Fate chat and game room

doppelgreener

00:02

@BESW "I want more than 5 stunts worth of stunt stuff"?

(isn't that the reason for ever wanting a megastunt?)

BESW

That's a mechanical desire. Why does your Weird Scientist need more than 5 stunts worth of effect to represent his character?

doppelgreener

(well, that and having access to armor/weapon ratings and absoluteness)

BESW

Right: usually the answer is not "He needs more than 5 stunts," it's "He has qualities which the unique megastunt features are best suited to represent."

doppelgreener

He's totally excellent at these 4 different science things to the extent I want +2's for them, and he breaks the rules in 3 different ways due to his specialisation in the Odic ether or whatever it is

(this is theoretical, I don't know what those +2's are)

BESW

Now we're talking about narrative! "He's a highly trained specialist in too many different fields for the default character resources to properly cover."

That tells me he's going to need a Weird Mode, by the way, because his character isn't effectively described by the default modes.

Any time the reason you want megastunts is "He's not like other Action Scientists," that probably implies a Weird Mode.

trogdor

00:09

and the book actually has weird science modes

as examples

on of the She Devils, I believe, has some kind of weird science mode

as I recall

and Tesla, for example, has "celebrity"

as does like, Carl Sagan and a bunch of other example characters I think

might be wrong about Sagan actually, but I have seen the celebrity mode on a couple people

Edison's only weird mode is celebrity

and yet he still has some pretty fantastic Mega Stunts

So my point in mentioning all this is, you CAN make a weird mode that says you are good at some kind of science stuff, either directly or indirectly

just don't make your weird mode "I am good at all sciences" cause that is what the normal science mode is already

specify some area or a couple areas of expertise, and then you have defined what your Mega Stunts can do

I you want them to apply to doing science I mean

and yes Edison does have at least one.(but probably only one) Mega Stunt

THERE ARE NO RULES: is just freaking broken if it isn't one

doppelgreener

@BESW hm. I was poking at making an ACTION/SCIENCE/INTRIGUE character who uses ghosts and Odic ether knowledge in order to conduct espionage and fight people, but it's probably not legit and SSD would probably swing in, knock me off a ledge into a cold pond shouting something about narrative, and bat-grapple back out of sight.

BESW

If that's the character, then the "too many sciences for five stunts" thing may just be--the wrong kind of stunt.

doppelgreener

because it's quite possible if I actually started from narrative it would be appealing to pick up a weird mode. "But I made it with just the standard modes, for a challenge and to prove a point!" "Great! You did that thing! But it probably wouldn't have actually gone this way if you hadn't been forcing it."

because I'd probably pick up a SPECIAL AGENT mode in place of Intrigue, or a THAUMATURGIST mode in place of Science given he doesn't care about much else ("What? Aviation? Why would I ever study Aviation? What's that got to do with ghosts?").

trogdor

You could always have 2 weird modes

doppelgreener

@trogdor and yeah that's a fair point, I was wondering how that'd work out.

trogdor

00:23

If you want to make this character into what you just mentioned, you could make a Special Agent mode, a Thaumaturgist mode, and throw in extra Intrigue or Action

Even Science if you wanted

doppelgreener

@trogdor yeah that's true

trogdor

This is half the reason weird modes exist

they were made to let people,... make weird characters

doppelgreener

yeah. :)

trogdor

even compared to Atomic Robo standards

BESW

One thing Weird Modes can do is simply reinforce skills your other modes have already given you.

doppelgreener

00:25

I'm also happy with having read about this and done this little experiment. I was wondering if it would be better for Fate H&S to just have some core modes, and stuff outside that is our 'weird' modes. That might be worthwhile looking into. But it will probably have several more core modes than atomic robo.

e.g. picking out some archetypes: there are characters who are defensive, focus on bashing things, focus on blowing things up with magic, shooting things from a distance, being nimble with dodging and movement around the place, and so on, and classes are various expressions of combinations of these things

BESW

The difficulty is going to be in the balance.

Not that one mode will come out stronger than another--we can handle that pretty easily.

But that the combinations of modes must be balanced.

