Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7769796" data-attributes="member: 5142">That position is too hardlined for my tastes. There is not a singular traditional model of play; there are traditional models of play. You mention GURPS a lot, so should I assume that's your pet system? It was first published in 1986. That date is after much of the old school play that the OP generally regards as traditional RP. So GURPS would hardly qualify as traditional either. Yet here you are suggesting that Fate can't be traditional because &quot;GURPS-style Ads &amp; Disads...are still king,&quot; implicitly occupying a traditional position. I would argue that the main FUDGE chassis for Fate is conventional. It operates as a GM-set ladder difficulty scale or through opposed rolls. There are skills. You can use your skills to Attack, Defend, and Overcome opposition. And that propels a solid chunk of the game. That is the conventional part of Fate I was discussing. Much as I said before, the main unconventionality of Fate as you seem to suggest here as well is the addition of Aspect-related add-on features. It's unquestionably a big feature, but there is nevertheless a lot of conventional design behind Fate. Its unconventionality does not erase its conventionality. It seems as if I already provided an illustrative example that explained what I meant by that. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7769796, member: 5142"] That position is too hardlined for my tastes. There is not a singular traditional model of play; there are traditional models of play. You mention GURPS a lot, so should I assume that's your pet system? It was first published in 1986. That date is after much of the old school play that the OP generally regards as traditional RP. So GURPS would hardly qualify as traditional either. Yet here you are suggesting that Fate can't be traditional because "GURPS-style Ads & Disads...are still king," implicitly occupying a traditional position. I would argue that the main FUDGE chassis for Fate is conventional. It operates as a GM-set ladder difficulty scale or through opposed rolls. There are skills. You can use your skills to Attack, Defend, and Overcome opposition. And that propels a solid chunk of the game. That is the conventional part of Fate I was discussing. Much as I said before, the main unconventionality of Fate as you seem to suggest here as well is the addition of Aspect-related add-on features. It's unquestionably a big feature, but there is nevertheless a lot of conventional design behind Fate. Its unconventionality does not erase its conventionality. It seems as if I already provided an illustrative example that explained what I meant by that. :erm: [/QUOTE]

Verification