ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Morfedel on December 30, 2010, 05:02:55 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So bow does social combat work I'm Diaspora?
-
So bow does social combat work I'm Diaspora?
It uses an abstract map. You move yourself and others around the map, with certain zones meaning certain end results (which you negotiate before play begins).
It's sort of hard to explain briefly. It's really different from DFRPG, though.
-
I must go ahead and state before I ask this question that I haven't read Strands of Fate yet and am just going on what I was told briefly by a friend of mine who is reading it. Apparently it makes use of attributes, not just inhuman + atts. Has anyone played around with placing this within the DFRPG framework and if so how did it work?
-
Hey, if you are willing, I would like to hear more about these!
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.
-
I’d said:
“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 disbelief. Of course it also makes the universe less safe. But that makes it more fun/real/scary.”
The reply:
“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 screw-up the feel and flow of the game.”
No, I don’t have anyone decide if they are going to USE the FATE points, but if they haven’t described their action so as to use the nearby tree, the light switch or the time to aim, then they don’t get to “go back and do it over” and suddenly rake in every aspect they can now suddenly think of.
I’m used to HARN as I said, and there one of the standard GM tactics has been to compliment/reward especially clever role playing by saying “take a roll in rhetoric” (or whatever applicable skill). The skills are based on % and go up quite slowly, so it’s easy to be generous with such rewards and it encourages role playing.
Dian
-
“I think you're viewing "limited by their nature" in a particularly narrow way.”
Possibly. I think everyone with a body is influenced by their nature; I don’t make such a distinction between “monster” and “mortal” maybe because I see plenty of mortal monsters, so to speak.
“Let's look at something like a Black Court vampire.”
Ah, here is where the difference in how each GM runs their campaign comes in! Love it!
“Being bound by its nature means”
1-“They need to feed.”
And I understand they NEED to feed on blood, and PREFER to feed on human blood AND on blood from a living being (as opposed to robbing a blood bank, or something like that).
2-“They don't respect the sanctity of human life.”
This one I wouldn’t say is as binding as the first one. Yes, I think that most sentient beings that eat don’t really respect the sanctity of the lives of their prey, but I also think this is a cultural, rather than a biological, issue (see any number of essays by Peter Singer). It has exceptions – not many, but they are there, and sometimes those exceptions make the game more enjoyable.
3-“They can't go into the sun.”
Without some serious mojo/sunblock or something. Which I may or may not use; but you are right, and this might make for a nifty underground (or Nevernever chase scene where “getting to the sunlight” will save the day.
4-“They look like corpses.”
Yup. Which actually brings up a question as to what the black court equivalent of a red court ‘infected’ would look like. The Dracula novel implies that they would still look human; I’m playing around with this idea.
“It's just that, at the end of the day, that interesting character will be a monster.” <snip> “In short, being bound by one's nature doesn't translate to needing to be boring or simple.”
On that, we do definitely agree.
Dian
-
I must go ahead and state before I ask this question that I haven't read Strands of Fate yet and am just going on what I was told briefly by a friend of mine who is reading it. Apparently it makes use of attributes, not just inhuman + atts. Has anyone played around with placing this within the DFRPG framework and if so how did it work?
Strands uses a list of 12 abilities, which for all intents and purposes are a generic skill list. In and of themselves, they function exactly like a list of skills.
There's also a system whereby you can acquire what amount to specialties. So if your dude is a good juggler, you can take a juggling related specialty rather than give him a higher dexterity in general.
Then there are powers to add to your strength, speed, or endurance. It scales way higher than DF, so it can handle Superman type characters. In order to get access to this level of power, you need to be on the super hero scale of characters.
I haven't spent any real time trying to fit DF into the Strands rules, because I prefer the rules found in DFRPG. To make my bias explicit, I would classify myself as not a fan of SoF.
-
1) Allowing a free tag on an aspect to be a compel instead of an invoke.
Off hand this seems OK, I assume that the victim will get a FATE point for the compel. Might end up being used against the PC's more than by the PC's.
2) Limiting non-free aspect invocations to one per context (personal, scene, zone, etc).
Also seems fine, it seems that it is there to prevent PC's from having several very similar aspects and then piling them on during a conflict. So far this is not an issue with my group due because many similar aspects are boring so my player's avoid it naturally.
3) The entire social combat system, which I'm going to use for a trial in my Dresden Files game.
