Steven Universe in Fate Core, first discussion

doppelgreener

Sep 8, 2015 05:57

@Pixie I'm thinking SU could actually work reasonably well in Fate...

Pixie

@doppelgreener Probably so!

doppelgreener

I'm not sure if that's the ideal system for it, but it could!

BESW

The Crystal Gems obviously have a special Gem Power skill.

Its only trapping is Create Advantage.

doppelgreener

The plots would be very different, but Steven Universe is all about exploring these wonderful beautiful deeply flawed people doing their best or just trying to live their lives and getting in each others' ways and working things out along the way.

trogdor

do you mean that our setting in ARRPG is too dark for it?

or just in general

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 06:04

I've looked at Fate for magical girl games before (that would be what brought me to this site, heh), and I feel like it would be a good fit for certain traits that SU shares.

doppelgreener

@trogdor No just the system in general.

trogdor

so not Fate? or not ARRPG?

doppelgreener

Fate as a system in general would work fairly well for SU, but may not be the ideal fit.

trogdor

ah

I don't think Fate would hurt the theme honestly

gotta go for a bit

afk

Pixie

Not sure what the ideal system would be, but I would certainly give Fate a shot.

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 06:14

[squint] ...Dogs in the Vineyard hack?

Pixie

@BESW Oh? I haven't played this game, but from what I know if it, it would not be what comes to mind. I'd be interested in your rationale.

BESW

Well. It's a game about characters arguing over how to make and implement important moral decisions without any higher authority to second-guess them or fix their mistakes.

When the PCs can agree, they're extremely powerful. It's disagreement between PCs that makes it hard to solve problems.

Pixie

Ahh. I see.

BESW

And the mechanics are designed to encourage escalation-at-cost: You get more power to influence the scene by involving more things that are important to you and by increasing the kind of danger that everyone involved is risking.

That seems... very apropos.

(The mechanics of "involving more things that are important to you" to get more influence on the scene are actually very tricky, in tempting you to over-extend and put things you care about at risk.)

doppelgreener

That definitely fits some of the plots!

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 06:25

There is probably one thing I'd want to be sure I had an SU game, and that is the undercurrent of hope and love. Things get bad in SU. Important things are put at stake, falling outs happen, and people have to confront their flaws to move forward. However, SU maintains an ultimately positive view of humanity.

BESW

Yeah. That's something DitV would have to get hacked into it.

The mechanics don't really support that sort of ethos as-is.

Pixie

Yeah, that's what I figured.

BESW

(I've thought a lot about this sort of thing, as SU is very similar to FIM in a lot of ways that matter for system choice.)

I think a revision to the Fallout rules would work.

(Fallout is the Bad Stuff, and it's already got options for character growth baked into it.)

doppelgreener

@Pixie If we did this in Fate, we'd have to have useful love-fuelled stunts or skills of that nature that basically cannot be used without expressing hope and love in the process.

Pixie

It is that gentle, warm tone that distinguishes SU for me. If you want to break down the plot, it's a lot like Madoka Magica... but it's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum in terms of the way it gives characters agency and values their emotions and choices.

@doppelgreener There's that, and Fate points seem like a useful device here as well.

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 06:40

Hmmm.

Pixie

They are not the complete answer, though.

doppelgreener

Fate points are totally also the answer for making things go disastrously worse.

Pixie

@doppelgreener Which is a thing that should also happen!

BESW

> Pearlescent Empathy. Once per scene when I let someone else make their own mistakes, I get a Fate point.

> Amethyst Encouragement. Once per scene when I persuade someone to do something they wouldn't have decided to do on their own, I get a Fate point.

doppelgreener

> Steven. Do the thing. When someone wants to do something they passionately care about, you get a +1 while helping them do it.

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 06:48

That works.

> If every porkchop were perfect. Once per scene you get a free invoke on something that is, objectively, broken.

doppelgreener

> (idk): You get a +1 to Combat actions made to protect those dear to you.

> Rose's Shield: You get +2 to Defend with Physique. Once per scene, you can add +6 to any one Defend roll you make, if someone or something important is at stake.

BESW

@doppelgreener I don't want to be a burden.

(That's totally Connie's stunt.)

doppelgreener

I was thinking of Garnet when I wrote it! But that works. :)

BESW

Hmm.

Actually...

trogdor

@doppelgreener there should also be a stunt involving defending for others too

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 06:57

[cannibalises old stunt]

> Living Together. You can use Rapport whenever Combat would normally be to attack, and Empathy instead of Athletics to defend.

doppelgreener

@trogdor I figured that was the +6: someone right behind you is someone important at stake! I was tempted to add "... to any one Defend roll made against attacks meant for others" but sometimes something like that has to be done for yourself, too.

BESW

That is Garnet.

trogdor

did you watch SU?

BESW

Ayuh.

doppelgreener

@BESW How do you imagine this one getting put to use?

trogdor

Sep 8, 2015 06:59

I only just marathoned it a few weeks to a month ago

BESW

@doppelgreener Garnet's physical strength and power is a manifestation of her [spoiler]. Her Empathy and Rapport are higher than her Combat and Athletics, because she's primarily a feels person.

trogdor

that does seem odd

can you cram two replace skills into the same stunt?