ARRPG only worries about balancing four modes in groups of three. This lets them ensure Notice is going to be at least +3, but that you're not gonna be good at Stealth or Combat unless you make a deliberate effort.

doppelgreener

00:49

@BESW your chat avatar is moustached now!!! :D

BESW

Yes. I have named my moustache Eloquent.

doppelgreener

@BESW What do you mean by this in particular?

(I have lots of balance concerns going around in my head)

BESW

For modes to work, all possible combinations of modes should produce viable skill spreads.

The more modes you have, the more complicated it is to make sure that's true.

Kyle Sykes

Evening all

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes Hi!

@BESW Right, yeah. That's a fair point, and a lot of investigation work.

but I wonder, are there skill spreads that are not viable..?

What would a nonviable skill spread be?

Even a character who manages to pick modes that don't overlap winds up with an awful lot of skills in +3, +2, and +1

and then they specialise and focus some

Also regarding this:

18 hours ago, by BESW

So you're thinking... make Lore into the H&S equivalent of ARRPG's Science?

@BESW That may be worthwhile, except it comes at the cost of needing to sacrifice an entire mode if you want your character to have a degree of worldly knowledge. That will be servicable only in a model with a low number of modes (like, 8 tops). Otherwise, I would look to something that is generally adaptable to multiple modes.

BESW

01:01

@doppelgreener An H&S character should be viable in combat. That means they should have a decent ability to make attack and defence rolls in physical conflicts.

doppelgreener

e.g.: your character can have Lore, but it cannot be focused/specialised like other skills. To focus/specialise in Lore, you must pick a field of knowledge, and focus/specialise in that compared to your usual Lore skill. If Lore is at +3, you can bump Lore (History) or Lore (Fables) up to +5. In doing so, you keep Lore at +3.

This means every mode with Lore in it carries along the broad-knowledge characteristic of Science.

@BESW Ok, yeah.

[does some digging through ARRPG's character write-ups, up to p276.]

Every character (bar 3) either has Combat at +5, or a Science at +5. The ones with a Science at +5 tend to have Combat at either +2 or absent altogether. The exceptions are Sparrow III, John Simmons (who has Will at +5 and a Science at +4) and Bao Lang (Combat +4, Science +3)

Every character has either Science or Action as their +3 mode. The ones that do not have a mode that is a specialisation of Science or Action.

(There is one character who has Banter for +3, that is John Simmons. He has Science and Action for his +2 and +1 respectively.)

In a game about Action Science, it makes sense people would specialise in either Action or Science.

This suggests to me that in Fate H&S, we need to make sure each mode has a viable method of fighting, with a small number (2?) of supplemental modes which do not do fighting.

People will probably make sure their preferred method of fighting is at +3.

Kyle Sykes

01:25

Is anyone planning anything for a Halloween themed session?

doppelgreener

I'm not!

BESW

I'm thinking we'll try A Penny for My Thoughts, maybe with the Lovecraft themed variant.

Kyle Sykes

I think I'm going to run a straight zombie survival game (escape from a town sort of thing), but there's a catch. I'm going to have a kitchen timer set for 3-5 minute intervals and each time it goes off something happens (more zombies come in, a corpse rises, [insert other unfortunate event here])

The idea is that it keeps the game running full tilt and not giving them time to think things through properly

Hopefully it will set a constant tension to the night that they enjoy scrambling trying to plan their escape after waking up to the innkeeper eating the face off the bard from the night before

Thoughts?

BESW

I'd be inclined to use something other than IRL time, but that's mostly because of the nature of my gaming table.

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes pick a fast game ;D don't pick D&D

can I suggest roll for shoes?

BESW

01:33

RFS for a serious game? hrm.

Kyle Sykes

@doppelgreener I've been debating what to try and use.

We've got 5e, which even streamlined might get bogged down

BESW

Cthulhu Dark might work.

