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: 6349271" data-attributes="member: 6688937">That "bad job" thing might be working in two directions here.Apologies, that's why I used the phrase "contrapositive of" as I was intending it conversationally.I mean a lot more than a lack of skill system, and personally I can't see "roll below Charisma" as social conflict system any more than "roll below Strength" would suffice for a physical conflict system. (Not that an ability check has no utility, mind you.)I would agree that 1e-era D&D tables (I'm unfamiliar with OD&D) developed "first drafts" of a lot of later rpg tech. I mean, in some ways they had too. I think a decent portion of the rest of our miscommunication revolves around drawing a line around AD&D as a system and what it can be given credit for. For example, I usually don't consider a rule or mechanic presented in a module to be part of the system when discussing it, mostly because there's no guarantee of which materials a group might have access. Similarly, something that a DM invented as a system doesn't count as a part of the AD&D system for me. (At least for the purpose of giving the system credit for it.)Analagously, I draw a similar tight line around Fate to be within the Fate Core book...except that the publisher considers Fate Accelerated to be a part of Fate Core. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> So, even though the Fate Core book has a chapter about developing and adding "Extras"* to your game, I wouldn't give the Fate system credit for a particular Extras system that someone developed.*Extras would be specialized subsystems for things like magic, psionics, cybernetics, giant robots, etc. Generally speaking, such Extras are unnecessary for using Fate in a given genre, but can be useful for re-inforcing or exploring exotic genre facets. That is, you can play fantasy using Fate Core out of the box, magic included. However, if you want part of your game to be "What if magic worked like this...?" or "I want magic to work just like it does in X". You might want to develop an Extra to account for that.Please note that I originally said, "Fate can definitely handle it". That is, Fate has such a scene/mechanics right there playable out of the box. No stretching of the rules, no "toolbox" or inventiveness, or special mindset required for the table to figure out how to do it. The same rules would work between PCs and between PC and NPC. Both players and GMs would have access to it and know how to do it.I actually disagree with you about your answer to "Can AD&D allow you to talk with your fists?" Not so much in that such a scene can't happen in an AD&D game, but in that it was AD&D itself, rather than the DM that let you do it. Just because a GM might have a trick in his toolbag, doesn't mean that the system he's running has it, too.Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree. You, Celebrim, might have been the kind of DM that would work with his players and extend or improvise his rules to acommodate a player wishing to engage in such a scene. However, that doesn't mean that the AD&D system supported that implicitly or explicitly, it just meant you were an accomodating DM (or would have been, presumably.) It would be just as acceptable for the DM to say "no". No, it doesn't matter that you're playing a bard. No, it doesn't matter if you saw a scene like that and want it to happen. It doesn't matter that your only score above a 12 is charisma. Just "No, we're not doing it." That, in this case, is precisely what I mean by "deprotagonizing" or "taking away player agency." Maybe that makes him bad/uncreative DM, but its not like TSR issued licenses, and I witnessed plenty of that kind of thing.I know you said you don't even want to know this, but for others who may be reading. The only thing necessary to resolve the dramatic purpose and intent of the scene for the Fate GM is some familiarity with the genre/scene/trope and to ask "What are you trying to accomplish?". Which hardly contradicts player agency or PC protagonization. (Notably, I lack the familiarity part for the scene in question.)Except that a Fate table doesn't need to make either a ruling or a rule for this case (beyond the usual discernment for using Fate). I agree, but AD&D doesn't, to my eyes have very much of anything in the way of broadly applicable rules for a social challenge. So, to my eyes the exchange is more like:Player #1: "AD&D has no way of resolving a generic social challenge."Player #2: "Maybe not, but if the DM is inventive and re-purposes some of the other mechanics he could houserule one in."Which is, if not the Oberoni fallacy explicitly,...Oberon-ish. However, I can certainly understand if you've experienced over-use of that term, and again, apologize.I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the situation the GM faces in Fate, which I confess my original presentation would not dissuade one from understanding. I would like to differentiate between my position as a poster on a message board who doesn't quite grok the scene in question and that of a GM who would be running this in a game. Regarding this scene, all I'm really sure of is that (a) there's a physical confrontation, (b) its generally an extended scene/resolution, and (c) at least part of the result is a mental/social resolution/change for the loser. With only that to go on, I quickly conceived of 6 possible ways to proceed as a Fate GM.* I presume that a GM familiar with the scenes or genres in question would likely quickly or perhaps even immediately know which of those would be appropriate. The critical difference from the GM seat (and I've been in that seat for both systems) is that with Fate, there is no "carefully construct" or notable adaptation necessary.*Additionally, those 6 methods only involve two mechanical processes: Conflicts and Contests.</blockquote>

Verification