the non-mechanical parts of riding -- where it's about paying attention to your mount's mood, bearing, situational cues, things like that, as well as communicating those things to the mount).  Really, I might use Empathy for Animal Handling in general.





      On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
       

      Perhaps a rider of a sentient creature would need to use her or his Ride skill in order to keep his or her seat during tricky maneuvers. It becomes less about directing the animal and more about cooperating with the creature and anticipating what it will do. More than just hanging on for dear life, perhaps the rider also needs to know how to ride in order not to be horribly sore later, what needs to be done during maneuvers, and perhaps assist the mount by making observations and using the Ride skill to communicate that to the creature. 




      On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 PM, GalacticCmdr <galacticcmdr@...> wrote:

       

      If the animal is sentient then just use its standard Might skill. Normal characters are fully capable of carrying smaller people without a "Carry" skill. I think the skill list works best when it is simple and direct.



      Chip



      On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, indianajoe3 <indianajoe3@...> wrote:
       


      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "RPG Reviews & Columns" wrote:
      >
      > How would you handle "riding" as a skill? This is assuming it is used to replace "drive" if a game is in a pre-automobile setting, with horses or possibly cattle if you are feeling exotic.

      If the animal is only being used as transportation, you can use the skill as-is. 


      > What about if the animal is sentient, and capable of pursuing its own interests, such as a unicorn or dragon?

      The creature could rename the skill to, "Carry" and use it to assist the rider.




      --
      “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.” – Mark Twain




    • indianajoe3
      I think we re talking past each other. I see Carry as the, carry a (possibly unskilled) rider safely skill, which would be the complement of Ride. Might
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 31 3:41 AM
        I think we're talking past each other. I see Carry as the, "carry a (possibly unskilled) rider safely" skill, which would be the complement of Ride. Might would be used for lifting heavy objects, as usual.

        --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, GalacticCmdr wrote:
        >
        > If the animal is sentient then just use its standard Might skill. Normal
        > characters are fully capable of carrying smaller people without a "Carry"
        > skill. I think the skill list works best when it is simple and direct.
        >
        >
        >
        > Chip
        >
        >
        >
        > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, indianajoe3 indianajoe3@... wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "RPG Reviews & Columns" wrote:
        > > >
        > > > How would you handle "riding" as a skill? This is assuming it is used to
        > > replace "drive" if a game is in a pre-automobile setting, with horses or
        > > possibly cattle if you are feeling exotic.
        > >
        > > If the animal is only being used as transportation, you can use the skill
        > > as-is.
        > >
        > >
        > > > What about if the animal is sentient, and capable of pursuing its own
        > > interests, such as a unicorn or dragon?
        > >
        > > The creature could rename the skill to, "Carry" and use it to assist the
        > > rider.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > *"Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True
        > irreverence **is disrespect for another man's god."* – Mark Twain
        >
      • Marshall Smith
        I think that you are both radically over-complicating this, and coming at it from the wrong direction. Ride is your ability to keep your seat and execute
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 31 4:13 AM

          I think that you are both radically over-complicating this, and coming at it from the wrong direction.

          Ride is your ability to keep your seat and execute maneuvers. Period.

          If your mount is sapient, it is a character. If it is an ally, then it grants a teamwork bonus. If it is unwilling, it is a contest to see if you can keep your seat.

          If you and your mount disagree on where to go, then it is a matter of convincing an NPC using social skills. Just like convincing your chauffer to lend you money would be.

          Unless you are building an entire setting around this concept (e.g., Dragonriders of Pern), more rules are really not necessary.

          Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



          From: John Rudd <johnkzin@...>;
          To: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com <FateRPG@yahoogroups.com>;
          Subject: Re: [FateRPG] Ride v. Drive
          Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2013 5:54:46 PM

           

          For sentient mounts:

          There's both "riding" and "rapport" I think.

          For the rider, I'd probably use the lesser of Ride vs Rapport, and apply both physical and social modifiers to the roll (ie. whether you're rolling Ride or Rapport, if you're making a tight maneuver you have both a penalty from the maneuver AND any penalty from not getting along with your mount, or bonus because your mount and you have a strong social bond, or whatever).