I have not tried it, but one of the things I like about pure Dresden Files Social conflict is that it can go on during a physical conflict. In fact almost all of our conflicts have involved some social attacks in the middle of a fight. I would assume the Diaspora mini game does not do that. (I don't know).
JesterOC
-
I like the Diaspora idea of a map for purely social venues for a Social Conflict, but I would still use and allow standard DFRPG Social Conflict rules to take place during a Physical Conflict. The Diaspora social conflict map idea can serve as a fine elaboration on an Extended Skill Challenge as well.
-
Re: Strands of FATE...
What is your impression of the ratio between Refresh in DFRPG and the Power costs in SoF? I'm thinking it seems to be a 1:3 ratio, but it could be 1:4. I still need to go through and find a few more powers to compare between the two systems.
-
Re: Strands of FATE...
What is your impression of the ratio between Refresh in DFRPG and the Power costs in SoF? I'm thinking it seems to be a 1:3 ratio, but it could be 1:4. I still need to go through and find a few more powers to compare between the two systems.
Strands suggests that 2 points of Refresh are worth 3 Advantage Points. I haven't done a thorough enough comparison to know whether it would be a good or bad idea to carry that between Dresden and Strands.
-
Strands suggests that 2 points of Refresh are worth 3 Advantage Points. I haven't done a thorough enough comparison to know whether it would be a good or bad idea to carry that between Dresden and Strands.
Cool - if you happened to know the page reference where it says that, I'd appreciate the help. I'm going back and forth between sections rather than plumbing through from beginning to end, and I have yet to find the section you mention.
As for that balance... in DFRPG, Wings is a 1-Refresh power, but clumsy Flight in SoF costs 3 Advantage Points, and I suspect it would need an upgrade to become more comparable to its DFRPG equivalent. But that's all I've got so far.
-
A slight peculiarity that I saw with regards to how the Power Advantages work in Strands of Fate is that almost all of them require the expenditure of a Fate Point to activate, including your super-attributes, claws, flight, etc. So powers that are basically always on (with the exception of characters that have things tied to hunger tracks or shapeshifting). I think that makes the powers in Dresden more powerful than in Strands of Fate, so that might be a consideration, unless you just want to remove that requirement for the SoF powers when converting to DFRPG.
-
A slight peculiarity that I saw with regards to how the Power Advantages work in Strands of Fate is that almost all of them require the expenditure of a Fate Point to activate, including your super-attributes, claws, flight, etc. So powers that are basically always on (with the exception of characters that have things tied to hunger tracks or shapeshifting). I think that makes the powers in Dresden more powerful than in Strands of Fate, so that might be a consideration, unless you just want to remove that requirement for the SoF powers when converting to DFRPG.
So maybe we consider a 1 Refresh:4 Power Advantage ratio, and then factor in a Power Advantage "No Fate Point Needed" for 1 point of Power Advantage.
-
Strands suggests that 2 points of Refresh are worth 3 Advantage Points. I haven't done a thorough enough comparison to know whether it would be a good or bad idea to carry that between Dresden and Strands.
I'm beginning to wonder as well - characters get these Power Advantages *in addition to* Refresh points.
-
I wondered about how to deal with that as well. Oh and the conversion from fp to advantage points is in the section about buying advantage points with fp, in the character creation section I think
-
Cool - if you happened to know the page reference where it says that, I'd appreciate the help. I'm going back and forth between sections rather than plumbing through from beginning to end, and I have yet to find the section you mention.
In the text box on page 24.
As for that balance... in DFRPG, Wings is a 1-Refresh power, but clumsy Flight in SoF costs 3 Advantage Points, and I suspect it would need an upgrade to become more comparable to its DFRPG equivalent. But that's all I've got so far.
I think it's a matter of Mike thinking that flight is a bigger impact than the crew at Evil Hat.
To provide a counter example, 2 points of armour that are always on only costs 3 AP. Adding 4 HLs costs another 4, for a total of 7 AP. Getting that in DF (ie Supernatural Toughness) costs 4 Refresh. That's pretty close to a 3:2 ratio.
This is why converting between the two is problematic. The people writing them had different goals and expectations. Some things will match closely, others will not, and it'll be pretty random which is which. Rather than trying to come up with a formula or set of hard rules to convert between the two, you're probably better off taking Strands as inspiration, then using the guidelines in Dresden to build the power.
