Pathfinder 1E Wizkids should take the Pathfinder 1.0 ruleset and publish their own RPG.

[Umbran]

About all I can say to this is that if Fate can't do all the things @Aldarc says here it can't do (an assertion I have to take on faith as I'm not all that familiar with the Fate system) then it's probably not a game I'd be interested in playing.

Let me see...

Fate is not designed for zero-to-hero narratives - Mostly true. Fate is actually very well designed to express how a person changes when exposed to events in their world. The design isn't about increase in overall power, but is about change in response to events.

It's not designed for exploration and dungeon crawls - In the square-crawling sense, true. In the sense of exploring exciting, unknown, dynamic locations, totally false. You can whip out more interesting traps, terrain, and situations in FATE than in just about any other system.

It's not a game about rewarding good tactical play - Completely false. FATE is very much about engaging with the details fo a scene provided. It just isn't grid-based-movement tactics.

...players engaging an in-universe resource management minigame - True.

....or solving puzzles - false. FATE provides at least as much support for puzzles as any version of D&D does. Note how puzzles in D&D are generally things outside the ruleset?

....And sort of the action declarations that a player can make or encouraged to make will differ between games. - I admit this one seems a little hard to parse. I don't think either game really limits the declarations a player can make, but the effective ones in D&D combat heavily lean on a specific list defined by character build and abilities, and out of combat lean heavily to a restricted list of skills - D&D leans to each character having a picklist of specific actions they will generally take. I think FATE gives players more ways to boost their own chances, and so allow a soemwhat broader approach to situations than the D&D picklist. What kind of declarations the player is "encouraged to make" is determined by scenario/adventure design, and is not directly a function of the ruleset in either game.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I can't convince my players to play the Tales of Equestria RPG but I can get them to play 5E and give out quests that are remarkably similar to friendship problems...

 

[Aldarc]

I hope you don't mind my clarifying my terse overview:

Fate is not designed for zero-to-hero narratives - Mostly true. Fate is actually very well designed to express how a person changes when exposed to events in their world. The design isn't about increase in overall power, but is about change in response to events.

Here, I also had in mind things like how a AD&D fighter would become a "lord" at level 9, but a player in Fate could declare that their fighting-person a "lord" in their aspect at the very beginning. You can start as a "grizzled veteran of a thousand wars" or something in Fate.

It's not designed for exploration and dungeon crawls - In the square-crawling sense, true. In the sense of exploring exciting, unknown, dynamic locations, totally false. You can whip out more interesting traps, terrain, and situations in FATE than in just about any other system.

Here, I meant more in Lanefan's sense of exploration and dungeon crawls that focuses on skilled play, simulated prefixed environments, and the like. Fate, IMHO, usually has more blank spaces in its play that are filled by the proactive play of players. For example, a character with the aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince" could invoke their aspect to declare a narrative fact that is consistent with the fiction: e.g., "Because I was a bodyguard for the prince, I know that there is a secret escape route into the manor that connects the kitchen to the shed in the garden." The GM can accept the fate point and go with the new narrative fiction. This sort of thing doesn't really jive well with Lanefan's own sense of what D&D exploration and dungeon crawls entail.

It's not a game about rewarding good tactical play - Completely false. FATE is very much about engaging with the details fo a scene provided. It just isn't grid-based-movement tactics.

Here, I was referring more to the grid-based movement tactics here as opposed to the more abstract Creating an Advantage and Invoking Aspects actions where a lot of the tactical scene-engagement comes into play. Fate wasn't built out of a tactical skirmish wargame. D&D was.

....or solving puzzles - false. FATE provides at least as much support for puzzles as any version of D&D does. Note how puzzles in D&D are generally things outside the ruleset?

Traps and puzzles are often part of the resource management game, a means to whittle things like HP and spells. Fate's not really into that. I can't even recall Fate talking about puzzles, apart from using an Overcome Will roll. The Book of Hanz even admits that Fate's not too interested in puzzles.

....And sort of the action declarations that a player can make or encouraged to make will differ between games. - I admit this one seems a little hard to parse. I don't think either game really limits the declarations a player can make, but the effective ones in D&D combat heavily lean on a specific list defined by character build and abilities, and out of combat lean heavily to a restricted list of skills - D&D leans to each character having a picklist of specific actions they will generally take. I think FATE gives players more ways to boost their own chances, and so allow a soemwhat broader approach to situations than the D&D picklist. What kind of declarations the player is "encouraged to make" is determined by scenario/adventure design, and is not directly a function of the ruleset in either game.

Create an Advantage, invoking aspects, aspect permissions, declare a story detail, conceding a conflict, compels, etc.

 

[Arilyn]

I really like Fate, and the more we play, the more aware we are of its stretchiness. It can do more than the pulp adventures the designers thought it was made for. I could probably use Fate for almost any genre, but I don't, because other systems have different flavours, which are fun to explore. Other systems can be totally dedicated to their topic, like Pendragon, Nobilis or One Ring. But, if I could only ever own one RPG, I'd choose Fate for its versatility.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What kind of declarations the player is "encouraged to make" is determined by scenario/adventure design, and is not directly a function of the ruleset in either game.

