Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6188369" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I usually manage to make what we talk about relevant to thread topics.....eventually <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.I think there's a lot to this. Fundamentally, I think it comes down the the presumption of playing a character/story/narrative, rather than a combat-which-may-be-story. In FATE, combat takes up much less development space, and more importantly combat and non-combat abilities work on the same basis and within each other's realms as well. A &quot;social&quot; character can use his abilities in combat as well, dealing stress and creating advantages just like a &quot;combat&quot; character mechanically (but not narratively).Definitely, at least IME.I've never tried my little experiment of running FATE with a d20,&nbsp; but I don't suspect it would go well.. Bell or peaked curve mechanics like FATE's&nbsp; default 4dF or d6-d6 tend to emphasize small differences in modifier's&nbsp; more, but de-emphasize large ones. Which has two effects (I think): first, FATE character mechanics&nbsp; don't need very many &quot;points&quot; to make a character &quot;good&quot; at something.&nbsp; (Conversely, FATE seems to have a bit more trouble handling&nbsp; D&amp;D-style incremental advancement.) Secondly, its easy to have a&nbsp; situational modifiers get really important. As a result, a&nbsp; climactic FATE scene involving a combat or conflict with a BBEG will&nbsp; usually take the form of the heroes building up temporary aspects until&nbsp; someone can invoke a few of them for a &quot;kill shot.&quot; In play, it&nbsp; generates a very stark contrast with D&amp;D's typical (anticlimactic)&nbsp; battle modes of either insta-kill scry-and-fry or anvil-chorus&nbsp; slog-fest.&nbsp; I do not know if a &quot;flat&quot; mechanic&nbsp; like a d20. (I suppose the&nbsp; reverse experiment would be to run a &quot;d20&quot; game with a 2d10 or 3d6 or&nbsp; something.) I think I'd have to agree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6188369, member: 6688937"] Well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I [I]usually[/I] manage to make what we talk about relevant to thread topics.....eventually :). I think there's a lot to this. Fundamentally, I think it comes down the the presumption of playing a character/story/narrative, rather than a combat-which-may-be-story. In FATE, combat takes up much less development space, and more importantly combat and non-combat abilities work on the same basis and within each other's realms as well. A "social" character can use his abilities in combat as well, dealing stress and creating advantages just like a "combat" character mechanically (but not narratively). Definitely, at least IME. I've never tried my little experiment of running FATE with a d20, but I don't suspect it would go well.. Bell or peaked curve mechanics like FATE's default 4dF or d6-d6 tend to emphasize small differences in modifier's more, but de-emphasize large ones. Which has two effects (I think): first, FATE character mechanics don't need very many "points" to make a character "good" at something. (Conversely, FATE seems to have a bit more trouble handling D&D-style incremental advancement.) Secondly, its easy to have a situational modifiers get [I]really[/I] important. As a result, a climactic FATE scene involving a combat or conflict with a BBEG will usually take the form of the heroes building up temporary aspects until someone can invoke a few of them for a "kill shot." In play, it generates a very stark contrast with D&D's typical (anticlimactic) battle modes of either insta-kill scry-and-fry or anvil-chorus slog-fest. I do not know if a "flat" mechanic like a d20. (I suppose the reverse experiment would be to run a "d20" game with a 2d10 or 3d6 or something.) I think I'd have to agree. [/QUOTE]

Verification