-
This is why converting between the two is problematic. The people writing them had different goals and expectations. Some things will match closely, others will not, and it'll be pretty random which is which. Rather than trying to come up with a formula or set of hard rules to convert between the two, you're probably better off taking Strands as inspiration, then using the guidelines in Dresden to build the power.
Indeed. As it is, DFRPG was tweaked from previous FATE offerings to make conflicts a little more brutal. Hopefully the existing DFRPG powers list will serve as sufficient guidance for assessing new powers built in SoF.
-
Hey, if you are willing, I would like to hear more about these!
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.
#1 is simple, if you do a Declaration, Maneuver, or inflict a Consequence that gives you a free tag on the attendant aspect, you can use it to compel the subject instead of just getting the invoke bonuses. I like this especially for Consequences, because it allows for situations like using a free tag to compel someone to stay put after you put a "Broken Leg" consequence on them.
#2 just disallows invoking multiple aspects in the same context for the same roll. So, you can't invoke two of your personal aspect but you could invoke one of your personal aspects, a scene aspect, and an aspect on the zone. This helps to keep potential roll results down.
#3 is a bit involved to explain at length, but in a nutshell it involves using abstract zone maps and often abstract participants to handle conflict resolution. Players on the board can be individual characters, groups of characters (with composite scores), or abstract concepts or variables.
So, for example, in the trial I am running there is a line of six zones: three guilty, three undecided, and three innocent. There are three participants on the map: prosecutor, defender, and jury. Each stage of the trial is an exchange (opening statement, each witness, closing statement) during which the lawyers affect the position of the jury, trying to "move" them in to the position they want. The final position will determine the verdict and how long it takes to render (all the way at the guilty end will get you a guilt verdict in an afternoon, in the first innocent box will get you a not guilty verdict in a few days). I'm keeping it simple because this is my first go at it, but I could also have the witnesses on the map, with their guilt or innocence showing the jury's opinion of their trustworthiness.
Another example I loved was on one of the Diaspora boards and involved a target-shaped map with KILL at the center and FOILED in the outer ring to do an assassination. The target and assassin are on the map as are the variables Secrecy, Means, and Opportunity. Each participants wants to get the other as well as two of the variables into the appropriate position. If the assassin, secrecy, and means are in FOILED, the assassin's cover is blown and his tools are discovered or captured. If the target, means, and opportunity are in KILL, the target is taken out, but not secretly (the assassin saw their chance and took it, damn subtlty!).
Basically, the neat thing is that you can map anything with it and, if you do it right, will have a story to tell from the final positions on the map and the time increments are up to you, so you could map a political campaign or other long timescale occurrence as easily as a seduction or conversation over drinks.
-
Geez, now I have to buy Diaspora just to get this social conflict rule. :P
I think a couple of you misunderstood. I'm not trying to use SoF to run Dresden Files. I'm using a few rules from SoF and transplanting it INTO Dresden Files. In general, it's a no-brainer to me that DFRPG actually does a better job of running Dresden Files than SoF would (and while that might seem obvious, I've seen ames for other specific source material that did a poorer job than some less source-specific game, though I cannot at this moment recall a specific example).
However, Dresden Files has, in my mind's eye, several gaping holes, that I'm looking to plug with SoF.
And as a side note, I like SoF a lot too, for different reasons. It isn't flawless, and I certainly did not like a few things it did, but it's overall quite flexible, and at the same time far less complicated than many "multi-genre" games - and I just had a lot of fun building Frodo and Boromir from the Fellowship as a character-building exercise using SoF!
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'm already planning on buying Legends of Anglierre... and now it looks like I'll need Diaspora too. The first because my favorite genre is fantasy, and I want to see LoA in comparison to SoF for that genre... and I suppose I'll be stealing the social combat ideas from Diaspora.
So it looks like I'll be creating, unintentionally, my "frankenstein's monster" out of a cobbling together of several FATE systems to something more to my specific liking.
As a side note, I had an idea... you know how in several superhero comics, some characters are clearly more powerful than others, but in superhero games, due to the strive for party balance, that never happens (unless you are playing a game with a character randomization generation sysem).
Well, it occurred to me that with using the Dresden Files method of buying powers with Refresh, you could reflect the same kind of feel: one person could spend a buttload of refresh to make himself a powerhouse, while another could keep most of their refresh to make, for instance, Katherine Pride, aka Shadow Cat, who has little in the way of "Holy crap run it's whatshisface!" abilities.