The narrative content of each decision may vary by scenario rather than ruleset, but the method of making that decision is very much a function of the system involved. D&D tells us to make decisions as our characters would make them, and strongly condemns meta-gaming. FATE tells us to make decisions that will create a better story, with rules to encourage meta-gaming.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I have access to Pugmire and Mau, Odyssey of the Dragonlords, Arcanis, Midgard, Fateforge, Esper Genesis, and Adventures in Middle Earth. I'm still not sure what innovations that I am supposed to be "wowed" by in these books. Do you have some particular examples of innovations in mind? That said, I don't think that arguing that they pass a technical definition of innovation - creating something that previously didn't exist - really is all that helpful to discussion since it seems to want to equivocate between the two senses of meaning here.

Whether you are subjectively personally wowed is besides the point though is it not? We have something to benchmark -> Whether these games are just retreading similar ideas and just reskinning ideas and mechanics.

Odyssey of the Dragonlords has epic paths.
Ultramodern5 has lifepaths and ladders. And of course takes a modern spin.
Sandy Petersen's Cthulhu Mythos for 5e provides their own dread and insanity mechanics.
I am sure the as mentioned above is just retreading and reskinning ideas and mechanics. I will take a look at the others.

Whether or not a GM approves 3pp materials for their games seems like an orthogonal issue.

I am asking whether you would. Because you have expressed fatigue and disdain at 5e material Borgifying the market.

 

[Campbell]

I do not think we can meaningful divorce scenario design from system. The way a GM is supposed to design and present scenarios is part of system design. Examples include:

• Fronts and GM moves in Apocalypse World
• Scenario design and scene framing in Burning Wheel
• Module Design in B/X which is extremely different than adventure design in modern D&D
• Kickers, Bangs, and Scene Framing in Sorcerer
• Scene Framing and Arcs in Masks
• Scores in Blades in the Dark

 

[darjr]

I love FATE, but sometimes it can feel very stale.

 

[Parmandur]

I do not think we can meaningful divorce scenario design from system. The way a GM is supposed to design and present scenarios is part of system design. Examples include:

• Fronts and GM moves in Apocalypse World
• Scenario design and scene framing in Burning Wheel
• Module Design in B/X which is extremely different than adventure design in modern D&D
• Kickers, Bangs, and Scene Framing in Sorcerer
• Scene Framing and Arcs in Masks
• Scores in Blades in the Dark

And yet people take scenarios meant for one game and play them in another all the time.

 

[Aldarc]

Whether you are subjectively personally wowed is besides the point though is it not? We have something to benchmark -> Whether these games are just retreading similar ideas and just reskinning ideas and mechanics.

I recall saying that a lot of them are not that some of them aren't. As to whether or not being personally wowed is beside the point, how about you tell me? You are the one who first put forth the proposition "They are in fact innovating mechanics." I said in response that I didn't find most of these mechanical innovations all that innovative. It seems like the technical innovations that these 5e compatible systems put forth is comparatively marginal: set pieces, window dressing, and accessories. (Which is an apt summary IMO of what you highlight below.)

Odyssey of the Dragonlords has epic paths.
Ultramodern5 has lifepaths and ladders. And of course takes a modern spin.
Sandy Petersen's Cthulhu Mythos for 5e provides their own dread and insanity mechanics.
I am sure the as mentioned above is just retreading and reskinning ideas and mechanics. I will take a look at the others.

So let's be clear here, you are construing my earlier statement that "I have not seen all that much in the way of innovative mechanics come out of the 5e compatible lines. A lot of retreading of similar ideas with reskinned ideas and mechanics" as an absolute statement that there is nothing new such that this argument can be simply disproven by pointing out that any innovations at all technically occurred, but that's clearly a dishonest or at least a disingenuous reading.

But I don't particularly find most of this stuff all that innovative, and we can go through the list and talk about it in further detail and even talk of the things I find more innovative, but that seems like a bit of a distraction. Is that a subjective sense? Sure. But trying to make this argument be about an objective sense where you somehow disprove my argumentation by demonstrating that innovation technically happened seems a bit inconsequential to me. It's on the same juvenile level as when kids play freeze games where they are required not to move. One kid stands still and the other kid pedantically points out that the first kid was technically moving their chest when breathing or when they blinked.

I am asking whether you would. Because you have expressed fatigue and disdain at 5e material Borgifying the market.

I'm still seeing this as orthogonal to the issue - at least in the way that you are framing it - since a GM may prefer a tight game that only uses the official materials. Some GMs only prefer using the PHB only. Some permit everything, sky's the limit. I don't really think that this speaks to my concern about "5e material Borgifying the market." But you clearly want me to bite on this bait you have laid out, so why don't you spare us all the hassle and just pretend that you caught me in your clever ruse? At this point, I would prefer that you get to your point.

I love FATE, but sometimes it can feel very stale.

Apparently I should angrily accuse of you of attacking Fate by saying that and defend Fate from your attack. However, mature and reasonable people should recognize that you aren't somehow attacking Fate, so there is no reason to get into a needless argument where I unnecessarily accuse you of attacking Fate.