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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6346127" data-attributes="member: 4937">The problem with that sort of 'FATE can definitely handle it', is you've pretty much said, "FATE just gives the GM some tools and lets him decide how to handle it."   There is nothing wrong with that, but from that perspective every system can handle the seen provided that the GM is in the mindset that he has a toolbag that can be applied to particular problems.   Remember that even 1e AD&D introduced a subsystem for subduing dragons that treated combat as a narrative toolbag.   So long as the GM is of the opinion that the rules are suggested solutions and he's free to adapt them to the situation, and as long as the players agree to this approach, all of the above different ways of handling the situation can be applied in every system.   I can run a D&D fight where no one actually gets hurt (see subdual rules, for an instance) and by fiat declare no damage is inflicted after the combat is resolved (on in 3e you could run it as all damage is non-lethal, which for that matter had a counterpart in 1e).  I can run it as skill contest of some sort.  I can run it as a contest where the side whose morale fails concedes the point.  I can run it as a skill contest and use a physical fight as flavor.   I can run it as a skill contest with results that are weighted or influenced by the simultaneous results in the combat.   If FATE can handle it in all those different ways then there is actually no rule on how to handle the situation.  But that puts FATE on par with virtually every other system.   The only difference is how FATE encourages you to think about resolving situations.I should note that as early as 1990, I was doing pretty much all of that in some form in 1e AD&D.   For example, a social conflict whose outcome depended on the result of an arm wrestling match which was run as a skill challenge (first side with 4 more successes than the other wins).   All you need is the willingness of the DM to see the rules as tools that are applicable to certain situations.   Why did I run it that way?  Because the DMG didn't specifically tell me how to run it, but I had seen in published works mechanics like ability checks (roll under ability score) and ad hoc skill challenge subsystems created for a special purpose in a custom encounter.  So I just applied those tools in the absence of any official decree as to what to do in this situation in a way that I felt captured the action of arm wrestling semi-realistically.  That doesn't mean we have to agree on which is the 'right' way to run every situation, and who we as GMs decide based on our table goals what the right way to run a situation is determines the flavor of our game.  How we decide that is influenced by how the system is presented, but it's not actually set by the system. This is an example of a DM setting a flavor to the table using his preferences.   I'd tend to look less at the dramatic purpose of the scene and instead guess what the likely outcomes of the player proposition are to be and try to improvise a system that produced a range of results that matched the likely outcomes.  The better the available tools the system has, the easier that is to do.</blockquote>

Verification