Many Questions about FATE Core and True20

[aramis erak]

. I think this might be the first time I've seen someone ask about converting OUT of Fate.

You haven't been looking...
I've discussed doing so in the past over on RPGGeek.
I've seen others, as well, on RPGG and on TravellerRPG.com. (In the later case, specifcally converting Mindjammer to Traveller - enough did so that there's a Traveller port.)

As you noted, Fate doesn't work in the same ways as many traditional RPGs; that makes a good number of people uncomfortable. Especially trad-game GM's trying to run it without having played it. Some won't even try.

I broke a campaign by working the fate mechanics hard with a GM not ready for that level of crunch.

 

[Umbran]

I broke a campaign by working the fate mechanics hard with a GM not ready for that level of crunch.

I don't know what you mean by that, but twhat comes to mind... does not suggest to me that you really got the point of FATE. This is not a game designed for you to "work the mechanics hard" in a way that's not in synch with the GM. In fact, I don't see how that works, as the GM needs to be offering you compels for the fate point economy to be driven hard at all. And, if the GM wasn't ready for that, doing it on their own... What were you doing nagging the GM for compels, or something?

 

[aramis erak]

I don't know what you mean by that, but twhat comes to mind... does not suggest to me that you really got the point of FATE. This is not a game designed for you to "work the mechanics hard" in a way that's not in synch with the GM. In fact, I don't see how that works, as the GM needs to be offering you compels for the fate point economy to be driven hard at all. And, if the GM wasn't ready for that, doing it on their own... What were you doing nagging the GM for compels, or something?

Actually, in several older ones, you can compel yourself... I've done so in the past to remove my character froma scene to force the others to deal with it.

from SOTC Chapter 2:

This isn’t just the GM’s show; players can trigger compels as well either by explicitly indicating that an aspect may be complicating things, or by playing to their aspects from the get-go and reminding the GM after the fact that they already behaved as if compelled.

Bottom line: if you want to maximize the power of your aspects, maximize their interest. For more extensive advice on choosing aspects, see the Aspects chapter, starting at page 33.

A free tag is subject to one key limitation: it must occur immediately after the aspect’s been brought into play. Some minor delay isn’t encouraged, but is acceptable. This usually means that the free tag must be taken within the same scene that the aspect was introduced.
The player who introduced the aspect has the option to pass his free tag to another character if he so wishes. This can allow for some great setup maneuvers in a fight; one person maneuvers to place an aspect on a target, then passes the free tag to an ally, who attacks, using the advantage. This can only be done, however, if it is reasonable that the advantage could be “passed off ”.

Working the system IS explicitly something one is encouraged to do .... to a point... At least in SotC and in Dresden Files... the two fate games I've played. Dresden's the one I broke the campaign. The GM simply was not prepared for me to be using the temporary aspect creation and tagging as my primary attacks, and a +2 is particularly good when applied to a big bruiser's melee attacks. Moreover, she was a rage build... and so I was able to

Further, and this is where your understanding seems lacking, trait creation allows free tagging, and does not require spending fate points. I used my stats and suitable narrative to drive the other players' abilities up and the opponents' down.

I posit, sir, that you don't understand the system in question. It's not a true storygame in the Forgite mold, nor is it a trad game, but, a hybrid like Burning Wheel, Houses of the Blooded, or L5R5... where working the system is just as important as working the story... and the two drive each other.

 

[Ratskinner]

As I'm still learning the Fate system, there's no specifics that are causing trouble yet. But the first step will be PC&NPC conversion. Here's a example that appear in both systems. As you can see, going from True20 to Fate will be fairly straight-forward with a minimum of rationalizing and modeling. But going from Fate to True20... well... it seems like less science and more like art.
<snippage>
I also think that these were designed by writers with two different interpretations, as some of their characteristics don't correspond at all.

I think you're right about more like art. Personally, I wouldn't bother trying to convert so much as recreate. Many Fate stunts could be converted to feats or abilities, fairly easily. That might be the best place to start. I'm not sure there's a whole awful lot to be gained by trying to convert the basic stats. I love Fate, but its really weird, its almost the same advice for converting something into Fate....don't. Just recreate what you think it looks like narratively. (Except in this case...backwards.)

 

[Ratskinner]

Actually, in several older ones, you can compel yourself... I've done so in the past to remove my character froma scene to force the others to deal with it.

I don't know about the versions you cited, but it seems to me that in the modern version, that's not a valid compel. It has to create complications for you, not the rest of your team. (except possibly indirectly) So if the scene in question was not of dramatic interest to your character...no Fate point.

Further, and this is where your understanding seems lacking, trait creation allows free tagging, and does not require spending fate points. I used my stats and suitable narrative to drive the other players' abilities up and the opponents' down.

That's a common tactic and is part of playing the game...not sure how that breaks it.

It's not a true storygame in the Forgite mold, nor is it a trad game, but, a hybrid like Burning Wheel, Houses of the Blooded, or L5R5... where working the system is just as important as working the story... and the two drive each other.

That, I will agree with.

 

[aramis erak]

That's a common tactic and is part of playing the game...not sure how that breaks it.

When the GM hasn't grasped that element of play, and wasn't prepared for the generate/tag cycle. None of his antagonists were able to hurt us significant;y, because I knew, and the hulkess followed my lead on, working the system. It's not breaking the game, it's breaking the campaign.