Kyle Sykes

FATE might play nicely, but I'm not sure how quick it would be.

doppelgreener

@BESW something inside tells me it's perfect for a zombie survival thing: lots and lots of broad and expanding capabilities

Kyle Sykes

If I'm using something unfamiliar, character creation will have to be quick as well

doppelgreener

01:35

@KyleSykes quick if your group's extremely comfortable with it, but I wouldn't run fate in a game with real life time pressure unless my players were extremely comfortable in the system - I'd rather be able to take the time to explain or discuss things with them if they were new

Kyle Sykes

Since this will be the first time some people have ever played anything pen and paper

@doppelgreener Makes sense. I'm feeling that way about most systems I encounter. I could also just slow it down a little bit and use whatever system I wanted, ditching the kitchen timer but continuing to throw things relentlessly at them to keep things moving

doppelgreener

@BESW Cthulhu Dark would work only in a zombie survival situation where you don't get to pick up the shotgun and go to town.

Kyle Sykes

We eventually want to transition into a 5e game, possibly over winter break.

doppelgreener

I do seriously recommend roll for shoes though. Character creation involves getting a piece of paper and writing "Do Anything 1" on it, and then you start playing.

Kyle Sykes

Googling both now. I like that they are extremely light

doppelgreener

01:39

Throughout the game the characters will be developing new abilities and specialisations relevant to the tasks they're performing, and specialising differently depending on what they do. One guy will look out for zombies, get a 6, and develop an ability around scouting. He'll become the group's go-to scout, probably, and start developing skills around keen vision and so on, and might even become a sniper.

Another guy meanwhile gets a 6 on pumping zombies with lead, and starts to develop proficiency with guns.

Later on, when everyone else has a skill at 2-3 in gunfire, there are mechanisms to let the guy who never picked up a gun to this point get up to scratch fairly quickly.

There's no health bar, but you don't need one in zombie survival: you're either fine, or you're injured, or you're dead or a zombie.

BESW

@KyleSykes The RPG.SE tag wikis have good links.

Kyle Sykes

@BESW That's what I'm reading now

BESW

(At least, I hope they do--I wrote 'em.)

Kyle Sykes

So "Do something 1" is the basic skill, and you just roll 1 die to a DM's 1 die

BESW

"Do Anything 1," technically.

Kyle Sykes

01:42

Right

BESW

And the GM's opposition is... left up to the GM.

doppelgreener

so you can do anything, but only at 1

BESW

Over time I developed my own technique.

Kyle Sykes

And if you beat the DM, it happens. If it fails, then you get 1 xp to use for advancement. 1xp for 1 6?

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes Yes.

So if you fail on your first roll, you can turn your very next into a 6 (for character growth only).

Kyle Sykes

01:43

So even if you fail the first roll, you can immediately advance that skill right away?

doppelgreener

No, I don't think so.

BESW

@KyleSykes Your next roll.

doppelgreener

The way I've taken it is that the XP is granted after the fact.

Kyle Sykes

ah

Gotcha

BESW

We use poker chips to track XP.

doppelgreener

01:44

@BESW Could you please explain it? I'd like to say something about applying it.

BESW

My strategy for rolling opposition: opposition defaults to 2d6, and goes up or down by 1d6 for every major narrative element that would make the opposition stronger or weaker.

I do this very openly, putting 2d6 on the table and then adding and taking away dice while saying out loud the reason for each die, and inviting everyone else to make suggestions.

Once we got the hang of it, the process went faster than it sounds like it should: the whole thing is a loosey-goosey concept and if people start arguing about mechanical details in RFS the group's gone off track.

doppelgreener

So if someone's firing at a docile zombie down the smoke-filled hallway, you might put down 2d6, add one for the smoke, but take away two for the fact the zombie's standing still and it's right there.

"I'll try shooting it, then."

2d6

Dice Service

•

doppelgreener

GM opposes:

d6

Dice Service

•

doppelgreener

01:47

6 vs 4. Kapow! It's a goner.

BESW

[disables Fudge dice script]

doppelgreener

[does that too]

Speaking of Injury, too, that's how I'd model it. If someone got their leg broken, we'd take note of it, and I'd probably go adding dice each time they needed to use their leg for what they're doing.

BESW

Yup, that's about right.

doppelgreener

There's stuff they simply won't be able to do at all, like run, so that isn't even a matter of adding dice, that's just: "you can't do that."

