Quick Question on adapting FATE

[dbm]

The "Fate point economy" really is the heart of Fate, and it produces an ebb and flow in the game. It's designed to emulate stories where the hero takes a beating for the first 3 reels then comes back in the finale to beat all the odds. It was specifically designed to emulate the Dresden Files, they just wanted to mature the system before taking on that challenge.

If that concept doesn't sit well with you then you might be better starting from a different system.

 

[Umbran]

I thought about just giving the player an extra experience point whenever they have a compel. I guess my idea for a Fate pool based on some in game reality might be too much change.

It isn't a matter of "too much change". I mean, really, you can do whatever you want.

The thing that FATE has, that most systems don't, is elegance. Most games, D&D included, are collections of sub-systems that are fitted together, some more tightly than others. That means you can pry them apart, and replace bits, and you don't have too many extra seams. FATE, in its elegance, doesn't have many seams. It works very well, but if you hack it up, it quickly ceases to be so pretty.

So, basically, my argument comes from that - if you hack it up in the way described, the things you like about it aren't likely to work all that well.

My motives for considering Fate
1. I like a simple system that is DM empowered. Fate seems that way.

FATE is even more player-empowering than it is GM empowering. If anything, FATE gives some restrictions on GMs. In D&D, if the GM wants to do something that will complicate teh character's life, he or she just does it - the plot turns, monsters appear, and so on. In FATE, doing the same thing in play really calls for the GM to make sure the events are at least thematically appropriate for the situation, and give the player a resource for their trouble.

2. I like the idea of a system where I can construct my own games (via aspects and skills) that fit the setting perfectly.

You'll note that the variants all keep that core mechanic pretty intact, though. You can have characters focus their aspects thematically, you can fiddle with skills, you can add stunts, yes. All that is quite open to adjustment. But the very core with Fate points, tagging, and compels stays the same.

3. I like the dice.
4. I like the ladder.

Good things, yes. But note the ladder expects the ability of the player to buy their way up it with Fate points on a frequent basis.

5. I like the skill pyramid approach.

Actually, the skill pyramid is not so great if you're looking for a breadth of power levels across time in the game. FATE is not the greatest if you want to have a character go from zero to hero. FATE models character *change* well, but not so much character power growth. And the pyramid is instrumental in that.

 

[Emerikol]

Maybe my best option is to just write my own game based loosely on some of the Fate concepts. I was practically to that point on D&D anyway. Whatever I do though I want a system so if I want to do post apocalyptic next time its not a big deal.

 

[dbm]

Maybe my best option is to just write my own game based loosely on some of the Fate concepts. I was practically to that point on D&D anyway. Whatever I do though I want a system so if I want to do post apocalyptic next time its not a big deal.

Definitely look at Fudge in that case. It's a meta system for making systems, rather than a complete game.

 

[Emerikol]

Definitely look at Fudge in that case. It's a meta system for making systems, rather than a complete game.

I actually downloaded it long ago. It has a lot of good ideas. I like many of the simplifications that Fate made though. I like everything being either an aspect or a skill. My magic system would go the skill route though because I want a high magic world ultimately in the vein of D&D. At least on my first pass.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Goals I would have for my game 3. A broad array of Aspects broken down into things you get at birth, during level up, and as you play.

One thing to be wary about is that you can have too many aspects. You don't need a ton of aspects to capture the core concepts of most characters and having too many means that some very rarely come into play. In Dresden Files you have seven, Fate Core pared that down to five because , and Fate Accelerated pared them down to three. To me the 3-5 aspect range is ideal.

4. A rich and plentifully vibrant magic item list.

I think you can make very vibrant magic items in Fate. You can give them aspects that can be tapped like character aspects so that demonslaying sword is great at slaying demons. Plus those item aspects can be tapped for story reasons--demons attack someone with the demonslaying sword, the demonslaying sword encourages the character to fight demons instead of fleeing, etc.

5. A rich and plentifully vibrant magic system.

I like the versatility of Dresden Files' magic system because it's almost limited by your imagination. But I also found it to be a cumbersome system.

Things I'd have to fix 1. I don't like metagaming.

I think this will be a difficult one for you to overcome. The Fate system embraces the metagaming currency of fate points to allow the GM and players to create an interesting collaborative story.

So players choosing to stick to character in order to get a reward (compels) is not the approach I'd use.

One thing to note is that sticking to your character doesn't get your rewarded with a compel. You get rewarded when the compel increases the drama or complicates the situation for the character. A character with the "smart alec" aspect doesn't get a fate point for being in character and being sassy to NPC. But if he's being questioned by the city guards and not holding his tongue will land him in the dungeon, then he'll get rewarded for following his aspect.

