Adapting Rules from Other FATE Games

[Morfedel]

I love the DFRPG, but I find myself dissatisfied with a few aspects of the game.

So, with this in mind, I stumbled upon and subsequently purchased a copy of Strands of Fate, a universal FATE game system.

Ironically, the writer of the game had the exact same issues with the DFRPG that I had.

So, I'm mining SoF for ideas to import into my DFRPG campaign.

One that I really like is persistent aspects. The idea is that some aspects should effect someone at all times and thus should never cost anything to invoke.

Now, SoF uses slightly different compel rules: normally, you can turn down compels without paying a fate point unless the gm declares the compel is a cutthroat compel.

A persistent aspect never costs a fate point to invoke but is also always a cutthroat compel.

So, everyone fighting in the middle of a blizzard might have have the persistent aspect snow-blinded on them, written thus: snow-blinded(p).

Anyone else found any other good rules from other FATE games to mine?

[sinker]

That's a pretty cool distinction. We've been using the spin rules from Spirit of the Century instead of from DFRPG (Placing an aspect instead of just a +1/-1 on the next action). It's not a huge difference but we like it.

[devonapple]

A persistent aspect never costs a fate point to invoke but is also always a cutthroat compel.
So, everyone fighting in the middle of a blizzard might have have the persistent aspect snow-blinded on them, written thus: snow-blinded(p).

In the snowstorm, wouldn't the attacker be invoking Snow-Blinded to make his attack more effective (my target is Snow-Blinded so he has trouble dodging my attack, so +2 to hit), and the defender invoking the same aspect in his defense roll (my attacker is Snow-Blinded, and has more trouble hitting me, so, +2 to dodge), thereby effectively canceling it out altogether in some cases, with that Fate Point going to negate the bonus one or the other is using?

Edit: I bought SoF myself, in part to balance Supernatural abilities, but I liked the potential of Persistent Aspects. I have yet to read it through carefully, I'm afraid.

[Morfedel]

That was just an example off the cuff.

EDIT: so, yes, in the blizzard example, defense and offense could both tag the aspect continuously.

Unless, say, some if the combatants aren't affected by the snow

 Persistent aspects don't have to be area-effect, just hard to justify ignoring. For example, a sprained ankle could be ignored a lot easier than foot torn off

[sinker]

I'd say it also has more to do with who can make a more compelling argument. In the above example it seems to me that "snowblinded" hinders the attacker more than the defender. Unless the attacker is using some sort of silent or undetectable attack it's way easier to throw yourself to the ground in a blizzard than it is to pick out specific targets.

[JesterOC]

I purchased Strands of Fate to do the same.. however I found that the changes seem to make the game more like traditional games with combat modifiers.

At the moment I don't want to switch back to that way of doing things, mainly because I feel you have to at least try to embrace the new mechanic to see what it really provides.

Off the top of my head persistent aspect mechanic seems to devalue FATE points.
For instance if you have a pure mortal vs a monster with no fate fighting in an environment that is "On Fire".
The Mortal since he has free will, can adapt to the situation and start using FATE points to use the Aspect to his favor, while the monster (who has no fate points) is bound to use only its powers (because the lack of free will).

If that was a persistent aspect, the cool factor lessened for the pure mortal because now the monster can be using the fire against him as well.

So with this one change, you destroy the theme of the game (free will comes at the expense of power) and lessen the value of FATE points because now there are situations where everyone can have an infinite supply of fate points.

If you find that your players don't use environmental aspects much because of the lack of fate points, I suggest they use the compel mechanic to use the environment to give them points. Meaning the player self compels that he spends his turn dodging the fire in the building instead of attacking. (Bing instant FATE point). Next turn he can describe that he worked out a way to now turn the tables and use that fate point to turn the fire against the creature.
I feel that feels like a better story, with more interesting choices for the players.


JesterOC

[newtinmpls]

Two things I've been pondering:

"So with this one change, you destroy the theme of the game (free will comes at the expense of power) -"
Gotta admit, while I do see the average "PC" as more inclined to act outside the box than the average NPC, I don't care for the monsters not having choice aspect of the game. So I don't tend to use it. My monsters do have drives and needs and (in the instance of Ghouls w/respect to flesh and Vamps w/respect to blood) hungers - they are still able to make choices, because monster or not, they are still sentient.

If a PC becomes too powerful or "unplayable" that has to do with how the Player is acting, not the stats of the PC.

"and lessen the value of FATE points because now there are situations where everyone can have an infinite supply of fate points."

Again, not impressed by FATE points since they work against actual role playing. Saying "oh wait, can I invoke that aspect/item/maneuver because I failed my roll" is really annoying. In my game, if the PC's haven't included it in their initial description of their action, they do not get to invoke it 'after the fact'.