They can climb a laddder, but it's going to be harder because they're working without one of their legs.

BESW

Oh, and here's one last thing about RFS: its silliness can be scaled by how pedantic you are about rolling for shoes.

When I run RFS, it's for light-hearted fun, so I call for rolls on everything.

Any time a player asks me "Can I do X?" or "Is there a Y?" or "What is Z doing?" I tell them to roll.

doppelgreener

01:52

@KyleSykes On another note, the xp-for-failure mechanic means that if characters die, or get left behind, or so on, they can make a new survivor who bumps into the group later. Depending on how skilled up the other players currently are, they could spend the intervening time writing down some 2's and 3's, and if they're behind the group, they have that mechanism helping them catch up.

BESW

In this way we discovered that the PC named Quiet Bear was actually a bear. And later that he could talk.

Kyle Sykes

Haha

I'm liking this idea. So if a character dies (likely by failing to escape a zombie's bite), then they start off with "Do anything 1" and maybe a number of xp to help them scale up quickly?

And then as they try to do things whether they succeed or fail they can level skills up more?

BESW

In my experience, they don't need bonus XP.

If you've got lower-ranked skills, you get lots more XP to get higher-ranked skills, so it's a naturally balancing system.

Kyle Sykes

Interesting

BESW

Trogdor once showed up halfway through a session and quickly pulled up from Do Anything 1 to I Am A Dragon 4 or something like that.

Kyle Sykes

02:02

So, if on your first roll you try to hit a zombie with a baseball bat, do you get "Swing the Bat 1" as a skill if you get a 6, or do you get "Swing the bat 2" since it's one level higher than what you tried to do?

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes Swing the bat 2.

> If you roll all sixes on your roll, you can get new skill one level higher than the one you used for the action. The skill must be a subset of what happened to you in the action (Say, Athletics 2 if you were climbing a wall, or Teeth of Biting 2 if you were eating a cake).

So you take "swing the bat" because it's a subset of what happened in that action, and it's at 2 because that's one higher than the score of the skill you were using.

BESW

New skills are always one level higher than the skill which spawned them. Old skills never level up.

Kyle Sykes

Oh, interesting. So you'll have "Swing the bat 2" forever, and it'll never be "swing the bat 3"?

doppelgreener

Correct.

Kyle Sykes

But instead it will be something like "Breaking windows 3"

doppelgreener

02:05

Yes, if you were doing something that involved breaking a window at the time of getting two sixes on your swing the bat roll.

Kyle Sykes

Very neat. I can see how that would evolve pretty quickly lol

BESW

@KyleSykes Or Kneecapping 3.

doppelgreener

Or Bludgeonating 3.

Kyle Sykes

I think this is what I'm going with. Something quick and easy, and works well with the timer idea

doppelgreener

(Which is, in a way, about as broad as swing the bat, and a levelled up version of it.)

BESW

02:07

In fact, you may wind up with:
Do Anything 1
Batter Up! 2
Breaking Windows 3
Kneecapping 3
Staying Quiet 2
Screaming 3

(You get "Screaming" for using XP to level up off a failed "Staying Quiet" roll.)

Kyle Sykes

Ohhh, I didn't think about that

BESW

(And you get both "Breaking Windows" and "Kneecapping" off "Batter Up!" but off two different uses of it.)

Kyle Sykes

So you could skill up the effects of the failed roll if you wanted to. Neat

BESW

So long as the new higher-ranked skill has a narrower application and follows logically from the action, you're golden.

doppelgreener

@BESW I don't think higher-ranked skills need to have narrower applications than lower-ranked ones, it just tends to happen that way because they come from a subset of what you were doing.

BESW

02:10

I think "subset" implies it, and the notion that you can roll more dice in narrower areas appeals to my aesthetics, but yes--it's not explicit and it's not super important.

doppelgreener

It occurs to me that Bludgeonating is not equally broad as Swing the bat, because it won't help you if you're batting away a grenade thrown by a rival group of survivors.

but it will help you whenever you're hitting things trying to hurt or break them.