2. I don't like fate points as a currency you can save or use whenever you like. I realize that fate points may be essential to characters surviving so I'd have to figure out a way to provide for them in a more natural in character way. Thus avoiding the metagaming. I even considered 1 fate point per encounter but not sure that is best either.

Out of curiosity, what makes switching it to 1 fate point per encounter less metagamey?

Maybe one way to look at compelling aspects is as character flaws that pay out when they come into affect. In some games you can take a flaw at character creation to get a boon at character creation. For example there's a variant rule in D&D 3.x where you take a flaw and in return get an additional feat at 1st level. Compelling aspects is similar except instead of getting the payout at character creation, you get rewarded whenever that flaw comes into play.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing to be wary about is that you can have too many aspects. You don't need a ton of aspects to capture the core concepts of most characters and having too many means that some very rarely come into play. In Dresden Files you have seven, Fate Core pared that down to five because , and Fate Accelerated pared them down to three. To me the 3-5 aspect range is ideal.

I am perhaps wrong in this regard but I am viewing aspects as anything that modifies the game and is not a skill. So things like advantages/disadvantages are traditional aspects. I want to avoid making anything an aspect that would be better represented by a skill. My system is skill heavy.

I think you can make very vibrant magic items in Fate. You can give them aspects that can be tapped like character aspects so that demonslaying sword is great at slaying demons. Plus those item aspects can be tapped for story reasons--demons attack someone with the demonslaying sword, the demonslaying sword encourages the character to fight demons instead of fleeing, etc.

I agree. I hope I came across in my post as agreeing on this. My approach to magic items is novel relative to D&D's approach. So I think this will be a lot of fun. For the most part magic items will be aspect like in their behavior or in some cases they might provide a stunt. I really am trying to create a certain playstyle that I enjoy but use a different rules approach. Just to see how it can go.

I like the versatility of Dresden Files' magic system because it's almost limited by your imagination. But I also found it to be a cumbersome system.

I wouldn't mind checking this out but I don't want to buy the game just to check it out. I have an idea in mind for my magic system and I think it will be really cool.

I think this will be a difficult one for you to overcome. The Fate system embraces the metagaming currency of fate points to allow the GM and players to create an interesting collaborative story.

I do not want to come across as belligerent so please do not take me that way. I see words like "collaborative story" as code words for a particular playstyle. A style not really my cup of tea though I could see it being popular with many people. I'm for it but just not for me. I prefer a game more focused on setting and overcoming challenges to complete goals. Pretty much I want actor stance all the time. I also want to avoid metagaming.

One thing to note is that sticking to your character doesn't get your rewarded with a compel. You get rewarded when the compel increases the drama or complicates the situation for the character. A character with the "smart alec" aspect doesn't get a fate point for being in character and being sassy to NPC. But if he's being questioned by the city guards and not holding his tongue will land him in the dungeon, then he'll get rewarded for following his aspect.

Again my sloppy use of language. I think I understood that it had to matter or you don't get the fate point. The DM wants to make your Aspect hurt you and you accept the fate point as a result. This is far better than a game like Numenera where you can buy off these compels.

Out of curiosity, what makes switching it to 1 fate point per encounter less metagamey?

I was thinking that if you had a limited resource pool that refreshed between combats that it could represent stamina or energy. So you are able to give an extra effort only so many times per encounter. I probably would just not have fate points in the non-combat areas of the game.

Maybe one way to look at compelling aspects is as character flaws that pay out when they come into affect. In some games you can take a flaw at character creation to get a boon at character creation. For example there's a variant rule in D&D 3.x where you take a flaw and in return get an additional feat at 1st level. Compelling aspects is similar except instead of getting the payout at character creation, you get rewarded whenever that flaw comes into play.

Yep. I really do get it. Especially after your explanation above. It is an elegant way of doing flaws no doubt. I just don't prefer it for my own games. I like the idea of the compel but I don't like the fate points it generates. If it could generate something else like may experience points that might work. Experience points are pretty much outside the game as they won't come up in a session. They won't affect the actual game other than the advancement rate. Not sure this works. Just playing with ideas. That is why I posted. Just to chew on ideas with other people.

 

[Umbran]

I am perhaps wrong in this regard but I am viewing aspects as anything that modifies the game and is not a skill. So things like advantages/disadvantages are traditional aspects. I want to avoid making anything an aspect that would be better represented by a skill. My system is skill heavy.

