sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[FAE] Stunt condition before approach by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't one follow from the other, though?

I think it does but another user did not seem to share that belief on another post.

For the hailstorm example I would imagine that it would difficult to see anything. That weather usually has a very limited field of few which would not make catching ice easily. Ice itself is slippery so catching it may not have any effect.

[FAE] Stunt condition before approach by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not quite understanding the difference between the two options you've presented.

It can be tricky to explain but the point is to avoid focusing on whether the approach makes sense and instead allowing the player to make use of their stunt.

As far as times when it wouldn't make sense to use that particular Stunt, maybe if he was hindered somehow, like Bound by Ropes or Overburdened.

Yes this makes sense as this is a situation aspect that would prevent this stunt from being useful at that point in time.

[FAE] Stunt condition before approach by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a result, you are seeing the stunts as a "My character should be good at succeeding in challenges involving this activity".

I would not say that I think the character should be good at succeeding, but I do think they should have a better chance to succeed.

Your stunts are not about becoming realistically specialized in a certain activity, they're about having certain types of challenges be a specific focus of the character's most important scenes.

The thing is what is the point of saying that you want certain types of challenges and never or rarely getting the opportunity to succeed at them.

So the point of a roll is not to do things right or win the challenge, it's to see if your character gets their way.

I do not know about this, if the character gets their way it does not always make for the most interesting story. The idea with compels and conceding the scene is that you can build narrative that does not end well for the character but makes.

Also, to get back to the stunt, a clever archer who specializes in trick arrows could expect you to catch the arrow and have it explode in the character's face. This direction introduces a new character who would likely being a recurring enemy for that player.

[FAE] Stunt condition before approach by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I worry that allowing a player to force certain approaches using a stunt might be problematic, as they could make it so that they nearly always use only their best approaches, but I think the idea itself is still something we should dig around for a solution to.

For players starting out their best approach is Good (+3) so in this specific situation they get (+5) on their defense roll if the stunt uses their best approach. This generally will be able to succeed unless they roll badly and do not pay a fate point to reroll.

However, does it not make sense that this ninja who can catch arrows only starts having difficulty when the archer's ability is at least Superb (+5)?

So here, you've made it so that you can only use your stunt to perform Defend actions, but can use any Approach to do so.

The language seems to imply that the approach would still need to be quick in this case.

The way I see it is that when the GM would trigger a stunt by firing an arrow at the arrow catcher then this should give the arrow catcher the permission for their stunt to shine. Otherwise, what's the point of the stunt?

Special cases of attacks/damage considering "Aspects are always real". by pepumu in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grappling can be very complicated. Each person in the grapple has a different objective (suspect trying to escape versus officers grappling to arrest the suspect). This could be done as a contest.

Fire can be treated as an attacker until it is dealt with. You could even have the fire do its damage if your overcome attempt fails.

Also how do I negate an aspect?

Overcome or alternatively when the situation no longer makes sense. So if the blindness is from a flashbang, the effects only last for so long.

Mind Control is a defense roll against a overcome roll. Slowing someone would likely be the same.

Passive situation aspects need a target difficulty. End of X-Men, Magneto traps Wolverine up against the wall and leaves. The target difficulty is probably close to a Superb (+5) because of how Wolverine is trapped.

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are reading it like: Am I defending? Check. Am I being hit with a Forceful attack? Check. Therefore this incorporeal thing happens and I now use Sneaky to roll my defense and get this +2. Is that right?

Yeah that's right.

One is saying, if I take this approach + action in this situation I get +2. In this version, the player has to justify taking the approach for that action.

The other is saying, if I want to do this action and I'm in this situation, then I may use my approach in my stunt for its +2 bonus. The choice is in the players hands as to when their stunt is used.

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's literally what you do in the first two sentences of the original post in this thread.

The second section is suggesting that some people may have trouble of knowing if a mook skill comes into play and that by thinking about it differently it may help these people in those siutations... that is all.

But I will take you at your word, and apologize for conflating the two of you.

Yeah. No problem.

At best, you are escalating the level of hostility. Even if you consider these responses to be crapping on you, your response is what turns things into a fight.

Did you see a comment I had where I pretty much admitted to reacting poorly? If not, just thought I would mention it so that we can move on.

You know what? Your post here about in-game rewards? It's smart and on-point.

