Mike Mearls, I am calling you out! (Legends & Lore 6/28)

[ThirdWizard]

I'm confused. Lidda takes the "consequences" Reticent and Disheartened, yet as far as I can tell, neither of those consequences is reflected in either her actions or the roleplay text. She seems neither reticent nor disheartened by the mercenary's success.

What am I missing here?

I wanted to keep it simple!

LostSoul has it right, though.

What would actually happen would be that when she tried to act against those consequences, the GM would compel her to completely fail her attacks! Then she would have a choice. She could take the compel, and gain a fate point, or she could spend a fate point, and suck it up and get her action. If she had no fate points, she would be out of luck and there would be little chance of success in the scene. If she had plenty of fate points, she would be able to continue, but having spent some valuable resources.

Keep in mind that in FATE, a fate point can do things like alter reality. I can say that, you know what, I just happened to pack that garlic today when we run into a vampire. They are very powerful narrative resources.

EDIT: Oh, and that moderate consequence is a really big deal, because the GM will be compelling it for a couple more sessions! The mild consequence will be gone soon after the scene ("encounter") is over. Also, she won't be able to take a physical or mental moderate consequence until that one is gone. They must really have needed the mercenaries! I highly recommend the game, it is a lot of fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you sure you're not both being influenced by the dreams of Gygax? He slumbers fitfully now, but it is said that when the stars align, he shall wake and devour the corrupt acolytes of both Dancey and the Rouse alike...

In Geneva, dread Gygax lays dreaming....

That's a really nice idea in theory, but how do you see it working in practice? Or should we wait for Mearls' column next week to find out?

Basic outline? There's three levels of complexity:

• A check. d20+mods vs. DC (or opposed roll). Do it once, winner wins. Simple, quick, gets the difficulty out of the way. Use for things where the resolution is important, but you don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
• A "Challenge." d20+mods vs. DCs (or opposed rolls). Must get a certain number of successes before victory. DCs may vary, and results may vary. More detailed, involves the whole party, but still fairly simple. Use it for elements you'd like to spend some time on, but don't want to worry about too much.
• A "Strategic Challenge." Compare point pools, roll dice to dwindle these pools. Can use special abilities to defend your pool or drain your enemy's pool faster. First to 0 looses. Great for increasing tension and exhibiting unique character traits. Might take a while, and could get deep, but you want that. Use it for elements of big importance, climactic events.

In that way, a game that wanted, say, to focus on an investigation of who in the King's Court was a vampire might use a Strategic Challenge for the investigation (use special abilities to find clues, or to avoid loosing sight of the suspects!) and the vampire fight at the end (when the menace is revealed!), but they might use a normal Challenge for interrogating a suspect or gathering clues, and they'd probably use a Check to solve a quick binary like "Does the rogue notice the pale guy watching them from the shadows?".

There's probably more levels of granularity you could work in there, and you can get deeper than a Strategic Challenge (4e combat involves quite a few additional variables!), but since I am not being paid to write this, unlike mearls, you'll have to content yourself with a rough outline.

 

[ThirdWizard]

There's probably more levels of granularity you could work in there, and you can get deeper than a Strategic Challenge (4e combat involves quite a few additional variables!), but since I am not being paid to write this, unlike mearls, you'll have to content yourself with a rough outline.

I'll wait and see how Mearls hashes out your design, then I'll come back to you for clarification!

 

[The Shaman]

I think Lidda gets an aspect that Brand can tag (spend a fate point for an extra +1?). The GM can also compel that tag, so either she acts in a manner determined by the GM (I believe) and gets a fate point, or spends two fate points to resist the compel. I think Lidda still has free range of action otherwise.

What would actually happen would be that when she tried to act against those consequences, the GM would compel her to completely fail her attacks! Then she would have a choice. She could take the compel, and gain a fate point, or she could spend a fate point, and suck it up and get her action. If she had no fate points, she would be out of luck and there would be little chance of success in the scene. If she had plenty of fate points, she would be able to continue, but having spent some valuable resources. . . .

EDIT: Oh, and that moderate consequence is a really big deal, because the GM will be compelling it for a couple more sessions! The mild consequence will be gone soon after the scene ("encounter") is over. Also, she won't be able to take a physical or mental moderate consequence until that one is gone.

That sounds like bridge. 'Lidda bids no trump.'

Not the experience I look for out of a roleplaying game.

 

[Herschel]

why must everyone wtach me sleep!?

Because that's when you float above the blankets and call yourself Zul.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That sounds like bridge. 'Lidda bids no trump.'

Not the experience I look for out of a roleplaying game.

Not familiar with bridge. Are you saying its too much of a gamble? If so, yes, FATE conflicts can be very swingy, with the understanding that losing isn't as dire a consequence as it would be in your average D&D game, so beware when taking consequences. I guess the fact that the player chooses when to take a consequence and when not to is also kind of weird from a simulationist perspective. So, it is a very different experience than other RPGs.

Another thing that a lot of d20 players probably wouldn't like is that all those aspects are made up on the fly and have no effect unless compelled or invoked. You're on fire? You have the On Fire aspect, and you aren't taking actual damage, but you might be compelled to flail around violently, and enemies can invoke it against you for +2 to their rolls. That's absolutely jarring coming from d20.

 

[Dedekind]

I have a photo on my desk of Kamikazee Midget and Mike Mearls and KM has started to fade from sight!

GREAT SCOTT!

The only solution is to go... BACK TO THE FUTURE!!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm going to take KM's highly entertaining thread and go into excruciating detail on how "social combat" can be a lot of fun, using one of my favorite systems, the Dresden Files RPG, a FATE game.

That is a really interesting example. I'm going to have to look into this game!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Basic outline? There's three levels of complexity:

• A check. d20+mods vs. DC (or opposed roll). Do it once, winner wins. Simple, quick, gets the difficulty out of the way. Use for things where the resolution is important, but you don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
• A "Challenge." d20+mods vs. DCs (or opposed rolls). Must get a certain number of successes before victory. DCs may vary, and results may vary. More detailed, involves the whole party, but still fairly simple. Use it for elements you'd like to spend some time on, but don't want to worry about too much.
• A "Strategic Challenge." Compare point pools, roll dice to dwindle these pools. Can use special abilities to defend your pool or drain your enemy's pool faster. First to 0 looses. Great for increasing tension and exhibiting unique character traits. Might take a while, and could get deep, but you want that. Use it for elements of big importance, climactic events.

Heroquest (by Issaries?) did something like this.

 

[The Shaman]

Are you saying its too much of a gamble?

No, I'm saying that the mechanics are too abstract for my tastes.

I don't want an "On Fire" condition that's negated by a FATE point. I want, "You're on fire and taking 1D6 general damage each round until you put it out."