BESW

"Increasingly specific as you rank higher" a good rule of thumb, but not something that should slow down play with rules debates.

Kyle Sykes

Right

I think I'm totally going with this. Thanks for tipping me towards it!

doppelgreener

@BESW that's the key though: subset of the thing you did, not subset of the skill it came from. Which is how you get screaming out of being quiet.

Kyle Sykes

Are there any other really light systems that make for fun?

I flipped through Cthulu Dark, which seems like another style of Halloween fun that could happen

doppelgreener

02:13

Yeah, I'd strongly recommend Cthulhu Dark, though not so much for zombie survival.

Kyle Sykes

Less wacky and more trying to fuck with people's minds?

doppelgreener

because fighting resulting in guaranteed death is not a trope of zombie survival.

Kyle Sykes

Right

Miniman

@doppelgreener That would make for an awesome zombie survival scenario

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes Yes. People being confronted by cosmic horror. BESW has run several games of it for myself and others, he might do a better job explaining it in depth. Which is good timing because I need to pick up lunch. :D

Kyle Sykes

02:15

I think it would make for a different type of zombie survival game

doppelgreener

@Miniman probably, though it means giving up the ability to shoot at the zombies piling in through the windows.

Kyle Sykes

One based around staying the fuck away from them while the other offers the option of confronting them head on

doppelgreener

Yeah.

BESW

@KyleSykes Great Ork Gods isn't as light, but it's 11 pages (including sample adventure) that tell you how to play as orks competing to be the least hated by their own gods.

Lady Blackbird is a great light-prep game: each pre-made PC sheet has the top half for PC stats, and the bottom half for all the rules of the game.

(And there's a sheet of GM advice.)

Also check out Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple, though it's a lot more... structured.

Kyle Sykes

Bookmarking all of these for later review

You are like a massive fountain of knowledge

Miniman

02:21

@doppelgreener Yep, I'm thinking of a more realistic - avoid zombies at all costs stealth tactics - sort of game. Although some ability to kill them, (not fight, just kill), would make things even better

BESW

Cthulhu Dark would be a great system for a story about a zombie apocalypse that can't be defeated through conventional force, if it was also about struggling to not succumb to the horror of the situation.

@KyleSykes A Penny For My Thoughts is more than 90 pages, but a lot of that is advice and variants and the philosophy of the game's design. The game itself is designed to be played without reading it beforehand: PCs are amnesiac mental patients undergoing an experimental mind-meld therapy to help each other remember their pasts, and the manual is the "read aloud as you go" instructions for conducting the group therapy.

By default, they're ordinary people in an ordinary world, and their memory loss is simply the result of personal trauma they're trying to uncover.

But there are variants for being the survivors of a Lovecraftian horror and having to remember how to defeat it when it returns, and for being superspies whose amnesia is about something from a mission which needs to be learnt for the sake of national security.

Kyle Sykes

Bookmarked again. My wife is home so I'm going to go spend some time with her. Thanks for the help @BESW and @doppelgreener!

BESW

ttfn

doppelgreener

@KyleSykes You're welcome!

BESW

@KyleSykes Let us know about your experiences with 'em, eh?

doppelgreener

02:29

Yes, please do. :)

Magician

03:24

I have a query about Fate stunts, which may or may not belong on the main site, but I thought I'd ask here first.

I'm running a Supers game, using ideas from Venture City Stories. But some of their sample stunts appear to be quite overpowered, compared to the regular ones, e.g. "+2 to Fight when using brute strength" for a super-strong character. Why would you ever not use brute strength.

Which is not too bad if everyone takes a +2 to their favored power, effectively raising the ceiling there. But only one player did, which makes them stand out in combat situations, for no particular reason, story-wise.

BESW

Hmm. That's a call. Breaking out of the standard "+2 to [skill] with [action] in [circumstance]" template can get risky, but also be rewarding.

Magician

And it's not just VCS. Even in ARRPG there are stunts that look like they'd be widely applicable. At a glance, there was soldier's stunt for a favorite gun, giving +2 Combat with it. Rarely if ever would you not use your favorite gun. And when you do use it, you'd get that bonus every round.

doppelgreener

faterpg.com/2011/more-fun-with-trappings

I think the Trappings article is relevant here

That +2 is an almost-always-on trapping, which definitely makes a difference when you can get away with that all the time.