Dian

[JesterOC]

I don't understand what you are saying when you don't use the concept of monsters not having freewill. It seems that all you are saying is that you give them their own drives and ambitions. That seems like rules as written to me.

They all have their own drives and ambitions, and as you said they are linked to what they are (Ghouls love flesh, Vamps blood). FATE points allow them to transcend these limitations, and also any aspects of their personality.

For instance you can have two NPC ghouls, both are based off the listing in the book, but you make one the leader, and the other the muscle. To have the game mechanics reflect this, you give the leader the aspect, "Master of Control" and a FATE point, and the other just gets "Quick to Attack". You now have two very different ghouls. The lesser one can be quickly tricked into aggression that the Players could use against him, the other would be much more resistant to such ploys.

As for your second point, I can't see how you are saying that FATE points work against roleplaying. I find that they are great way for the game to reward the player for acting within the described aspects of their character.  I can't see how the use of FATE points in a conflict detracts in anyway from roleplaying.  I view the mechanics separate from the game fiction. The fact that players may invoke aspects after the roll does not change my view of the conflict, no more than rolling dice to determine the outcome in the first place.

JesterOC

[newtinmpls]

Hi,

"I don't understand what you are saying when you don't use the concept of monsters not having freewill. It seems that all you are saying is that you give them their own drives and ambitions. That seems like rules as written to me. They all have their own drives and ambitions, and as you said they are linked to what they are (Ghouls love flesh, Vamps blood)."

I think that any creatures drives and ambitions are going to be linked both to what that entity is, and also how he or she sees him/herself. I.e. for me, part of my various drives are biological (sex, food, shelter) and part are linked to how I conceive of myself (student, nurse, writer, RPGer, pet person). If I allow PC's to work from "both" and NPC "monsters" only the former, it makes for a boring campaign. Think about Vampire the Masquerade - much of the ... coolness of that world comes from having a very strong nature that is easily lent to "evil" and transcending it, or shaping it in some way.

"For instance you can have two NPC ghouls, both are based off the listing in the book, but you make one the leader, and the other the muscle. To have the game mechanics reflect this, you give the leader the aspect, "Master of Control" and a FATE point, and the other just gets "Quick to Attack". You now have two very different ghouls. The lesser one can be quickly tricked into aggression that the Players could use against him, the other would be much more resistant to such ploys."

First point: I run a very ... detailed and low "kill" campaign, so any given group of ghouls probably won't get "killed off" for game months or years, or maybe not ever. so they will most likely end up with (even if they don't start with) many aspects - in the same way as PC's do.
dian

[newtinmpls]

"As for your second point, I can't see how you are saying that FATE points work against roleplaying. I find that they are great way for the game to reward the player for acting within the described aspects of their character.  I can't see how the use of FATE points in a conflict detracts in anyway from roleplaying.  I view the mechanics separate from the game fiction. The fact that players may invoke aspects after the roll does not change my view of the conflict, no more than rolling dice to determine the outcome in the first place."

If "playing within the described aspects of their character" was something my players were NOT expected to do, and I felt the need to bribe, coerce or otherwise channel or invoke that behaviour, then certainly FATE points could be one way to do it. I play with a group of fairly experienced players who take joy in role playing - in the Harn campaign that we play alternating with the Dresdenverse there is a cool palidin-ly character that is afraid of the dark, and role playing this well has probably cost him ease and tactics, but it's added to the enjoyment of the game.

For me, using percent (or some form of chance) to determine likelyhood and dice to determine actuality effectively represents the "fun" of not knowing what is going to happen. It puts the fear of loss, pain or whatever back into things in a way that simple no-risk, no-death story telling lacks. By describing, rolling and then "going back to add aspects" it takes away from the fear, angst or whatever. By making the PC's think about what aspects they  use or could use and setting them up (the potential of that use) beforehand, I try to avoid the feel of "oh, that wasn't real/what I wanted/It's sort of a do-over" If I can always find/add/invoke another aspect after the fact, I sacrifice suspension of disbeleif. Of course it also makes the universe less safe. But that makes it more fun/real/scary.

Dian

[eberg]

The only other FATE game I've read in depth is Diaspora, but there are a number of variations on the rules from it that I've considered using:

1) Allowing a free tag on an aspect to be a compel instead of an invoke.
2) Limiting non-free aspect invocations to one per context (personal, scene, zone, etc).
3) The entire social combat system, which I'm going to use for a trial in my Dresden Files game.