          For the mount, I'd use something like Athletics for the physical side and Rapport for the social side.


          For non-sentient mounts, I might allow Empathy to be a substitute for Rapport (by either the rider or the mount).  I might also allow it to be used as a substitute for Ride, either if there's no explicit Ride skill, or with the use of a stunt (Empathy's description sounds a lot like the non-mechanical parts of riding -- where it's about paying attention to your mount's mood, bearing, situational cues, things like that, as well as communicating those things to the mount).  Really, I might use Empathy for Animal Handling in general.





          On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
           

          Perhaps a rider of a sentient creature would need to use her or his Ride skill in order to keep his or her seat during tricky maneuvers. It becomes less about directing the animal and more about cooperating with the creature and anticipating what it will do. More than just hanging on for dear life, perhaps the rider also needs to know how to ride in order not to be horribly sore later, what needs to be done during maneuvers, and perhaps assist the mount by making observations and using the Ride skill to communicate that to the creature. 




          On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 PM, GalacticCmdr <galacticcmdr@...> wrote:

           

          If the animal is sentient then just use its standard Might skill. Normal characters are fully capable of carrying smaller people without a "Carry" skill. I think the skill list works best when it is simple and direct.



          Chip



          On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, indianajoe3 <indianajoe3@...> wrote:
           


          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "RPG Reviews & Columns" wrote:
          >
          > How would you handle "riding" as a skill? This is assuming it is used to replace "drive" if a game is in a pre-automobile setting, with horses or possibly cattle if you are feeling exotic.

          If the animal is only being used as transportation, you can use the skill as-is. 


          > What about if the animal is sentient, and capable of pursuing its own interests, such as a unicorn or dragon?

          The creature could rename the skill to, "Carry" and use it to assist the rider.




          --
          “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.” – Mark Twain




        • Marshall Smith
          But if it s fighting you, that s a straight up contest. Like a grapple, but with Ride instead of Fight. Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 31 11:02 AM

            But if it's fighting you, that's a straight up contest. Like a grapple, but with Ride instead of Fight.

            Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



            From: Robert <robertsullivan1973@...>;
            To: Marshall Smith <samldanach@...>;
            Subject: Re: Ride v. Drive
            Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2013 5:58:05 PM

            The "keep your seat and execute maneuvers" thing assumes the ride is not fighting you, trying to throw you off or just ignoring you. A combo of rapport and ride, each used when needed, is better suited to this task and perfectly within the rules as written.

            And I am thinking of something much like the Temererie series.

            --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Marshall Smith <samldanach@...> wrote:
            >
            > I think that you are both radically over-complicating this, and coming at it from the wrong direction.
            >
            > Ride is your ability to keep your seat and execute maneuvers. Period.
            >
            > If your mount is sapient, it is a character. If it is an ally, then it grants a teamwork bonus. If it is unwilling, it is a contest to see if you can keep your seat.
            >
            > If you and your mount disagree on where to go, then it is a matter of convincing an NPC using social skills. Just like convincing your chauffer to lend you money would be.
            >
            > Unless you are building an entire setting around this concept (e.g., Dragonriders of Pern), more rules are really not necessary.
            >
            > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
            >

          • RPG Reviews & Columns
            The keep your seat and execute maneuvers thing assumes the ride is not fighting you, trying to throw you off or just ignoring you. A combo of rapport and
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 31 11:05 AM
              The "keep your seat and execute maneuvers" thing assumes the ride is not fighting you, trying to throw you off or just ignoring you. A combo of rapport and ride, each used when needed, is better suited to this task and perfectly within the rules as written.

              And I am thinking of something much like the Temererie series.