BESW

I think in both cases, it's a matter of "Are there going to be places where this stunt encourages you to use an inappropriate action?" IE, using your gun in a scene where gunfire is not the best option.

Magician

So I guess that's what my question comes down to: stunts should be roughly equivalent to a free fate point once per session. A bonus to Combat in a combaty game seems to be better than that.

doppelgreener

03:31

@Magician They're not entirely equivalent to that.

I don't think that's a rule of thumb for power either: my half-troll in the DFAE playtest wound up using his weapon:2 to forceful attacks using his body stunt multiple times in one session.

Magician

@doppelgreener Looking at just a flat bonus granted (not rule bending or change of skill functionality), it may well come up multiple times per session, which is balanced by the fact that it doesn't come up always.

But combat... is combat. Comparing it to other stunts from Core, like +2 in high society situations...

doppelgreener

But it's saved from being overly powerful because most of the time he doesn't want to fight; he has greater motives that encourage him to do other stuff very often, like take a hit, wrestle someone with creating advantages, etc.

Do read that Trappings article. It'll help you understand what you're grappling with here.

and where it really comes from: there's a different measure of a stunt from the "equivalent to a fate point" that I think is more useful.

Magician

Read it. I have a more pragmatic issue at hand. A balance issue, if you will. Here're the "super" stunts of the character in question:
Trained from Birth (Power - 3 stunts)
General excellent physical fitness, dexterity, agility, hand-eye-coordination. Extensive training. No actual superpowered abilities.
+2 to Athletics for the purposes of defense in combat
+2 to Will against intimidation or fear
+2 to Fight when attacking with finesse and dexterity in melee

Of these, +2 to Will came up a couple of times so far, and allowed them to shine in that specific instance. +2 to Fight has since actually been reworded to fighting human-shaped opponents, as we've agreed it basically always applied otherwise (and in a supers game giant robots or dinosaurs happen frequently).

But +2 to Athletics is still applicable every round of combat when they dodge out of the way of... anything, really.

BESW

This is your problem: "Which is not too bad if everyone takes a +2 to their favored power, effectively raising the ceiling there. But only one player did, which makes them stand out in combat situations, for no particular reason, story-wise."

So let's go back to the story: He's well trained, but not superhuman. The +2 Athletics to Defend doesn't seem to reflect that.

doppelgreener

"defence in combat" is not really a specific situation

or, it's not specific enough

BESW

03:43

It should be limited to situations where his training is useful to defence: what kind of combat is he trained in? Can he dodge bullets with gun kata? Did his dojo have an animatronic dinosaur for him to practice against?

doppelgreener

90% of the time defence comes up, it will be in conflict. in your situation, 90% of conflicts are probably combat, I'm guessing. so "+2 to Athletics for the purposes of defence in combat" is, almost all of the time, the same as "+2 to defending with Athletics {with no situation specified}."

The template: Because I [describe some way that you are exceptional, have a cool bit of gear, or are otherwise awesome], I get a +2 when I [approach] [action] when [describe a circumstance].

Magician

Sorry, am sporadically absent.

Yes, you've got the gist of it.

@BESW The idea was the batman/ninja-style character

doppelgreener

Or the short form: +2 to [action] actions with [skill] when [situation]. (And make sure it's something justified.)

Magician

But then there's the armor:2 stunts and +2 Combat with favorite gun in ARRPG, which makes me question my understanding of the underlying balance of stunts.

doppelgreener

So, something like:
• +2 to defending with Athletics against melee assault with fists and blunt weaponry.
• When I'm being shot at, I have a +2 to defending with Athletics to find cover.
• +2 to defending with Physique against blunt physical assault I can take with a tough body.

Magician

03:52

Favorite gun could sometimes be taken from you via a compel, or maybe sometimes it's not an appropriate tool for the job, but most of the time, when the GM is not actively setting up a foil for it, the soldier would get to use their favorite gun.

