I love D&D.....but.

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've seen people do it in Hero, not just magic, but the quirks of D&D combat, too - "+8 DCV, Bulky OIF: Plate Mail"

*raises hand*

 

[Afrodyte]

If trying to wrestle Fate Core into a shape you like gets to be too much, if you want something really streamlined, I highly recommend TinyFate.

 

[Wiseblood]

I would suggest going back to basics: A small town. A dungeon. A party dedicated to exploring the dungeon, killings its denizens, and taking the treasure. No overarching plot to follow. No investigations. No quirky, cagey NPCs to interview. No town adventure of any kind or mundane errand-running.

That is, essentially, a very small sandbox. It's easy to manage, easy for players to understand, and I haven't found anyone that didn't totally love a dungeon adventure that I have run. (And it's not necessarily due to whatever skills I bring to the table, that I'm sure that helps.)

How would you describe your group of players, both together and as individuals? Other than "not great at sandboxing," I mean.

(One) is a murderhobo cleric of life. I'm not making this up.
*Often joking an cutting up which is fine but picks bad times to do it or perhaps too many times to do it. Jokes as a toe in the water sort of way.
* Not really interested in rp but can.
*Likes tactical combat and gets pretty creative about solving problems
*not really interested in the rules or how any character works

(Two)The Rogue player is the type that struggles to remember even the most basic rules. Seriously doesn't know what to add to a d20 on a skill check or saving throw. Has weak grasp of character abilities even one often used.
* is kind of a primadonna that often checks out mentally (or plays with electronics)when not in the spotlight.
*Likes imagining the world and what to do in it as his character it just doesn't synch up with what is actually going on.
*tends to give up when the going gets tough makes his characters not really adventurers imo.

(Three)The Barbarian player picked a fight with an NPC used the "it's what my character would do" defense. Maybe it was legit. It seems to be the excuse for why something was done that derails things. Like the stories of players using character abilities on othe PCs eg.rogues stealing, bards charming and so on. Has happened on numerous occasions.
*Likes puzzles and combat plus interacting with npc's.
* Usually creates a backstory and is interested to see where the character will end up.
*has a decent grasp of rules and character abilities.

(Four)The monk player is an outlier will often go along with the party not leading but happy to be led. Readily accepts adventure hooks.
*Also fond of puzzles and investigation along with combat. Not much for interacting with pc's I would say because of bashfulness.
* Fairly new but remembers the rules very well and helps other players.

Honestly I would label 1 and 2 bad players. But 2 and 4 are a package deal and so is 1 and 3. And some are family. Number 1 is kind of new and is probably going to get better but is only playing because of players 2 and 4 they are just about the same age.

Truth be told, I would clone number four if I could. And player number three readily agrees.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Why not to create your own homebred rules? For example mines are adding more abilities scores: Astutenenes, Courage, Technique(crafting, arts, playing music and dance, martial adepts' maneuvers) and Grace (mixture of luck, karma and fate), powers can hurt enemies with same aligment but different allegiance (religion, country, guild, race, tribe..) and using hit-points with health levels instead losing points of Con, and a piece of sanity rules from Unknown Armies (with mental stress by violence, reality vision or frustration). If I want, I can get ideas from differents franchises, for example a crazy mash-up be means of mixing Ravenloft, White Wolf's World of Darkness, Kult: lost divinity, Innistrad (plane from Magic: the Gathring) and "sons of midnight", group of supernatural heroes from marvel comics.

RPGs are like LEGO, you haven't to build in the same way the box cover shows.

 

[iserith]

(One) is a murderhobo cleric of life. I'm not making this up.
*Often joking an cutting up which is fine but picks bad times to do it or perhaps too many times to do it. Jokes as a toe in the water sort of way.
* Not really interested in rp but can.
*Likes tactical combat and gets pretty creative about solving problems
*not really interested in the rules or how any character works

A dungeon quest with the hook of "bring life back to the dungeon by slaying its evil denizens" might be fun for this player.

(Two)The Rogue player is the type that struggles to remember even the most basic rules. Seriously doesn't know what to add to a d20 on a skill check or saving throw. Has weak grasp of character abilities even one often used.
* is kind of a primadonna that often checks out mentally (or plays with electronics)when not in the spotlight.
*Likes imagining the world and what to do in it as his character it just doesn't synch up with what is actually going on.
*tends to give up when the going gets tough makes his characters not really adventurers imo.

Rogues have lots to do in dungeons, so he can definitely see some spotlight time. This is also a good environment to train people on rules, provided they have a good faith interest in learning. Make it a goal in your design to set up a locked door challenge, a trap challenge, and some kind of stealth challenge.

(Three)The Barbarian player picked a fight with an NPC used the "it's what my character would do" defense. Maybe it was legit. It seems to be the excuse for why something was done that derails things. Like the stories of players using character abilities on othe PCs eg.rogues stealing, bards charming and so on. Has happened on numerous occasions.
*Likes puzzles and combat plus interacting with npc's.
* Usually creates a backstory and is interested to see where the character will end up.
*has a decent grasp of rules and character abilities.

