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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7342805" data-attributes="member: 5142">There is no shoe on the other footing here really, as I don't think anyone is really putting a "kick me" sign on your preferred system. There has not even been much D&D kicking in this thread. It's not about kicking D&D, but, rather, it's about being able to appreciate and enjoy games other than D&D. I still play and enjoy D&D as D&D. But I do periodically grow tired of it, especially since I enjoy playing other games, including Fate. Monopoly has extraordinary staying power, but playing Monopoly forever would be tiresome. D&D is not a omni-system and its not good for all tabletop roleplaying games, despite some people pretending that it is. It can't do everything, and it does grate on some of my players' nerves. My fiancé, for example, loathes the ubiquity of magical healing spells (and potions) in D&D because they feel that it devalues/invalidates their own medical skills as an operations nurse. So they will generally favor systems that similarly place a higher value on characters possessing medical knowledge over cast-and-cure systems. Diablo III uses a blend of resource management systems for abilities that vary from class to class, including cooldowns and mana points. Its cooldown system (and many other features) primarily for secondary skills were also heavily criticized by fans of the Diablo franchise. Regardless, the system is, in some respects, more akin to 4E than Vancian magic and is meant to support intense, fast pace high-action play with a starkly different tone of play that D&D. But the compartmentalization of reliable magical effects is not a spell or magic structure that is unique to Vancian magic, as this is nigh ubiquitious apart from free-forming magic systems. From what I recall, Savage Worlds's magic system is non-Vancian but also uses compartmentalized spells. My games have never exceeded 6 players, because most groups prefer keeping to a smaller close knit of players, typically 4-5. I don't think that I would ever consider playing any tabletop RP game that was 7+ players regardless of system precisely for this problem, so the ability of a system to support that level of play is off my radar. Perhaps in your interpretation of the reading, but my reading of the book clearly differs from you in this regard. And given how the people have picked up the Fate rulebook and come out with a similar style of play supported by those rules, then it appears that the book is doing something correct in providing players with clear expectations of play. It sounds then as if I am probably misunderstanding your use of terms, particularly of the hypothetical contract in question. I would say, for example, that Fate does "provide players with a contract about the reality of the world." However, players also have a cooperative say in that reality, though the degree of say is ultimately adjudicated by the GM (who does have the power to reject player input). In fact, Fate's session 0 of phase play is often meant to serve as a social contract about that reality. However, the reality of the world detailed within that contract is not meant to cater to simultationism. I do understand why Fate is not necessarily the game for you, if not especially you given your vocalness regarding 3.X serving as your preferred gaming system. But I don't think that Fate is meant to be played for all games nor would I advocate such. If I did, then I would just be propagating a similar problem that I have with D&D.</blockquote>

Verification