Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8607449" data-attributes="member: 16814">Your quote tags are broken -- I added a quote open above to clear it.FATE is a game I do not like.  The reason I do not like FATE is twofold.  One, it's has a weird engagement with fiction first such that if a scene is described as being shadowy, it's not sufficient to use that in an action unless a specific tag is present to leverage -- the description in insufficient, it has to be a mechanical tag.  You can add the tag through a move, sure, but you have to do this first.  To use some piece of fiction in FATE, it has to operationalized in the system.Second, and larger, is that FATE fails utterly to adequately tell you how to use it, and defaults into a weird middle place where you have a system that tries to do one thing but muddled directions on play that lets you think you can use it for play just like D&D.  And, even worse, you can make this happen without a huge headache -- you can play this trad with heavy GM control and the game can work, but the GM is deploying "no" as a tool.  Thing is, the system actually works better if you don't do this, and instead follow the play, only setting scenes rather than plot.  So, yeah, I don't like FATE because it's muddled and not a good example of anything.  Others like it for this reason.  I don't reach for FATE as an example.  I will say, though, that if FATE is liked because it gives the GM the same controls as D&D over setting and fiction but ALSO adds the ability for the GM to compel actions, then I'm really checked out.</blockquote>

Verification