Aspects will generally modify skills. The game has the skill "Fight", for melee combat. You might have an aspect "Champion Boxer". It'll probably be useful when you use Fight when trying to punch an opponent, and won't be useful when you're trying to stab them. But, it may also be useful for dodging ("Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee") or getting hit in the head repeatedly

I do not want to come across as belligerent so please do not take me that way. I see words like "collaborative story" as code words for a particular playstyle. A style not really my cup of tea though I could see it being popular with many people.

You're being vague enough that it is difficult for me to tell what about it you don't like, so that it is difficult to say if FATE in practice is problematic in the way you fear.

I prefer a game more focused on setting and overcoming challenges to complete goals. Pretty much I want actor stance all the time. I also want to avoid metagaming.

The thing is, setting, overcoming challenges, and goals, are orthogonal to the collaborative story aspects of FATE. You can have both. The collaboration in FATE comes largely from the occasional bit of negotiation between the player and GM over short-term developments. Depending on your variant, there may be some world-building collaboration as well.

Again my sloppy use of language. I think I understood that it had to matter or you don't get the fate point. The DM wants to make your Aspect hurt you and you accept the fate point as a result. This is far better than a game like Numenera where you can buy off these compels.

The player in FATE can buy off compels on a case-by-case basis, and it is kind of costly. In my experience, it doesn't happen terribly often.

I was thinking that if you had a limited resource pool that refreshed between combats that it could represent stamina or energy. So you are able to give an extra effort only so many times per encounter.

In FATE, the characters do have a pool, and it does refresh - it just does so at natural break points in story, typically between sessions. The points are a resource typically managed on a longer timescale than one fight.

I probably would just not have fate points in the non-combat areas of the game.

So, if the dwarf wants an aspect "Master Locksmith", you'll either say they can't have it, or it only applies if they are trying to unlock a door in combat? That is so very limiting to character concepts.

As compared to D&D rules, FATE is rather weak in its tactical combat details and options in the rules themselves. It is, however, much stronger than D&D in its social skill and other skill options. This is seen in FATE Core's Default skill list. There are 18 skills. There are only *two* (Fight and Shoot) that are unambiguously combat skills.

Now, this is not definitive - the game specifically says that if you are making your own setting/game out of it, you should have your own skill list. But, if you are looking at the rule set to determine what it is good at - this game by default has more social-skills than combat skills! So, putting the focus on "in combat" is perhaps throwing out the baby with the bathwater. FATE recognizes a whole lot of challenges that aren't "combat", and generally treats them on equal footing to combat, using the same basic mechanics.

A great deal of the interesting things in a fight come not out of the rules, but the Aspects on the characters and scene. Conflict is more about interacting with the reality in the situation, than in interacting with the rules.

Yep. I really do get it. Especially after your explanation above. It is an elegant way of doing flaws no doubt. I just don't prefer it for my own games. I like the idea of the compel but I don't like the fate points it generates. If it could generate something else like may experience points that might work. Experience points are pretty much outside the game as they won't come up in a session. They won't affect the actual game other than the advancement rate. Not sure this works. Just playing with ideas. That is why I posted. Just to chew on ideas with other people.

As previously noted, most FATE variants don't tend to do "advancement" very well. The games typically don't have "experience points". When you hit stopping points in the narrative (like the ends of chapters or books in novels), the characters get a chance to swap around skills, rename aspects, and such. At really major break points, they may get a point in a skill, or get a new stunt. You could say the game is typically more about character development than advancement.

 

[Emerikol]

You're being vague enough that it is difficult for me to tell what about it you don't like, so that it is difficult to say if FATE in practice is problematic in the way you fear.

Without modification it probably is... I have an unusual combination of preferences. I prefer simple, systemic approaches but I want to avoid metagaming and stay in actor stance. So no short term negotiations between players and GM that dictate in session results.

The thing is, setting, overcoming challenges, and goals, are orthogonal to the collaborative story aspects of FATE. You can have both. The collaboration in FATE comes largely from the occasional bit of negotiation between the player and GM over short-term developments. Depending on your variant, there may be some world-building collaboration as well.

You are correct. I think though taste wise that many people who enjoy metagaming also enjoy story creation over game challenge. That is not absolute of course but rather my observation of a tendency. Maybe it's just my assessment from reading on these forums.

In FATE, the characters do have a pool, and it does refresh - it just does so at natural break points in story, typically between sessions. The points are a resource typically managed on a longer timescale than one fight.

My issue is that when it's not a fairly short time scale things like fate points (action points, bennies, whatever) become dissociative. It has no narrative reason other than the player is playing God and deciding when fate is with you. Pun unintended. .

