Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7347287" data-attributes="member: 5142">So in the context of SW, you are speaking of the "roll to beat a TN 4 or higher" mechanic? Mainly from the observation that you had a game system that spoke to your needs and preferences prior to the publication of Fate. So there would be little need for Evil Hat to make Fate to suit the needs or preferences of people who already prefer the d20 system of D&D 3.X. There is neither need for snark nor posturing, Celebrim, especially not for a cordial conversation. Here's the problem, Celebrim: you assume that I haven't applied that advice. You have requested before that I understand your tastes and preferences regarding 3E or not liking Fate, abd you have made those preferences known before. You have requested that I understand why 3e d20 fulfills your preferences. I have. But you show no evidence of extending that same basic courtesy for fans of other systems that you dislike, such as Savage Worlds or Fate. Even your paragraph below comes from a self-centered perspective of "its not working for me, so how could it possibly work for others?" Speaking of a social contract, that lack of good faith in this conversation that strikes me as a breach of the social contract at play here. In contrast, I have said repeatedly before that I have played (and even enjoyed) D&D (3-5e) and Pathfinder, and that I can appreciate the appeal that these particular games have for players who enjoy those games, but also that these games also can get tiring for me and are not always what I want out of a game system for all gaming contexts, hence my enjoyment of alternative game systems. I don't think that this exists, even in 3.X D&D. Or, rather, I think that this is a mentality or approach that stems more from the Gamemaster/Table than it does from the system. Even in Fate, for example, a lot of the gamemastering advice is driven by a sense for "what is appropriate/fair in this context?" Also your phrasing has me somewhat curious on a more philosophical level: "impartial" in regards to what? Most judges of law, for example, are attempting to be impartial in respect to the treatment and adjudication of law(s) regarding two (or more) agents in dispute against each other. If it is a matter of impartiality of the rules towards the players, I don't think that there is really much of a system that will advocate treating the players harshly under the rules or providing preferential treatment to particular players. I don't think that Fate is claiming to be a storytelling or narrativist game, though I do think that these labels often get applied, perhaps inappropriately, by many people, including some of the systems fans, who assume sort of D&D normative perspective. (A position that assumes that anything "left" or "right" of norm falls into the "extreme" camp.) The game does incorporate things that could be regarded as narrativist (e.g., fate points), but I think that the heart of the game still amounts to rolling Fudge dice on a ladder and adding appropriate modifiers (skills, approaches, aspect invokes, etc.) to determine success. Its major innovation primarily entails its usage of concept-driven aspects for 1) character building, 2) scene-interaction (e.g., create an advantage, scene aspects, etc.), and 3) interaction with fate points, which I also regard as part of Fate's checks-and-balances social contract system between GM and players. There are several itches that Fate scratches for me and my players, so I can speak a bit about those. But I suppose that it helpful to understand that many of my players dislike rules/crunch heavy game systems. Systems like D&D 3e, Pathfinder, and Der Schwarze Auge tend to be off-putting for my players. (I mind less for 3e/Pathfinder, but this was my RP formative norm.) I also don't think that they regard simulationism in high esteem as a goal or ideal for game systems. And there are likely multiple reasons for those preferences, but as these are more player specific, I would not do justice to their positions here. I do suspect that for a number of them, it is an implicit problem of the dissonance created from differing senses of simulationism vs. simulationism, where the mechanics of simulationist-oriented systems sometime interfere with their own sense of simulationism, reality, or character/narrative immersion. What Fate offers my players is a more streamlined and elegant rules system that serves most of what they could want out of a roleplaying game. There are four types of rolls (i.e., attack, defend, overcome, and create an advantage) and four outcomes (i.e., fail, tie, succeed, succeed with style). That's really all I have to worry about as either a player or GM. "Create an Advantage," in particular, covers a substantial amount of in-combat and out-of-combat actions that often requires a fair amount of rules (or book-checking) in some crunch-heavier games. The advantage "disarmed" or "blinded by pocket sand!" may just require an overcome Fight roll against a defense Fight roll. It is done. We can move on and my players can focus much easier on playing their characters. In some respects, Aspects and Creating and Advantage allow my players to name or narrate more precisely what they are attempting to do. And in the naming and invoking of aspects in a scene of play, it breaks down the sometimes nebulous contextual modifiers into more player-facing tangible chunks. By making it player-facing, I think that it can also become more character-facing as the player has more game information that they can translate into in-narrative information for their characters. The other thing that I think that Fate offers my players is character-building via aspects. A lot of d20 systems are class-based. Not all, but many are. And I have watched many players, even outside of my group, become frustrated by how classes in D&D often fail to deliver the character concept they have in mind to play, often akin to the feeling of forcing a square peg in a round hole. Aspects allow my players to articulate the character they have in mind to play. They don't have to figure out which class offers the greatest mechanical or conceptual advantage for their "Swashbuckling Pistoleer" character; they just declare that their high concept and move on. So this gives players an extraordinary degree of latitude when it comes to character creation. This is a breath of fresh air. What I appreciate on the GM-side of things is that these aspects also declare to me what is important for the player about their character. What do they want to see in the game? How do the expect to interact with the world? This is not to say that I could not get these things from D&D, but, rather, it is a matter of how Fate does this. There are other things that my players and I enjoy about the system, but I don't want to spend too much time writing about this, though I am more than willing to answer your questions in cordial discussion.</blockquote>

Verification