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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6348904" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Hang on...a single subsystem specifically for subduing Dragons means that suddenly AD&D has social conflict rules? No, I don't buy it. Your point here sounds like some kind of contraposition of the Oberoni Fallacy. There is a vast difference between "the GM (or adventure author) can make up some way of handling X (even if its a clever extension of other subsystems)" and "the system provides multiple tools/avenues for handling X". The current Fate Core rules actually provide (as I tried, but apparently failed to get across) guidance on which of those possibilities are best suited to the table intent (advice which is extensive and which I am loathe to get into here.) All but one of examples I gave are RAW for Fate Core, they don't involve the GM inventing anything and they don't risk de-protagonizing PCs or taking away player agency.This is, IMO, illustrative of one of the great problems we (as a community) have when discussing 1e (or any of the older editions, really). People all seem to have done so much customization and invention that we were all playing different games. It has created, IMO, a false nostalgia for the system which, really, RAW, wasn't all that good. (...And I say that as someone playing ACK right now.)Admittedly, Fate can require (or at least work much better with) awareness the dramatic purpose or intent of the scene, if you're not interested in that...then Fate won't be the system for you. Personally, I consider it an advantage of the Fate system (and a few similar systems) in that working at what I often refer to as the "story" level, Fate avoids the necessity of inventing a new system to handle every situation. But that only works for the playstyle(s) and agendas to which it was intended (for all those systems.)</blockquote>

Verification