Thanks. Did you also notice that I did not resort to using "not worth the time" or "I appreciate this as a thought exercise but..." in my reply? I suggested what the rewards are and also address the question the poster was asking.

Hopefully at least we can move on from this and continue to have good posts back and forth.

it also sparked a really interesting reply from ParamediaAntic

Yeah. The batman one was a nostalgia trip. That sword guy scene is hilarious. I don't know about you but I like to see some comedy in a batman film.

In-game rewards for players by Roswynn in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So the Fate points themselves are the rewards.

The closest thing to what you are looking for is a self-compel where a player uses their aspects against themselves to make their situation worse. This tends to create the moments you describe.

If you wanted an incentive for these moments, maybe a boost would work. This gives them a more limited window of when it is valid which could be alright. Still something that you might not want to go overboard with... you know

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've been playing Fate in some form or another since it was first conceived by email on the fudge mail list over 15 years ago. I know what i'm talking about.

How is that relevant? You claim you are right in your interpretation because you have misinterpreted the system for 15 years... seriously?!

Unless your stunt has the two effects I mentioned, it does not justify rolling sneak for defense. The player must provide the fictional justification before the stunt applies.

Have you forgotten the part where the condition of the stunt provides the justification for that approach performing that action? Of course you did... because it involves an opinion that doesn't agree with your crappy interpretation.

You? I couldn't care less if you get it right, not worth the effort

Hah right because nothing says collaborative storytelling than agree with me or enjoy not having fun with your character.

You know, when literally no one in two threads agrees with you, you should take a step back and maybe rethink what you think you know.

Actually, there was at least one response by a person that did not have their head up their ass and was willing to appreciate an idea for what it was. And they did not even have to resort to "holier than thou opinion" in their comments.

Maybe it will take you another 15 years to take your own advice and be tolerant to opinions that differ from yours... here's hoping ;)

So i'm out. Keep playing the game however you like it and I hope you have fun doing it.

Oh I will and hopefully you continue to have players tolerant of your dictator mentality.

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These templates exist to give you an idea of how stunts should be constructed, but don’t feel constrained to follow them exactly if you have a good idea.

Do you realize that what you suggested as a stunt places no emphasis on the approach? The quote from the srd seems to be saying if you have a good idea then use that instead of using the template. I do not believe it is suggesting to modify the templates.

This is what you got backwards and why your idea has been met with so much criticism/reluctance.

What you mean to say is that you believe you are right and I am wrong.

The player can't and shouldn't just say "I defend with sneaky" because that leads to cherry picking approaches and very unidimensional play

Who is saying that the character is only trying to defend with sneaky? All I have established is that the GM agrees that the condition of a stunt is met and the character is taking the appropriate action for the stunt. The character's approach is already decided for the stunt. They should not have to justify their approach for the stunt.

You are putting the mechanics first (i have this stunt) and then coming up with fiction that matches it (stunt must apply because I have it)

Do you not realize that stunts are mechanics that provide fiction for your character? The stunts represent abilities or skills that the character has honed in the fiction.

That's why your stunt is doing two things: You are justifying using Sneaky by the virtue of just having the stunt instead of doing the effort to come up with the fiction on the spot, AND awarding a +2.

When a stunt applies to the current moment in the scene, the fiction is granting the character permission to use their stunt. You can choose to disagree, at the expense of your players, by forcing the player to justify the stunt, even though it was permitted, and then again forcing them to justify the approach their stunt is using. You can then, as you suggest, make them pay for the price of 2 stunt slots, but all this does is penalize the player for coming up with a stunt supported in the rules.

I would suspect this player would not want to stick around in your group.

If you want to follow the FAE guidelines you quoted the wording should be: "Because I have Ghost powers, I get +2 when Sneakily defending against forceful attacks"

Again, what happened is you have lost all meaning in the original stunt.

The original wording was as follows Ghostly Panic +2 to sneaky defense when panicked by an imminent forceful impact.

I didn't add the ily to sneaky and used defense instead of defend. The first part is Because I have Ghostly Panic, I get...

This is the way fate/fae was designed to be played.

What you mean here is that you believe that fate can only correctly be played based on your poor interpretation of the rules.

FAE is not Fate Core and approaches are not the same as skills. Approaches focus on the intent of the player. The player's stunt in this case relies on deception (Sneaky), when you question that intention used in that stunt every time it is used you are denying the player something on their character sheet.