So, if the dwarf wants an aspect "Master Locksmith", you'll either say they can't have it, or it only applies if they are trying to unlock a door in combat? That is so very limiting to character concepts.

I was just going to always allow the aspect without requiring a fate point when it is out of combat. I was though thinking that I'd design the aspects so things which truly overlap too much with skills would be avoided. So an aspect might be Druid of the Vilhon Forest. That then would enable me as DM to reward a player when he is in that location by making some of his other skills a bit better because he knows the area and is likely more conversant with the residents.

As compared to D&D rules, FATE is rather weak in its tactical combat details and options. It is, however, much stronger than D&D in its social skill and other skill options. This is seen in FATE Core's Default skill list. There are 18 skills. There are only *two* (Fight and Shoot) that are unambiguously combat skills.

I agree. I don't need for combat to be complex to be honest. Maybe magic is complex but it's non-combat measures are what make it that way. I have all sorts of my own skills.

Now, this is not definitive - the game specifically says that if you are making your own setting/game out of it, you should have your own skill list. But, if you are looking at the rule set to determine what it is good at - this game by default has more social-skills than combat skills! So, putting the focus on "in combat" is perhaps throwing out the baby with the bathwater. FATE recognizes a whole lot of challenges that aren't "combat", and generally treats them on equal footing to combat, using the same basic mechanics.

My focus is not combat. There may be a reasonable bit of combat but I want it quick and over with. The main thrust is exploration and setting development via connections and roleplay.

As previously noted, most FATE variants don't tend to do "advancement" very well. The games typically don't have "experience points". When you hit stopping points in the narrative (like the ends of chapters or books in novels), the characters get a chance to swap around skills, rename aspects, and such. At really major break points, they may get a point in a skill, or get a new stunt. You could say the game is typically more about character development than advancement.

One of my houserules was just to make a generic chart and say that you get this many skill points to build your pyramid with at each level. I also have a way to slightly improve your stress taking ability as you level up. Nothing on the order of D&D by any means but a slight improvement.

Maybe I'm just designing a new system with skills, aspects, and fudge/fate dice.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but I think I'm about to spend a lot of verbiage telling you you're wrong about some things. I admit that I don't actually know what's going on in your head - I recognize that I'm speaking based on some deductions that may be inaccurate - so for all that I apologize.

Without modification it probably is... I have an unusual combination of preferences. I prefer simple, systemic approaches but I want to avoid metagaming and stay in actor stance. So no short term negotiations between players and GM that dictate in session results.

The Forge gave us a few nice things - some language for stuff, for example. It also has some unfortunate legacies - like taking theory over practical application.

I have a friend who doesn't like cheese. It isn't that he's vegan. It isn't that he is lactose intolerant, or allergic. It is not a matter of health or principle, just a matter of taste, which is fine. But then, when we're doing a game-night dinner, and he doesn't hear the ingredients list, he gleefully eats three helpings of a casserole that's got lots of cheese in it. We have to wonder if he's letting his preconception get in the way of judging the final product.

Let us consider dissociative mechanics. A dissociative mechanic is one in which the player has to make considerations that the character could not - since within the fiction the character doesn't have "fate points", the mechanic is dissociative and metagaming. That's the theory. But, qualifying the mechanic as dissociative and metagaming, however, actually misses the base issue. The base idea is to keep the player immersed and/or thinking as their character would think. But, that should *not* be evaluated on a mechanic-by-mechanic basis! That should be evaluated on an overall game experience basis! Discarding the mechanic alone, without considering its action in the context of actual play, means you easily miss the forest for the trees. By thinking only of the mechanic itself, you miss any synergy created with the rest of the system.

The real question is - in the context of play, does the mechanic cause the player to dissociate themselves from their character? No, at least, not in my experience. The most immersive tabletop experience I had of late was playing a FATE game at a house con. My wife, who generally wants nothing to do with mechanics for just the reasons that make most folks want to avoid supposedly dissociative mechanics, loves FATE because it allows her to more deeply concern herself with who and what her character is than most games.

Not that FATE is a perfect system, by any means. But forcing dissociation between a player and character isn't one of its major flaws.

Now, after all that, I have to mention - in my personal opinion, your desire to see only Actor stance in the players should be written by hand in neat cursive writing a hundred times, put into a large ashtray, and burned. You are a GM, not the thought police. While it is okay to ask them to not, like, read the monster manual and use that information in game, the players get to make decisions for *their* reasons, not yours, and the GM doesn't get to dictate the player's approach to play.