As for self-compels, they're valid in 2.0 games, if they truly are a hindrance. Me, I'm a screenhog as a player, unless I play a support character. Which is why I tend to play either manipulators or healers. Let's you and she fight. SotC is a 2.0 flavor. It made story sense for my character to leave scene, and kept me from scenehogging, when I realized that it was the Aramis & the GM show... by self-compelling, I got my character out, and left the other players to actually engage. It got me my fate point, which I immediately spent to compel somone else (my wife, in fact) with the problem, because it was right up her character's competence.

In the Dresden game, I didn't need to get compelled... I was a white court neonate feeding on obsession... working in a GW store... all those teen WFB and 40K players... I was able to feed almost at need. And in DF, feeding recovers fate points... so I was almost always at 4 or 5 ... The GM wasn't comfortable with the compel mechanic, and it showed. There were a bunch of times he could have (but I'd have canceled) so he didn't bother.

 

[Ratskinner]

When the GM hasn't grasped that element of play, and wasn't prepared for the generate/tag cycle. None of his antagonists were able to hurt us significant;y, because I knew, and the hulkess followed my lead on, working the system. It's not breaking the game, it's breaking the campaign.

Oh, I get it. Yeah, I suppose that sort of GM thing can be a problem with any system, though.

As for self-compels, they're valid in 2.0 games, if they truly are a hindrance. Me, I'm a screenhog as a player, unless I play a support character. Which is why I tend to play either manipulators or healers. Let's you and she fight. SotC is a 2.0 flavor. It made story sense for my character to leave scene, and kept me from scenehogging, when I realized that it was the Aramis & the GM show... by self-compelling, I got my character out, and left the other players to actually engage. It got me my fate point, which I immediately spent to compel somone else (my wife, in fact) with the problem, because it was right up her character's competence.

Oh, its not the "self" part that I'm having a problem with. It the "removing" part. That doesn't seem in keeping with the nature of compels, to me. I'm a big fan of self-compels, the gods know I have enough trouble keeping track of everyone's aspects. However, you're presenting this compel as a way you're character solved a problem, that sounds more like an invoke than a compel. I mean, if a character has an aspect "I'm a healer not a fighter." You would invoke that to get the Noble Warrior-race guys to ignore you as not an honorable foe, you/theGM would compel that (or it would get compelled) to force you to surrender without much of a fight at all. Naturally, it could also be invoked against you in a fight as well. That is, you can't compel yourself out of trouble, only into it.

This is why the oft-cited "Snakes, why did it have to be snakes?" is actually a bad example of an aspect for Indiana Jones. He doesn't like snakes, and he gripes whenever they show up, but they (or rather a phobia of them) don't actually seem to present any particularly horrible problem for him. Its more like he's got a GM who likes to throw snakes into things.

 

[Umbran]

I posit, sir, that you don't understand the system in question.

Oh, I understand the system quite well, thank you. I just don't break it when I play it.

Working the system IS explicitly something one is encouraged to do .... to a point...

Well, you said you broke the campaign. Clearly, that's beyond the point, now isn't it? This is what I meant when I was talking about not getting the point of the game. Recall that - I didn't say you didn't understand the rules, I said you didn't get the point.

You're basically saying that you were part of a group endeavor, and then pushed beyond what others were ready to do, and broke it for everyone. Breaking things for other people isn't laudable, nor an indication that you know well how it is supposed to be used. Maybe, for that, you ought to give us a success story, not a failure.

Actually, in several older ones, you can compel yourself...

Not quite. So, setting aside the fact that "the rules allow it!" is the first approach of the rules lawyer....

GMs, you’re the final arbiter here, as always—not just on how the result of a compel plays out, but on whether or not a compel is valid in the first place. Use the same judgment you apply to an invocation—it should make instinctive sense, or require only a small amount of explanation, that a complication might arise from the aspect.

What should actually happen is the player suggests or asks for a compel, and the GM decides whether it is appropriate or desirable. If you are pushing the GM beyond their capacity to do that in a reasonable and balanced manner, you're not just "using the rules hard", you're actually abusing the people at the table for in-game benefit.

Further, and this is where your understanding seems lacking, trait creation allows free tagging

Oh, I understand that quite well. You are giving up an action (which can fail) to create that bonus. That part of it is pretty solidly balanced, and rather difficult to abuse. Much of the point is to get it so several members of the group creatively stack up a few, and hand off the bonuses to one of the group for the final blow. This isn't breaking anything - that's the way it is intended to function against major foes.

So, if that's what you were doing, again, this is more about relationship with the people at the table than anything to do with the rules. If the GM hadn't clued to how this was how the game operated, so the opponents weren't scaled well to what the system allows, it was contingent on you to slow down, until the GM got up to speed.

You are telling me this isn't a storygame, while neglecting to note how it isn't like a highly balanced 3e or 4e D&D, where we can actually lean into the mechanics to keep things balanced and smooth. FATE, for example, lacks a CR system to tell the GM whether an encounter is an appropriate challenge for the group. The GM is largely winging it on the power level of challenges. FATE replaces the guardrails of balanced systems with player thoughtfulness.

Were you being thoughtful of the fun of everyone at the table as you broke the game?

 

[Aldarc]

@Umbran, you may want to reformat the quotes in your otherwise laudable post a bit.

 

[aramis erak]

@Umbran

The GM claimed to know the system. He intellectually understood the resolution, but not the story/rules relationship.

By use of the various tools of the system, and using them well, everyone other than the GM was having fun, and they started doing likewise; I used my character to do "let's You and Him Fight," true, but I did so to enable them to actually do well the things their character sheet implied they should be doing . Further, we all kept them story appropriate, and narrated appropriately. (I found out later that I was the only one who had played a Fate system game prior.)

And I've made it clear previously that I think Fate is neither trad nor truly storygame, but in the murky space between them.