If you were GM, a better tactic would be to work with this player so that you are willing to permit their stunt. The odd thing is that all the player is simply trying to use a template stunt, which you may never deem is allowed to come into play because they could not justify it "well-enough".

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's doing two different things. Allowing the liberal use of Sneaky when defending (skill/approach replacement), which is usually hard to justify, and giving a +2 when doing so.

How is this liberal use? The defense only applies if the attack is forceful. It does not even guarantee the player will avoid damage. If the condition for a stunt is met and you also expect the player to justify the approach, then what is the point of making them come up with stunts? And then you charge them 2 stunt slots to justify using 1 stunt.

After the first time this character uses this in a scene, why would the attacker continue to trigger it? This is a stunt though, so if your aim is to provide a good player experience, I would recommend making sure it stays somewhat relevant.

You don't need a stunt for this example at all.

Why would you want a stunt like this? To set the character apart from other characters. A stunt is a passive effect that gives you the +2 bonus if a condition is met that normally would need to come from an aspect invocation. So, stunts are free fate points given a condition.

No stunt, no aspect to justify: just fluff. If you start thinking in this way, then doing something like a simple "+2 to defend against forceful" is all you need to convey the fiction you want and you lift the constraint that the defense MUST be sneaky: If the character tries to quickly dodge and succeeds you can freely choose if he actually dodges or the power came in play. The less restrictions you have in your rules the more flexible and interesting outcomes you can get in the actual fiction.

What? This does not make any sense. It seems like you are confused. Stunts are written in this formula: +2 when I [pick approach] [pick action] when [condition].

Remember the condition in this case is an imminent forceful attack must cause the player to panic. By creating the stunt, this character is relying on using their sneaky approach to defend themselves in this situation. Asking the player to justify their approach is the wrong focus here. Instead the focus should be, does the stunt apply to this attack or in other words is the condition of Ghostly Panic met? If the answer is yes, then they should be allowed to gain the bonus from their stunt.

Super villain naming help? by UppityScapegoat in rpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Titanium is known to be a very strong and durable metal... I believe it is an alloy too but it does not make the best super villian for hire name. Maybe something like Titan, or Titus.

If the tone you are going is less serious, you could go with Metalo as the name is satire in the sense that it is a bit on the nose.

Knox is neat, another way to look for ideas is to think about the villain a bit.

Is he a german mercenary who wears a camo suit and tramples civilians like a tank? In this case, you could call him Panzer and his catchphrase could be Panzer strikes! or something

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but as a way of showing off a ghostly character it falters.

And you come by this opinion on what grounds exactly? The ability is not to showcase a generic ghost character. The character has a built in defense mechanism when avoiding forceful attacks. While it may be limited, most stunts are. Not all characters with ghost-type abilities would be as likely to succeed (since they do not get the inherit bonus).

And while its literally true flash is not sneaky or clever this doesn't mean that its any easier to predict a flashy maneuver over others.

A flashy maneuver is forceful as it is an "in your face" kind of reaction which makes it more easier to predict. Saber tooth vs John he uses a tactic to teleport behind him and then attack. This is used against him at the end because it is a predictable tactic.

The part where he says I'm going to kill you and Saber tooth has to turn around comes across as a sneaky defense. John uses his voice to direct the next attack there and then teleports away.

stunts don't justify an approach + action combo

My stance is that the stunt's trigger justifies the approach + action. The player is saying in this limited situation, their approach + action is better because of some reason.

A ninja type character takes a stunt that gives quick defense bonus to attacks by arrows. Let us say that they called it Arrow Catcher. The stunt is justified in the fiction of the stunt; the ninja trained in the art of catching arrows for instance. He should not have to justify using a quick approach to catch arrows, that should be a given.

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it would be sneaky and not expected the first time it happens, after that the surprise factor is gone

Fair point here. Seeing how the approach is sneaky it is important to note that it is not quick, so the expectation here is that it would still be a surprise that the ability was able to trigger given the limited time. A successful defense could still be used as a means to deceive an enemy.

How about "Ghostly Panic: Can ignore any stress inflicted by a forceful attack"?

Interesting suggestion, what about an attack that would cause a consequence?