He or she may be signaling (with the fight-picking) that there is a lack of dramatic tension. There will be no shortage of that in a well-stocked dungeon. Chuck in a classic puzzle room for him to figure out, but make sure it's not a choke point, something the players can go around if they get stuck. Don't spend too much time on it unless the rogue player is into it as well.

(Four)The monk player is an outlier will often go along with the party not leading but happy to be led. Readily accepts adventure hooks.
*Also fond of puzzles and investigation along with combat. Not much for interacting with pc's I would say because of bashfulness.
* Fairly new but remembers the rules very well and helps other players.

Ask this player what his or her character thinks about the other PCs while they do cool stuff in the dungeon.

Honestly I would label 1 and 2 bad players. But 2 and 4 are a package deal and so is 1 and 3. And some are family. Number 1 is kind of new and is probably going to get better but is only playing because of players 2 and 4 they are just about the same age.

Truth be told, I would clone number four if I could. And player number three readily agrees.

If you decided to try a new system, would you have the same players? When you are a player, who is the DM? Would you consider DMing for a different group of people, say, online?

I recommend checking out this blog specifically for the series on Dungeon Design (if nothing else) - it's on the right side column, scroll down a bit. Find a dungeon map on the internet that hits as many of the design points as this blog points out as possible, then stock it with appropriate beasts. Then have at it.

 

[toucanbuzz]

...Honestly I would label 1 and 2 bad players. But 2 and 4 are a package deal and so is 1 and 3. And some are family. Number 1 is kind of new and is probably going to get better but is only playing because of players 2 and 4 they are just about the same age. Truth be told, I would clone number four if I could. And player number three readily agrees.

Player personalities contribute to poor campaign play just as much a DM, if not more. I'll work harder as a DM for players who genuinely enjoy getting together with one another, because I know each week I'm going to laugh, have fun, and relax. Players should NEVER be returning to your game table each week solely because of the game itself.

So I'm no psychologist. But my gut impressions:

Player One, the cleric: may be covering up discomfort with roleplay by immature play. This is disruptive to everyone and if he doesn't enjoy RP, maybe there's a better game for him. I wouldn't lose good players by trying to accommodate for a bad one.

Player Two, the Rogue: it's a team game, so checking out is a bad idea and playing with a phone at the table is insulting to everyone. It says (1) the DM is wasting my time, and (2) the other players aren't worth my time. Of course, the question might be, is he somewhat right? Are others being disruptive so that he doesn't feel involved in the game? Finally, I've introduced players new to the rules and from video-game cultures. It takes time, but it's the other players who will get this person involved, and he's got to like them first.

Player Three, the Barbarian: again may be player conflict, not an inherent way to disrupt the game. Would be curious how #3 plays when surrounded by a group of people he calls friend away from the table. Also, PvP isn't the name of the game. You're supposed to be playing characters that have cause to risk their lives with the others around them.

Player Four, the Monk: Sounds like a keeper.

Ultimately, the DM has to have courage to talk to his players, whether as a group, or 1-on-1, to discuss his feelings and where the campaign can go. In some ways, you've assumed the multiple hats of friend, referee, counselor, and arbitrator. It's not the game, at least not most of it. Good gamers can have fun playing even a crappy game. They'll find a way to make it fun, then tell the DM afterwards what they'd like to do next. But, I've never seen a happy ending by a DM changing the adventures around instead of chatting it up.

 

[Wiseblood]

What sentiment?

That the current editions are revisions or previous editions? Then go play OD&D.

It's a sense that instead of making a fantasy game someone started to make a game that simulated a fantasy game. A sense that it has become so self referential that it may have lost perspective of what it thinks it is trying to do.

It has become a meta game. What has been done do is akin to cargo cult science.

A sense that I am spinning my wheels by trying to get D&D to be something it wasn't designed to do.


Maybe it is just a feeling.

 

[Mercule]

I think the thing you need to wrap your head around is that Stunts don't necessarily have to be specific spells. Stunts can be situations where your spellcasting is enhanced or altered in some way, and it's up to the player and the DM to enforce the limitations of Aspects and Skills to account for magical or mundane methods.

You don't even need a specific Skill for casting spells. You can use the default list (or one retooled for your campaign), but flavor it as magic with Aspects and Stunts. So, instead of rolling the Magic Skill (for example) to cast flame bolt or whatever, you can roll Shoot, and give a bonus with an Aspect like Let Me Check My Spellbook and a (picks something out of the air) Magic Wand Stunt that allows you to use a magic wand to make Shoot rolls.

You also have the option of not always having Stunts tied to Skills. For instance, you can have a Stunt like Magic Drain that allows you to take Stress for an extra +2 bonus when casting spells or to enhance spellcasting in some other way.