@doppelgreener Those do sound reasonable.

doppelgreener

The last one defends against an iron pole, but it won't help if someone wants to poke a knife through your stomach.

@Magician <- @BESW What's your thoughts on these?

BESW

Hm. Two things.

First, that each of them has a clear context where they aren't useful.

Armor has weaknesses, costs, and/or bypasses--even Bulletproof has limits.

And as Magician said, guns get taken away, they jam, they run out of bullets, and so forth.

But here's the real crux of the issue: Stunts that give always-on bonuses set up a tension by urging the player to move the context of the scene into a position where he can use his stunt.

Magician

@BESW I was just skimming the book, but there were multiple stunts that just gave you armor rating 2, with seemingly no limits on them. Armor 2 is handy. It could be that you can get armor with gear in ARRPG, and that's not that big a deal, dunno.

@BESW Do that too often, though, and you're taking away their favorite toy. If a signature weapon is disabled every second combat, it's kinda lame.

BESW

If the game's set up so that the stunt's context is always on...

...that's a choice.

ARRPG has stunts that make a character really awesome every time there's combat. These stunts are not often useful in brainstorming.

Magician

Hm. Well, to be clear, we don't always have combat. Didn't have one last game. But combat does happen often enough that it's become noticeable.

BESW

04:01

Then... at the end of the day, Fate is balanced by its table-level context.

Magician

That is a thing to wrap one's mind around. Just because there's a stunt out there, doesn't mean it's appropriate for the actual game you're playing.

BESW

If the stunt is imbalanced in play at your table, it's imbalanced, and that's all there is to it: no amount of theorycrafting will persuade it to become balanced. Fate's fast and loose, and trusts the table.

You either adjust the play, or adjust the stunt, or play with an imbalanced stunt.

There are stunts in ARRPG that I can't believe are balanced, but I haven't played with them.

(Jenkins' "Tactical Advantage" stunt is insane.)

Magician

Can you replicate it here?

BESW

> TACTICAL ADVANTAGE: In a physical conflict, before rolling dice on your turn, you can remove a boost from play.

doppelgreener

@Magician That's right. That's a big deal in Fate.

Magician

04:07

@BESW That appears to reduce the interesting-ness of combat, overall.

doppelgreener

If you compiled a list of a hundred different fate games' stunts, then distributed that list to each of those games, some players would have their eyes bulge at the power of stunts that may be the weakest at their author's table, and others would be confused why anyone would even want a stunt that is the most powerful at its author's table.

Magician

Coming from the laughably poorly enforced playstyle consensus of D&D feats, it's a lot to take in.

doppelgreener

Yeah. In D&D, every feat and spell can theoretically be compared against a common baseline to determine how powerful it is. That common baseline doesn't really exist in Fate.

Magician

Nerf-bat's a-whistling.

Which, in New Batovia ruled by Professor Von Bat, may just be a real thing.

doppelgreener

Harold the Half-Troll has Weapon:2 on Forcefully attacking with his body. At our table, that's awesome. He's one of the only characters with a weapon rating. It's also convenient, because in DFAE, if you succeed in an attack against someone at a higher weight class, it comes at a cost. Because of his stunt, Harold can tie, and get a boost and deal 2 stress to his attacker at no cost at all. That's freakin' awesome.

BESW

04:11

Actually, I re-read the rules, and he shouldn't be getting the boost.

But the point holds.

doppelgreener

Ok, right. But he deals 2 stress for free. :D

In situations where others would have to take a minor cost to deal that stress.

In the context of another game, +2 to Forceful attacks with his body is better. In another game, people are using weapon ratings, so Weapon:2 is not all that much. In another game, the enemy is destructobots, and actually being in a situation where that stunt can be used is probably going to get him killed.

BESW

And in yet another game where tact and decorum are paramount, getting to use a wpn:2 feature means you've already lost.

The Mission: Impossible TV show, for instance: almost every time a punch was thrown in earnest by a protagonist, it meant something had gone horribly wrong.