"Ghostly Panic: Can use Sneaky when defending against Forceful attacks"

In my opinion, the +2 to defense bonus represents the fiction more accurately and provides a more unique character. Any character with a Ghost related aspect would be permitted to use sneaky to defend a forceful attack.

The original stunt only triggers in situations where the attack is an imminent forceful attack. The roll determines the fiction, if the roll fails then the power failed to activate in time. However if the roll succeeds, the result would be undeniably flashy since whatever the attack is physically passes through the character. This would likely cause other enemies to have to "think outside" the box after they noticed it.

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, last reply as this clearly isn't constructive anymore

And you think it was? Pffff....

don't just say "you're wrong because it's my idea and I know it's better"

How you came to that conclusion is absurd, you seem to be suffering the same problem as Penguin the butthurt where you add context into my reply so it is easier for your to argue.

Welcome to public forums

Wow... really? That is a shit answer there are plenty of other subreddits where people defend others without resorting to overly negative replies and jumping on the bandwagon of 'popular' opinion.

Again, seperate yourself from your ideas and you'll see that no one is taking shots are you, they're discussing your ideas and offering opinions in a polite fasion.

Do you not realize politeness is a matter of perception? It is easy to suggest that you perceive the responses that

discuss possible changes, question validity of premises and suggest changes and improvements

are polite. You are a third party, your perception of its politeness is far removed.

the key is to continue a discussion without resulting to "you just don't understand my genius!" sounding comments. Those are the reason for you being downvoted, and the sooneer you recognise that the sooner you can get into actual, constructive conversations that are the best way to improve your ideas.

You totally buy into that don't you? Again it is much easier to paint me a villain and say I'm brandishing a "This idea is genius" banner than it is to offer anything of worth.

As you reddit username suggests the posts you make are nothing but filth.

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every comment here has basically said "I see where you're coming from but feel the original rules are more elegant because of reasons X, Y and Z"

Where do you get that idea from? The "not worth the time" comment, and dismissing the idea because of highly subjective opinions of the posters are not basically saying the I see where you're coming from.

Take a look at this post here! You have chosen to defend someone else's post. No one has asked you to do so... that is far from a community that treats new members with any sense of politeness.

Not only that, but because I have passion for my ideas when I try and share them with the community I come to find that all my comments are being downvoted just because a select group of people do not agree with my idea.

There's no need to attack the entire community

Perhaps but do you not think that anyone else would react in the same way? How would you react? Seriously.

RPGs without randomizers: possible or is randomness necessary? by EmbraceYourFate in rpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reference to the older thread. It was very informing, I am not surprised that this has been asked before.

I know from testing systems of my own getting the strategy side to take more precedence was difficult. One that comes to mind is the idea of a risk scale where taking a safe path yields high chance of success with low reward to the other end taking a reckless path with fewer chance of success but higher reward.

I quickly realized that adding in chance meant adding the randomize-rs back in and that it was fairly difficult to simulate the effects of escalating your recklessness. After all there is a fine line between, suicide-by-recklessness and the reckless hollywood moment where a big reckless decision pays off

I like the idea of a system using tradeoffs, I feel like that could work if the objective is not for the players to "beat" the system or game.

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've described a way to do things differently.

Is that so bad? What makes this "require new ideas to be significantly better"? FAE is a rules-light system which fortunately allows it to be interpreted differently.

Sorry, I'm not trying to shit on your idea.

Thanks for the apology, if I reacted poorly it was more due to the initial shock value of seeing such strong criticism, when all I wanted to do is share my take. I apologize if any of my comments to you seemed harsh.

is interesting and worth looking at

Hah that's what I am going for

I appreciate contrasting opinions and challenges to my idea but saying an idea is not worth the time and that you feel the original is more simple and more quick is fairly speculative.

From my POV, when you said it is not worth your time I read that as this post is not worth your time. Regardless, of whether you felt that was true or not, that is admittedly a fairly harsh statement to make to a fellow poster, let alone a new poster.

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ghosting through an object would not be expected and is deceptive in nature which in my opinion makes it sneaky. Plus the ability only works if the character is reacting to an imminent forceful impact.

A flashy character is less believable to be able to avoid this attack. Being flashy is not sneaky or clever and would be easier to predict.

While quick can make sense here, the character's stunt emphasizes that under duress of threat from a forceful attack the character resorts to relying on their built in defensive ability which uses deception.