[JesterOC]

I think that any creatures drives and ambitions are going to be linked both to what that entity is, and also how he or she sees him/herself. I.e. for me, part of my various drives are biological (sex, food, shelter) and part are linked to how I conceive of myself (student, nurse, writer, RPGer, pet person). If I allow PC's to work from "both" and NPC "monsters" only the former, it makes for a boring campaign. Think about Vampire the Masquerade - much of the ... coolness of that world comes from having a very strong nature that is easily lent to "evil" and transcending it, or shaping it in some way.

If you have read Dresden Files you should know that the main "NPCs" in the stories all have their own agenda. The statement is that the more powerful they are the more typecast they become is a subtle one. It does not mean what you are implying. It means that powerful beings more often than not will react to things in ways that go along with their powers. Much like the old saying... If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails.

First point: I run a very ... detailed and low "kill" campaign, so any given group of ghouls probably won't get "killed off" for game months or years, or maybe not ever. so they will most likely end up with (even if they don't start with) many aspects - in the same way as PC's do.

The number of aspects I wrote out was limited to what I thought I  needed to describe, it was not meant as an example of how many aspects an NPC should have.
For all my named NPC's I have a high concept aspect, a goal aspect, and several (1-3) personality aspects.

[newtinmpls]

"If you have read Dresden Files you should know that the main "NPCs" in the stories all have their own agenda. The statement is that the more powerful they are the more typecast they become is a subtle one."

I don't remember hearing this, but it kind of makes sense if you are talking about a lazy author, which I don't think applies to these books.

"It means that powerful beings more often than not will react to things in ways that go along with their powers. Much like the old saying... If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails."

I think that not-particularly-creative "bad guys" - in other words, bad guys run by a not-particularly-creative GM, are quite likely to have a one-note (or at best HIGHLY themed) response to stuff. The hammer, so to speak. This is the danger that I see in using the phrase "monsters have nature, mortals have choice". No, I don't think Jim Butcher writes one-note monsters (that's why I like them), and that's why I don't run one-note monsters, because they bore me. However finding a really good, really powerful starting "note" can be a nifty starting point. So it's all perspective.

[JesterOC]

I play with a group of fairly experienced players who take joy in role playing - in the Harn campaign that we play alternating with the Dresdenverse there is a cool palidin-ly character that is afraid of the dark, and role playing this well has probably cost him ease and tactics, but it's added to the enjoyment of the game.

That is what one has to do in a game that does not have mechanics that support roleplaying. No need to be a roleplaying martyr in FATE.

For me, using percent (or some form of chance) to determine likelyhood and dice to determine actuality effectively represents the "fun" of not knowing what is going to happen.

Same here.

By making the PC's think about what aspects they  use or could use and setting them up (the potential of that use) beforehand, I try to avoid the feel of "oh, that wasn't real/what I wanted/It's sort of a do-over" If I can always find/add/invoke another aspect after the fact, I sacrifice suspension of disbeleif. Of course it also makes the universe less safe. But that makes it more fun/real/scary.

Only if you view the dice roll as the end of the mechanic and not the beginning which it is in FATE based games. There is no "going back" because the roll is not over yet. This problem lies only on how you view the process, and it feels to me that you are using a more "classical" roleplaying game approach.

Also, forcing a player to decide if they want to use fate points beforehand seems that it would disrupt the FATE point economy. I would assume they would be conserving their points until they got a healthy supply and then letting them loose at key points. I guess it could work, but it seems that it might screwup the feel and flow of the game.

NOTE: Sorry to the OP for derailing this topic. I will leave it be.

[TheMouse]

I think that not-particularly-creative "bad guys" - in other words, bad guys run by a not-particularly-creative GM, are quite likely to have a one-note (or at best HIGHLY themed) response to stuff. The hammer, so to speak. This is the danger that I see in using the phrase "monsters have nature, mortals have choice". No, I don't think Jim Butcher writes one-note monsters (that's why I like them), and that's why I don't run one-note monsters, because they bore me. However finding a really good, really powerful starting "note" can be a nifty starting point. So it's all perspective.

I think you're viewing "limited by their nature" in a particularly narrow way.

Let's look at something like a Black Court vampire.

Being bound by its nature means a couple of things. They need to feed. They don't respect the sanctity of human life. They can't go into the sun. They look like corpses. They seem to associate with places of death or decay.

When looking at them as a hammer to which the world is filled with nails, their schtick is some combination of physical might and mental domination. They will tend to kill their enemies and respond to threats with casual violence and by controlling the minds of pawns.

Does this fact of their being bound by their nature take away their nuance? Nope. You can have an interesting, complex, and compelling character with all the traits above. It's just that, at the end of the day, that interesting character will be a monster. No matter how complex the character is, it still needs to feed, needs to avoid sunlight, and will tend to be very willing to discard human life.

In short, being bound by one's nature doesn't translate to needing to be boring or simple.