I guess you could if it was a mega stunt at the very least

BESW

Adding a trapping to a skill is 1/2 worth of a hardware stunt as defined in ARRPG.

doppelgreener

I'm not paying too close attention to stunt values myself, haha

trogdor

anyway, crystal gems replacing physical skills with mental/social ones actually makes some sense

doppelgreener

Sep 8, 2015 07:05

@BESW [tents fingers. Australia is a few episodes behind still...]

Actually iTunes is probably only just catching up with the beginning of season 2.

trogdor

I may be a couple episodes behind too

I am not sure though

I could actually be all caught up

BESW

@doppelgreener Episode 1.26?

Wait.

doppelgreener

@BESW I've seen all of season 1.

and.... the first two episodes of Season 2.

@BESW I have seen Jail Break.

BESW

Then... yeah, 1.52.

That's what I'm talking about.

They get into it more in season two, but--yeah.

I think running "social skills replace Gems' physical skills" as a theme might be a powerful approach to any system for this setting.

doppelgreener

@BESW Sounds fine to me!

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 07:14

On the other hand, FAE might be an interesting way to go.

Garnet is Clever/Forceful (intuitive and prone to big gestures when moved to act); Pearl is Careful/Quick (best when thoughtful, but often uses snap responses instead); Amethyst is Flashy/Sneaky (centre of attention, can't do things small, but keeps a lot bottled up and to herself).

BESW

Sep 8, 2015 07:34

...now I'm imagining Fusions as straight-up "Add your Approach ranks together."

doppelgreener

That works. >:D

Steven is... Flashy/Clever/Forceful?

trogdor

would you need to make a roll or spend a fate point to sustain a fusion?

Pixie

Hmm. I feel like fusions would be the hardest thing to handle, in most any system.

Not just because of mechanical changes but because suddenly you have two (or more) players and one character.

trogdor

yeah, I imagine needing a stunt and or needing to make a roll just to initiate one

and needing to do something or other to maintain one

unless you are Garnet

because awesome

Pixie

I don't know. It isn't something that's difficult for any gem to do. They can do it whenever. The thing that stops them is compatibility.

trogdor

Sep 8, 2015 07:41

I would actually love to play garnet honestly

she is probably the character I would be most excited to play in a game if were were doing that

there are several reasons but the biggest one is spoilers

doppelgreener

@trogdor Being a Gem alone would justify being able to do one; stunts are for extraordinary things people usually can't do.

trogdor

but they would still need to roll

as you know, some of them have trouble, depending of course on who they fuse with in some cases

doppelgreener

.... aspect slots:
CONCEPT:
GEM:
FAMILY:
LOVE:
[OMEGA?]:

trogdor

like Pearl and Amethest

Pixie

It's possible to fail, but that depends more on circumstances. If you don't have those interfering circumstances -- that is, if you're compatible with the person and you really want to fuse -- you're not going to fail.

Maybe fusion fails could be handled through compels?

trogdor

Sep 8, 2015 07:46

I guess that works

that does sound right

BESW

Hmm. Fusion involves both Gems spending a Fate point.

doppelgreener

Except with Sugalite, fusing doesn't tend to have a downside... I wonder which direction the compel should go. Outward from the players feels.... mostly right.

^ yes that

you beat me by seconds c(:

BESW

A gem who refuses a Fusion instead gains a Fate point as a compel from the GM.

(And, of course, in either case--fusion or failure to fuse--an aspect must be indicated to justify it.)

If each Gem involved can't find a character aspect that explains why they want to fuse, they just... don't fuse, no Fate points exchanged.

trogdor

@doppelgreener well there is also spoilers

Pixie

@doppelgreener It isn't necessarily a downside while being fused -- you can be compelled to not be able to fuse at all. The downside is that you can't fuse even if that would be useful to you at the time, and there may be other consequences related to the nature of the compel (maybe you can't fuse because you're angry at each other, so, you know -- you're angry at each other).

doppelgreener

Sep 8, 2015 07:58

@Pixie I've seen the episode with spoilers for everyone but Pixie unless she says it's safe.

Pixie

@doppelgreener Nah, seen it.

doppelgreener

Have they?

BESW

Yarp.

That looked like consequence territory.

"Garnet takes consequence Of two minds about this! It's super awkward!"

Pixie

I have seen up through 65.

@doppelgreener ... oh! I completely misread this, haha. I see what you were saying now.

trogdor

I have seen up to 67

as long as the list I am looking at is right

doppelgreener

Sep 8, 2015 08:05

- To fuse, gems must have reasons they can point to, then compel those reasons. Points go to the GM.
- The GM can compel a suitably dramatic inter-gem conflict to suggest a gem should split.
- Compelling a fusion always costs one per player involved. To buy it off, each player must pay it off together. If the players can't accept or decline in unison, the fusion splits. (You can pay someone else's fate point if they want to decline but can't afford to, if you're in the same fusion as them.)
- (Alternately, compelling a fusion always costs one per **Gem** involved, not per player. You-know-w…

BESW

Hmm.