Great advice. I went back with the idea that a sorcerer (favored soul) is infused with magic and really shouldn't have a dedicated skill. I like it. As long as you're handing out advice, care to proof my conversion notes? It's a conversion of a 5th level Aasimar Favored Soul. Since the excuse for class choice is just an outgrowth of the celestial blood, I just threw the whole class/race into a blender. I played with a few different combinations of spells, but I generally ended up coming back to the power level being about right for the cost of one refresh, so I left those alone. The baseline for the bloodline, though, I was comfortable doing an extended bullet list.

The character would have an aspect relating to having a destiny, so I'm actually not so sure I even need the "Favored by the Gods" ability associated with the bloodline. It almost seems redundant with how I expect him to use the aspect. In that case, I'd probably reduce the cost of the bloodline to just 1 refresh, since the main point is to establish a framework for working with magic.

Celestial Bloodline (costs 2 refresh)
- Font of Divine Power -- Permission to use magic.
- Can perform any magical action at scale by spending one fate point.
- Can take physical stress instead of spending a fate point for a magical effect.
- Can use Shoot to perform magical attack with fire or celestial energy.
- Can conjure celestial energy or a flame for illumination.
- Defend from attacks using celestial energy at scale.
- Can produce other minor magical effects at will.
- Favored by the Gods
- Once per session, may invoke this ability as an aspect (i.e. reroll the dice or get a +2 bonus) without any further justification.
- Additionally, any Overcome or Create Advantage action that relies solely or largely on luck (e.g. gambling) can be declared as magical, potentially benefiting from scale (see above).

Stunts
- Invisibility - Spend a fate point to add aspect of "Invisible" to you or ally for the scene.
- Warding Bond - Spend a fate point to allow an ally to pass off physical damage to you for the scene. They can declare that half the shifts of damage they take go to you, and you decide whether to take the damage as physical stress or consequences as normal. You may sever the bond to avoid incoming damage. If you choose to do so, the bonded character must distribute all the damage, as normal (no partial sharing).
- Cure Wounds - You can speed up the healing process in another. You may use Lore to overcome a consequence and begin the recovery process, even without appropriate equipment or facilities. For a fate point, you may immediately complete the recovery process. A consequence reduced in this way may not benefit from most magical healing and must recover normally.

Thoughts?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A sense that it has become so self referential that it may have lost perspective of what it thinks it is trying to do.

It has become a meta game. What has been done do is akin to cargo cult science.

I have a sinking feeling that you're onto something, there...

 

[Afrodyte]

Great advice. I went back with the idea that a sorcerer (favored soul) is infused with magic and really shouldn't have a dedicated skill. I like it. As long as you're handing out advice, care to proof my conversion notes? It's a conversion of a 5th level Aasimar Favored Soul. Since the excuse for class choice is just an outgrowth of the celestial blood, I just threw the whole class/race into a blender. I played with a few different combinations of spells, but I generally ended up coming back to the power level being about right for the cost of one refresh, so I left those alone. The baseline for the bloodline, though, I was comfortable doing an extended bullet list.

The character would have an aspect relating to having a destiny, so I'm actually not so sure I even need the "Favored by the Gods" ability associated with the bloodline. It almost seems redundant with how I expect him to use the aspect. In that case, I'd probably reduce the cost of the bloodline to just 1 refresh, since the main point is to establish a framework for working with magic.

Celestial Bloodline (costs 2 refresh)
- Font of Divine Power -- Permission to use magic.
- Can perform any magical action at scale by spending one fate point.
- Can take physical stress instead of spending a fate point for a magical effect.
- Can use Shoot to perform magical attack with fire or celestial energy.
- Can conjure celestial energy or a flame for illumination.
- Defend from attacks using celestial energy at scale.
- Can produce other minor magical effects at will.
- Favored by the Gods
- Once per session, may invoke this ability as an aspect (i.e. reroll the dice or get a +2 bonus) without any further justification.
- Additionally, any Overcome or Create Advantage action that relies solely or largely on luck (e.g. gambling) can be declared as magical, potentially benefiting from scale (see above).

Stunts
- Invisibility - Spend a fate point to add aspect of "Invisible" to you or ally for the scene.
- Warding Bond - Spend a fate point to allow an ally to pass off physical damage to you for the scene. They can declare that half the shifts of damage they take go to you, and you decide whether to take the damage as physical stress or consequences as normal. You may sever the bond to avoid incoming damage. If you choose to do so, the bonded character must distribute all the damage, as normal (no partial sharing).
- Cure Wounds - You can speed up the healing process in another. You may use Lore to overcome a consequence and begin the recovery process, even without appropriate equipment or facilities. For a fate point, you may immediately complete the recovery process. A consequence reduced in this way may not benefit from most magical healing and must recover normally.

Thoughts?

I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle. You have to expand your thinking a bit and think about Aspects and Stunts as more conceptual than granular. Think about them in terms of character, narrative, genre and setting. A good way to think about it is: How would you sum up this class or race or background without referencing the rules in any way?

Ironically, when translating D&D to FATE, the fluff matters more than the crunch.