The team's strong man would've had +2 to create advantages with Physique like This crate is featherlight and totally does not contain my accomplice.

doppelgreener

@BESW hahaha, amusing

it's been a while since i've seen that ploy used

BESW

He was also a great actor who could take on many "strong musclehead" personas to make people overlook him as part of the scenery: soldier, bodyguard, doorman, thug, etc.

I'd probably represent that as adding a create advantage trapping to use Athletics (body control) in place of Deceive when silently occupying a role.

doppelgreener

That'd work well.

That's like It's Not Exactly Rocket Science. Which is a stunt I like a lot.

Magician

04:39

Observation: stunts make it harder to shift the tone of the game down the road.

BESW

Counter-observation: milestones!

Magician

Aye. But that requires gradual, almost purposeful steering.

BESW

Yar.

Magician

Eh, is not bad. Even skills say what kind of activities you expect to be engaging in.

BESW

Yeah, the skill list does important tonal lifting too.

But you can always just screw the rules and have everyone rip out the chassis and rebuild.

doppelgreener

04:42

I am actually going to propose that to my group next session. Or sort of.

Magician

True, if you were to decide that from now on the game is about courtly intrigue rather than dungeoncrawling...

doppelgreener

During our first session I tried to get them to fill in all the blanks, and that resulted in stuff they weren't totally happy with.

Next session, I'm going to provide them with an opportunity to blank:
- All their stunts.
- All their skills, and just pick a +4, +3, +2 and +1.
- One or two of their aspects.

I'll later take a look at the skill list and how they're using it, and we might adjust it together to better reflect our game.

I'm also tempted to remove the concept of the Trouble.

doppelgreener

05:32

(but I probably won't yet)

(not until we're more comfortable as a group)

doppelgreener

06:20

From a player's perspective...

Harold's most dramatic aspect is This Is My Town. This has caused almost all of his complications and self-compels so far and has thrown him headlong into the action. His trouble was a great story hook for one of the characters but hasn't been used much otherwise.

In Enchanted Forest, we couldn't come up with a good trouble for Stellata. Eventually we came across Overwhelmed and Unprepared, though at this point I'd throw such a thing into one of her other aspects, specifically the one about her being very young to the world.

Maybe it's good keeping at as a trouble? But I've felt like the Trouble is often not the most well-used or dramatic aspect.

BESW

Troubles are troubling!

They're useful tools for certain kinds of short games, and for players/groups which have difficulty making double-edged aspects.

doppelgreener

I guess that's true.

It's probably worthwhile giving Stellata that Trouble aspect for the Enchanted Forest campaign.

BESW

06:35

If your group doesn't need the support which troubles provide, then they get in the way by enforcing an artificial structure on the narrative.

Once again: Fate is a set of tools for a table to wield as needed in support of their storytelling goals.

doppelgreener

For Atomic Robo, however, I love that she will not have a Trouble. She does not have a major quest. She will not be all that young to the world, and she'll instead have aspects around her fascination with and distance from the human condition and how people stuff works.

@BESW True enough.

trogdor

I love that my character idea sparked an idea to bring one of your characters back

doppelgreener

06:51

Me too!!

I did want to play her again.

BESW

I'll be glad to get more screen time for her too.

trogdor

I'm not exactly looking to bring my enchanted forest character back

I liked the idea, but at the very least the execution was pretty bad

doppelgreener

I do remember you had some trouble with him, e.g. BESW pointed out at some point that he was reactive more than proactive.

trogdor

I think one part of the issue was that we were playing in chat

I also do think I went heavy on the reactionary stuff

I was trying to play a cranky old man, and he also happened to be blind, which I may not have handled very well

BESW

07:06

Part of it is that your "blind PC" concept came out of a D&D thoughtspace, and we didn't have a ton of Fate experience to know how --and how much-- to translate it.

trogdor

yeah

this is true

doppelgreener

aye aye

in a D&D context he might have been fine

since reactionary is A-OK there

trogdor

well, part of it is that I over roll played the blind stuff

I should have compelled myself instead of just bumbling around for nothing, at the very least

along with being more proactive

STT LCU

08:13

mornin'

trogdor

morning

Transcript for

Fate chat and game room