              --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Marshall Smith <samldanach@...> wrote:
              >
              > I think that you are both radically over-complicating this, and coming at it from the wrong direction.
              >
              > Ride is your ability to keep your seat and execute maneuvers. Period.
              >
              > If your mount is sapient, it is a character. If it is an ally, then it grants a teamwork bonus. If it is unwilling, it is a contest to see if you can keep your seat.
              >
              > If you and your mount disagree on where to go, then it is a matter of convincing an NPC using social skills. Just like convincing your chauffer to lend you money would be.
              >
              > Unless you are building an entire setting around this concept (e.g., Dragonriders of Pern), more rules are really not necessary.
              >
              > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
              >
            • RPG Reviews & Columns
              In this case Ride just keeps you on the beast, not in control.
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 31 11:10 AM
                In this case "Ride" just keeps you on the beast, not in control.

                --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Marshall Smith <samldanach@...> wrote:
                >
                > But if it's fighting you, that's a straight up contest. Like a grapple, but with Ride instead of Fight.
                >
                > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
                >
              • John Rudd
                ... No one contested that. ... a contest of Ride vs ... ? Athletics? :-) ... In other words: Rapport or Empathy, depending on the sentience of the mount.
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 31 11:23 AM
                  On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Marshall Smith <samldanach@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I think that you are both radically over-complicating this, and coming at it from the wrong direction.

                  And, I think we both basically said the same thing, as you can see below:

                  > Ride is your ability to keep your seat and execute maneuvers. Period.

                  No one contested that.

                  > If your mount is sapient, it is a character. If it is an ally, then it grants a teamwork bonus. If it is unwilling, it is a contest to see if you can keep your seat.

                  a contest of Ride vs ... ? Athletics? :-)

                  > If you and your mount disagree on where to go, then it is a matter of convincing an NPC using social skills. Just like convincing your chauffer to lend you money would be.

                  In other words: Rapport or Empathy, depending on the sentience of the mount.
                • Yves de Lyle
                  ... I d like to make the point that all creatures are sentient, just that some are smarter than others. A horse still has motivations, but it the training to
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 1, 2013
                    On 28 July 2013 14:55, RPG Reviews & Columns <grumpyrpgreviews@...> wrote:
                    What about if the animal is sentient, and capable of pursuing its own interests, such as a unicorn or dragon?

                    I'd like to make the point that all creatures are sentient, just that some are smarter than others. A horse still has motivations, but it the training to 'break them in' that allows use to control their behaviours. Take for example the training that a horse must have to become a horse used for dressage. As I understand it horses normally avoid jumping because of the risk of breaking a leg, which is fatal for wild horses, but this instinct can be trained out of them. To allow the rider to guide them. So I see peoples comments about Empathy and Rapport being critical to persuading the animal (sentient or otherwise) to do what you want. Riding a Horse, or what-ever, seams like it should be a stunt or aspect. To allow the riding of a class of animals, like "Works with dragons and has the scorch marks to prove it."

                    We make the assumption that we are more intelligent than other mount, but I think that most dragons would be insulted by this idea. They would think of us as back mounted turrets that should obey their betters! Is the rider the most intelligent of the two? What about teams of people working together towards a common goal? I know I'm wondering off the initial point, but I think it should be considered as well.

                    Also I think the definitions of the skills need to be looked at in a broader sense. I know that the Drive skill applies to cars, planes, boats, and other mindless machines, but what about Artificial Intelligence or semi-intelligent Fuzzy Logic machines. Both Fuzzy Logic & AI place a wall between the character and their environment. For example, my car has ABS (Anti-lock Braking System). When driving on a gravel surface I'll loose minute control of the car (the machine with Fuzzy-Logic) as the ABS kicks to stop my vehicle from skidding. However, having grown up with car's without this special feature I've adapted my 'drive' skill to compensate, so I know there is little or no risk. What I do notice is I'm now changing my skill to work with the vehicle, because of what it can not handle. Maybe working with machines needs a 'Tech Empathy' or Engineering/Science equivalent.

                    The advantage of intelligence animals or machines is that they can act independently, but as a larger team (or gestalt). EG allowing the Rider to direct the horse with their knees so that they can focus on the attack with the sabre, while the horse worries about the running over the terrain and avoiding crashing into other things out there.