Equally, you could model Garnet's dual nature as a signature aspect stunt.

(It has the same effect, of spending two Fate points for a compel either way.)

doppelgreener

Yeah, you could. :D

Pixie

@doppelgreener I didn't know Voldemort was a Crystal Gem!

(I could not resist.)

doppelgreener

@Pixie Well, the best villains always have secret twists like these.

BESW

@Pixie It took a REALLY long time for him to regenerate, though.

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 08:09

I'm a little confused as to why it's a compel if it's a successful fusion, though.

doppelgreener

@BESW He's really bad at it.

BESW

@Pixie Well, it's more like a declaration in that case.

Pixie

But yeah, that seems to work.

doppelgreener

My thought process is... Fate points are useful, Compels mean you must point to a reason and say "this is why this is happening", and fusing provides power and solutions so the flow should be outward from the players. So, players point to reasons and compel them.

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 08:26

What is messing me up is not the process, it's calling it a compel. I guess the idea is you're compelling the GM..? But you're doing something that is more like invoking or declaring, and those things aren't normally considered compelling the GM.

BESW

Mmm. "Compel" isn't the right word.

Pixie

Yeah. That's all. I just went "wait, why is called it a compel?" but the process itself is fine.

trogdor

there should be a mechanic to discourage fusion as a really casual thing

Pixie

Mm, I think everybody involved having to spend Fate points is probably enough.

trogdor

no one does it without a pretty good reason

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 08:30

That's why you also have to have a reason!

trogdor

yeah

what I mean is that it is good to structure it in some way that puts weight behind the action

Pixie

Well, Connie and Steven spoiler for anyone wandering through but y'all should know this. There's always a story reason, but characters do not necessarily have to have that same reason. It's still technically a process that any two gems could do at any time that they wanted, barring personal clashing.

trogdor

well Connie and Steven have done that twice

as I recall

the second time didn't even last long

and they are kids too sooo

Pixie

But it happened. My point is that too many restrictions may make it difficult to reflect how it actually works and could reduce the ways it can be used in a narrative.

trogdor

I am not advocating like, restricting it heavily

and besides

even they would have fate point to spend, for example

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 08:40

Oh yeah. Fate point spending is a given here. I just think that and a story reason is enough.

trogdor

I agree

I just think anything less is,.. too little

doppelgreener

Yep, we are all on the same page with feeling the players should have a reason to fuse.

Pixie

I also think that two+ players having to control a single character simultaneously might sort of discourage it..? Maybe not, it just seems like a tricky thing to manage and probably not a way you'd want to spend the entire game.

Like, even if you still got the same amount of turns in actual combat/contests, you'd still have to work out the personality for your fusion together and figure out what happens when you're not bound by turns.

'cause fusions aren't just two people stuck together, they are an entirely new person themselves.

trogdor

yeah,...

that is actually probably a good thing though

it builds in its own restriction

Pixie

Yeah.

trogdor

Sep 8, 2015 08:50

if all players involved in a fusion can't agree on the action they take, they automatically un fuse

there is also the issue of who is speaking for the fusion

both/all people could do it,.. but that is obviously an issue

and agreeing on the fused personality is a thing

though having a good grasp on your own character, and knowing what they would add into it is something that would help a lot

and knowing what every character involved would agree on easily or even automatically would help to establish a starting point

doppelgreener

@Pixie Also re: this, I guess we can just say straightforwardly: "Spend fate points! Have a reason!" and not need to delve into compels. (Because I can see your confusion... the people whose behaviour is being affected are the ones paying the fate points, and that isn't a compel.)

trogdor

@doppelgreener I think it basically functions more like a shared, free, "stunt' that requires a fate point to activate from everyone participating

it doesn't have to be a stunt per se, but that is how I see it functioning

Pixie

It's an extra, really.

doppelgreener

It's game rules!

"You are a gem, therefore these rules apply, and let you perform these actions."

trogdor

yeah

@Pixie extra, I believe that is in fact the right term

Pixie

Sep 8, 2015 09:00

Yup. That is what I'd call it.

All fusion considerations:

doppelgreener

Consequences when fusing/splitting:
- A fusion is a new character with empty consequences, no matter what the gems fusing had. It's powerful and refreshed, a new mind and body.
- The gems that are fused still exist, along with all their aspects and consequences. They can still be compelled and invoked if it's justifiable.
- When a fusion you're in splits, fill any empty consequence slots you have that the fusion had filled. It doesn't have to be the same consequence: a fusion's injury could translate to upset or exhaustion for the gems that made it. If you had existing consequences in the s…

This means that yeah, you get an empty set of consequences, you can go wild now, but if you get beaten up it's going to mean Bad Stuff for everyone involved in the fusion, so don't overuse it.

That also means that if you've fused recently and struggled against a lot, you might be a bit out of action for a while.

... but on the other hand if the fusion should pick up consequences of its individual gems, that'd be reasonable too, just that I'm not sure how to handle it.

Alternately the fusion gets the stress tracks and consequence slots of both its gems, and that's what its stress and consequences are?

this actually takes some surprising serious existential wondering about what a fusion is...

Not a bar, but plays one on TV

Participants