Re: [FateRPG] Re: TROS
- From: "Cam Banks" <boymonster@...>
> > The examples in the rulebook of the Passion trait could have been liftedthese traits.
> > straight from pendragon - it certainly made me think of it :)
> I would be very much surprised if Pendragon wasn't the inspiration for
Maybe - but in terms of application, there is as much similarity between
TROS Spiritual traits and Pendragon Passions as there is between Pendagon
Passions and FATE Aspects. They are similar, but different.
> Outside of them, the game strongly resembles a kind of brutal Shadowrunmeets
> Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, mechanically, with a somewhat awkwardmetagaming
> aspect to the combat system which relies in many cases on second-guessingthe GM
> or player's tastes in offensive or defensive choices.Not a big fan, then :)
The combat system does interest me, as I find the way it handles wounds and
combat manoeuvres very appealing. But I do wonder if it's a little clunky in
> One of my good friends from New Zealand, Brian Leybourne, is writing forit. He raves
> about it constantly, which unfortunately doesn't do much to engenderoptimism in
> me.Is it that you doubt his judgement, don't like the same games, or are sick
of hearing about it (the anti-hype effect)?
> Ultimately, if I wanted to use passion-related mechanics I would stick toTROS can be
> Pendragon or use Fate (for aspects). The experience point innovation in
> imported straight into either game if needed.Any idea how? That's something I wondered about, but it's not straight
- On Fri, 30 May 2003, lance dyas wrote:
> Just realized where I had seen this before, for mostWell, honestly, this sort of thinking is in my mind one of
> intents and purposes it seems the same as what is
> sometimes called bidding a failure.
> Bidding a failure
> Automatically fail at some significant action(agreed
> upon by the GM) which you had a reasonable chance of
> succeding at.. .your roll is assumed a -2 and you gain
> one Fate Point? too much? or just Refresh an Aspect 1.
the ways a player can "electively, negatively invoke" an
aspect if the GM's forgotten to bring it up (assuming GM
approval to do so). (I have Weak 2 , I really need to
break down that door, I elect to fail, no roll necessary
-- GM can call that a negative invocation and hand over
the 2 appropriate fate points.)
In terms of your ideas --
+ Taking a penalty and gaining a single fate point --
this is "less potent" than a negative invocation,
so is more attractive to me.
+ Refreshing an aspect by one -- I'd avoid it. I
consider refreshing an aspect to be a *very* potent
effect. If it happens several times in a given normal
"single refreshment" period on a low-number-of-boxes
aspect, it'll have the effect of multiplying the
number of boxes that character had available to him --
way too potent for my taste, and could be an "abuse
magnet" to boot.
Fred Hicks <iago AT iago DOT net>
"Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Fate RPG - http://www.evilhat.com/fate/
Check out my famous friend - http://www.jim-butcher.com/
- Just realized where I had seen this before, for most intents and
purposes it seems the same as what is sometimes called bidding a failure.
Bidding a failure
Automatically fail at some significant action(agreed upon by the GM)
which you had a reasonable chance of succeding at.. .your roll is
assumed a -2 and you gain one Fate Point?
too much? or just Refresh an Aspect 1.