                    We all know that "the sum is greater than the parts" and synergistically team work plays a greater part in the world we have build, and then how do you represent that in a game?

                    For my games (where riding is not a core part Sci-Fi/Steampunk/Battletech), I'm inclined to it a stunt or aspect as opposed to a skill.
                  • aminar_gioco
                    In general though, with a skill, all the trappings needed for that skill are implied within. So Ride in a horse-based system implies rapport with horses,
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 1, 2013
                      In general though, with a skill, all the trappings needed for that skill are implied within. So Ride in a horse-based system implies rapport with horses, empathy with horses, and knowledge of horses. The same as people with a high drive skill are more likely to notice issues with their car, ship, plane, etc and have some knowledge on the internal pieces of said vehicle(based on complexity.) You're overthinking this. Fate is all about minimilism in mechanics. Yes, that makes for some broad assumptions but that leaves room for aspects like, "I only Drive them." and the like.

                      With a sentient creature Ride would be your social skill for dealing with them while riding, and likely your empathy skill for all interactions unless you have a stunt saying otherwise.

                      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Yves de Lyle <yvesdelyle@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > On 28 July 2013 14:55, RPG Reviews & Columns <grumpyrpgreviews@...>wrote:
                      >
                      > > What about if the animal is sentient, and capable of pursuing its own
                      > > interests, such as a unicorn or dragon?
                      > >
                      >
                      > I'd like to make the point that all creatures are sentient, just that some
                      > are smarter than others. A horse still has motivations, but it the training
                      > to 'break them in' that allows use to control their behaviours. Take for
                      > example the training that a horse must have to become a horse used for
                      > dressage. As I understand it horses normally avoid jumping because of the
                      > risk of breaking a leg, which is fatal for wild horses, but this instinct
                      > can be trained out of them. To allow the rider to guide them. So I see
                      > peoples comments about Empathy and Rapport being critical to persuading the
                      > animal (sentient or otherwise) to do what you want. Riding a Horse, or
                      > what-ever, seams like it should be a stunt or aspect. To allow the riding
                      > of a class of animals, like *"Works with dragons and has the scorch marks
                      > to prove it*."
                      >
                      > We make the assumption that we are more intelligent than other mount, but I
                      > think that most dragons would be insulted by this idea. They would think of
                      > us as back mounted turrets that should obey their betters! Is the rider the
                      > most intelligent of the two? What about teams of people working together
                      > towards a common goal? I know I'm wondering off the initial point, but I
                      > think it should be considered as well.
                      >
                      > Also I think the definitions of the skills need to be looked at in a
                      > broader sense. I know that the Drive skill applies to cars, planes, boats,
                      > and other mindless machines, but what about Artificial Intelligence or
                      > semi-intelligent Fuzzy Logic machines. Both Fuzzy Logic & AI place a wall
                      > between the character and their environment. For example, my car has ABS
                      > (Anti-lock Braking System). When driving on a gravel surface I'll loose
                      > minute control of the car (the machine with Fuzzy-Logic) as the ABS kicks
                      > to stop my vehicle from skidding. However, having grown up with car's
                      > without this special feature I've adapted my 'drive' skill to compensate,
                      > so I know there is little or no risk. What I do notice is I'm now changing
                      > my skill to work with the vehicle, because of what it can not handle. Maybe
                      > working with machines needs a 'Tech Empathy' or Engineering/Science
                      > equivalent.
                      >
                      > The advantage of intelligence animals or machines is that they can act
                      > independently, but as a larger team (or gestalt). EG allowing the Rider to
                      > direct the horse with their knees so that they can focus on the attack with
                      > the sabre, while the horse worries about the running over the terrain and
                      > avoiding crashing into other things out there.
                      >
                      > We all know that "*the sum is greater than the parts*" and synergistically
                      > team work plays a greater part in the world we have build, and then how do
                      > you represent that in a game?
                      >
                      > For my games (where riding is not a core part Sci-Fi/Steampunk/Battletech),
                      > I'm inclined to it a stunt or aspect as opposed to a skill.
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.