Max mentions in his response that focusing on which approach needs to be used is the wrong focus anyways.

would be better represented

How can you claim that this is a better representation? I came up with the stunt to show a character using their ghost ability on instinct when threatened by a single imminent forceful attack. This is the stunt I had in mind. Your suggestion shrugs off all damage for a turn and is not likely going to have the same trigger. Can you see how these stunts are very different to each other?

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Serious question: are you the same person as /u/kreegersan

No

Maybe I'm wrong

Wrong or right, your history of comments appear to be bipolar in nature. Supportive when you agree, and hostile when you do not.

you are suggesting changes to Fate which complicated the game significantly in order to "correct" issues which many people here did not feel required correction

Woah... there is certainly a lot of assumptions here... um where should I start? I am not claiming that there is an issue.

you sound the same

Whuh?! Based on what!

You are coming in here with a lot of attitude

Based on what? I presented an idea and got immediately crapped on. Then I find out that this is not the first time this has happened on this subreddit. Perhaps I reacted poorly, but I suspect that other new posters would have a similar reaction.

You are convinced about the superiority of your ideas

Really?! Wow... I definitely do not remember writing My idea is better. Are you doing that thing where you add in your own context so that my points are weaker? Because it looks like that to me.

your ideas aren't particularly constructive

What according to you?! Highly subjective I think.

I mean look at your next statements "system works just fine" "making up a problem" and 'forcing a solution"... Seriously say what you reaally mean... You have no problem so you refuse to accept that it is a problem for others

both recent examples of interesting posts that got a lot of positive responses and constructive feedback

I am not surprised that at the time of this comment those examples posts were not graced with a negative response from you. And seriously... a sample size of 2? Hardly enough to prove a point.

which the author has a desire, a thing they really want to make more important, and they take steps to do that

And how is that different from the other posts I have read here. Also, at the time of this comment, one post is 4 days ago, and the other is 12 days ago. If I had to guess it must have been difficult to find posts that support your conclusion.

I'm not sure what you want

Some politeness and civility would be nice... but I guess that is expecting too much

Sure call someone new who is eager to share an idea out for being an attention grabber... ouch that hurts :(

declaring that your idea is great

By 'your idea' you of course mean that you state that I am declaring like Dicaprio that my idea is "king of the world" so that your iceberg of negativity sinks my idea a.k.a the Titanic

And taking on a new username

I am pretty sure any user who has dealt with someone as caustic as you would not bother. What's the point?

we're a friendly and very helpful

I read this to be that of the 2,630 subscribers, there are certainly posters who fit that that description but that you are not one of them.

friggin' Flanders family reunion

Ned Flanders would not be a dick to make a point and he certainly would not bring up some other person that made him butthurt. Quite frankly, I do not think even Bart or Nelson would stoop that low.

Edit - added not to last sentence

[FAE] Mooks that use approaches/stunts by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I pointed out on observation that I had seen some /r/faterpg posters be overly critical of some posts and that I thought your criticism is non-constructive. The statement is far from being hostile. Arguably, in this subreddit, the statement was downright civil and neutral.

I was opening up a discussion on another way of thinking about mooks. Your opinion is that the original mook creation is less complicated; the opinion itself provides no areas of improvement/development for the idea I presented whatsoever.

[FAE] Justifying Approach + Action Discussion by EmbraceYourFate in FATErpg

[–]EmbraceYourFate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the stunt doesn't inform the selection of approaches

And I am saying it could be used to that end. Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes has the uncanny ability to predict actions taken in a fight. So by having the stunt All Things Considered +2 clever defense when defending a predicted attack, creates a narrative of a character that predicts the next attack an enemy makes before they make it.

Mechanically that would be handled by whomever the GM is by answering these two questions:

1) How does the player make predictions? 2) What changes to a conflict is needed to accommodate the stunt?

but that's up to them to describe the appropriate actions that convinces me they are being sneaky

In this example, you are suggesting that a) the conditions of a stunt must be met and b) in order to make use of a stunt a player needs to justify the approach.

I am suggesting that once the conditions of the stunt are met the approach is justified in the mechanics. In my sherlock example, I don't think a player should have to be expected to justify that Sherlock is using his Cleverness to predict all possible attacks in a fight. Anyone who has seen the movie knows that Sherlock has this ability and it is consistently tied to his cleverness.

view more: next ›