:)
-
I found a Diaspora SRD online - you may optto start here before buying it:
http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/diaspora-srd.html
-
I found a Diaspora SRD online - you may optto start here before buying it:
http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/diaspora-srd.html
Thank ya, kind sir! :)
-
"As it is, DFRPG was tweaked from previous FATE offerings to make conflicts a little more brutal."
Brutal is not a word I would have thought to apply to this system. So far of any game system I've played, this one has the players in the least danger. It's more like interactive story telling with role playing than actual risk.
-
Brutal is not a word I would have thought to apply to this system. So far of any game system I've played, this one has the players in the least danger. It's more like interactive story telling with role playing than actual risk.
It depends on the group. If a PC takes too much stress, he is taken out. If the threat wanted to kill the PC, the PC is dead. The book mentions that people who don't want to run the game this way (which the texts appears to imply are the majority of players) the players should ask for concessions to avoid death.
The concession mechanic has two conditions that if not fulfilled means the PC's die when fighting an NPC who is intent on killing the PC.
1) You can't use a concession after a die has been rolled against a PC. So the players must be careful and request a concession BEFORE the final blow is rolled (and depending on the power of the NPC, the player may not know the NPC is brutally strong until after a strike that would take him out).
2) A Concession does not have to be accepted by the GM.
So it is entirely possible to play dfrpg as a brutal cutthroat game where if the players are not cautious and flee the moment they realize they can't take the NPC. It is also possible to use it as interactive story telling system where players desires always supersede the desires of the NPCs. It all depends on the group.
-
Brutal is not a word I would have thought to apply to this system. So far of any game system I've played, this one has the players in the least danger. It's more like interactive story telling with role playing than actual risk.
"Bringing the pain" was a quote I heard often from DFRPG playtesters. It's not so much about the lethality of the game as much as how beat up characters can get. DFRPG gives players relatively fewer stress boxes than other FATE games, so players are more likely to take Consequences or Concessions.
-
I have cherry picked rules from spirit of the century and sof. Namely persisant aspects for scenes, and extra stunt ideas.
-
I have cherry picked rules from spirit of the century and sof. Namely persisant aspects for scenes, and extra stunt ideas.
Stunt inspirations can come from anywhere, though with DFRPG, at least one of the goals (per some interview I read - you are free to take this with a grain of salt) was to reduce or eliminate the Stunt Chains that became a big part of Spirit of the Century.
Persistent Aspects are getting some noises of approval here on the boards, and Strands of Fate uses them as well.
I may need to go back and figure out how they do minions and such in SotC.
Edit: yes, Minions (SotC 74) and Companions (SotC 77) may be rules to import into DFRPG to solve some questions about how to have a Familiar, as well as how to reflect Summoners who can be counted on to have Summoned Creatures at their beck and call.
-
I have been burning though the novels and just finished. Doing a major read of SoF is next after I get caught up on college text.
Looks like I will check those out real quick thanks for bringing them to my attention.
-
Stunt inspirations can come from anywhere, though with DFRPG, at least one of the goals (per some interview I read - you are free to take this with a grain of salt) was to reduce or eliminate the Stunt Chains that became a big part of Spirit of the Century.
Persistent Aspects are getting some noises of approval here on the boards, and Strands of Fate uses them as well.
I may need to go back and figure out how they do minions and such in SotC.
Edit: yes, Minions (SotC 74) and Companions (SotC 77) may be rules to import into DFRPG to solve some questions about how to have a Familiar, as well as how to reflect Summoners who can be counted on to have Summoned Creatures at their beck and call.
Actually, I believe SoF INVENTED the idea of Persistent Aspects (though I admit I could be wrong.) I really like the idea a lot.
-
Me:
Brutal is not a word I would have thought to apply to this system. So far of any game system I've played, this one has the players in the least danger. It's more like interactive story telling with role playing than actual risk.
Reply:
It depends on the group. If a PC takes too much stress, he is taken out. If the threat wanted to kill the PC, the PC is dead. The book mentions that people who don't want to run the game this way (which the texts appears to imply are the majority of players) the players should ask for concessions to avoid death.
Me again:
If the PC's are staying in a losing fight long enough to risk being "taken out" in this system, they are over their heads - which means they aren't competant to chose their battles, or they are having a really bad day, or they are just not too bright.
-
Actually, I believe SoF INVENTED the idea of Persistent Aspects (though I admit I could be wrong.) I really like the idea a lot.
They formalized and named them. People had been doing similar or related things for years.