Search results

Your #2 is one of the reasons I like them. I don't like the effort of hiding information (like AC) from the players (slows things down) and the inscrutability of dice pools helps add a sense of uncertainty.

I second the Blades system as pretty well awesome. The Fate system is somewhere in-between, at least to my eyes. Its especially flexible if you consider the various implementations of Conditions that are in the Fate toolkit. That is, flexible from a systematic standpoint. The core Consequences...

Feeling that way is totally legit, this is a leisure activity so do what you want. But keep in mind. Even if it feels like the world is doing it....its still the DM. He's just doing it when you aren't looking. So its not some inherent property of the Fate rules that the DM can set you up or put...

Yeah, the overload of aspects and Fate points in the earlier incarnations was a bigger problem than it looked like. In some ways, I'd agree that its a more antagonistic style of GMing. Or at least, it plays better that way. Which is a bit odd when you consider the language in the Fate Core...

Just to chime in here. To be out of Fate points means either: a) you've been spamming invokes of aspects too much....unless the GM has been setting difficulties too high or completely ignoring compels, this likely means that you aren't playing to your stated strengths. b) you've been buying off...

Technically you're summing them and adding a base modifier, not counting "successes". Not quite the same. You still only get one success/fail dimension of result. Then again the Cortex+ system doesn't count successes, but you sure do build a pool of dice and take (usually) the best two. So...

Yeah, I was referencing the more general complaint. Sorry if that sounded too pointed at you. I'm sure you can imagine I find this quite curious, as my experience with Fate is very different. No argument. I would say that depends greatly on the player(s). I have never experienced such a...

Yeah, but, beyond that fact that your chosen aspects are supposed to represent the character you wanted to play...you're not forced to, its an offer. Like, "Hey, here's an opportunity to play your character", bonus FP offered up front. Don't like it. You can just buy it off with a Fate point.*...

I hear this complaint a lot, and I don't quite get it. Its not like in old-school DnD, where you can get stuck with requirements by class with little or no input on how those will be adjudicated (and indeed, I've seen many vastly different interpretations of what counts as "lawful good" over the...

I'm not sure I hate any particular system (exception granted for silly things like FATAL). However, there are few things that irk me no end, and yet seem horribly common. 1) Advertising your system as some kind of "story" engine....when its really just another bog-standard combat/skirmish...

I dunno about intimidated....but I'm sure not going to initiate a grapple anytime soon.

Y'know, its funny sometimes. I've had the same idea when I think about recasting D&D out of its dungeon-crawling and into a more story-oriented scheme. Some of my Old-School group like the idea. In fact, we've even played with the idea that you could have a game based on two classes: the Hero...

I stand as one of the "neither" voters. I don't really think there is a pressing need for Warlords, given 5e's reduced combat complexity. If they show up with a detailed tactical combat rider...which would be a fine book (and an option I thought we were getting in the early days)...sure...

Either, I was just citing it as an example/extension of what I was talking about. I think for a "universal" version of something like this. I would include only a small set of general action types (as Fate does). For the sake of designer sanity, I would personally not want to write a...

Yes. I think that's pretty close to it. Although I would shy away from "impossible" and lean more towards "impractical" or "clunky at best". Which is basically my experience when examining most sim-ish "universal" systems. I don't think that this is some fundamental weakness of wanting...

hmmm....I guess I think like this: You have a system with flexible frameworks of dramatic "modes" instead of traditional attributes (even if you call them attributes). The other, more simulationist traits act only as minor bonuses and permission-granting. Thinking of a system like MHRP...

Not a bad set. To some extent, I agree. However, I think switching....dramatic frameworks(?) Is easier than switching genres. That is, if a character's physical simulation stat/mechanics are less detailed or complicated. Translating basic stats between dramatic frameworks seems much less...

Not sure of the OP's hopes or attitudes toward the final game design. But, IMO, any universal system would need to take into account the variety of scales and whatnot that any physical-simulationist character traits would have....and that leads you to Champions or any number of other...

Honestly, there are any number of "generic" rules that could quickly be framed to do this. I mean...the technology/sci-fi part is basically just trappings for the game engine. What kind of at-table feel were you looking for from the rules? Like, do you just want D&D with space trappings, or do...

Keeping with the logic puzzles idea....how about a game of Mastermind? DM: You see a stone rack. On the rack are 7 stones, all the same size but with different symbols carved on them, each is also a different color/stone. Behind them is a stone pedestal with four holes in the top. It looks...