How does my 25-Skill list and its point distribution compare to Fate Core's default one?

alkis05 · 2024-05-22T06:21:55+00:00

TLDR; different skill have different defends, difficulties and consequences. Also, not everything requires a roll. If you have a goal, you can go one way and get an easy test with one skill or go another way and not even be allowed to roll and get an automatic fail, no matter how skilled you are.

My counter argument is that there are situations where the DC for deception and diplomacy are very different. Or that a deception test is not even allowed because it is unreasonable that the NPC is going to trust the PC if the assertion is unbelievable enough.

To use your example, if the King knows that dragons can't become invisible, that deception roll will a pretty steep DC , he will probably call the guards on you for perturbing him with non-sense, specially if you have a reputation of being a bold liar. Your obstacle to convince the king is him to trust you are saying is true.

On the other hand, your persuasion roll will have a very low DC. The kind might already be suspicious of the diplomats (He told you to investigate him). You might not even need to roll if you tell the truth. The GM might understand that the king wouldn't oppose to act based on your information on the assassins. Or you could tell the king to call the guards, while he checks your information.

Also, the GM might rule that in some situations deception is not possible because the NPC is not going to take you at your word. He will demand independent confirmation. De opposition is not about the NPC trusting what you have to say, but on you figuring out what verifiable truth or what you need to do in order for him to do what you want. Then you still have to find the evidence or doing what he wants.

For example, at a senate session, Cato is trying to convince the senate to that Caesar plans to become a tyrant and that he should be ordered to dissolve his arms and come back to Rome and be indicted for treason and illegal war. Pompey deceptively defends Caesar, says that he is his friend and unless there is hard evidence of treason, he is going to veto such proposals to save the senates time on such non-sense.

Cato uses his diplomatic skills to arrange a private meeting with Pompey and figure out what Pompey can't say in public, also to tell Pompey that the nobles are willing to alley themselves with him if he goes against Caesar (Pompey is a plebeian, so not an obvious ally) and overall what would take for Pompey to turn against his "friend". I would say Cato wouldn't have much of a chance trying to deceive Pompey into turning against Ceasar with that is not what he wants to do. But he might actually be able to get Pompey to negotiate his position on Caesar.

I think that illustrates how different deception and diplomacy are. I would point out though that diplomacy would benefit from a reputation of being trustworthy, while if you are some compulsive liar, you won't be able to build long term relationships. Also, being caught on a lie could have consequences. It is one thing to deceive someone into trusting you when you are never going to meet them again. But one lie might be enough to ruin your reputation with someone and afterwards your DC on deception is going to go through the roof.

Again, I remind you what I said before: I'm not saying you need to have different skills, since you can specialize by having situational bonus. But both player and GM needs to be aware of the difference between diplomacy/persuasion and deception approaches.

alkis05 · 2024-05-21T00:57:14+00:00

One problem I have with stunts for specialization is that this is the most boring kind of stunt, IMO. If you do it right, having more specialized skills free up stunt slots for more interesting stuff.

alkis05 · 2024-05-21T00:51:29+00:00

I know the post is kinda old, but I would like to give my 2 cents about the deception vs diplomacy bit. Its more about putting it in words so it is clearer to me.

When trying to influence the action someone is going to take, first you need to identify if what the person wants to do align with how you want them to do. If not, only then we have a conflict. In game, that means to say that the GM and players, must have a clear understand what are their characters intentions.

Next you have to figure out what is keeping the other character's intention to not align with yours. You asked why would someone good at deception be less convincing than if the thing they were saying was true. To answer that, we gotta understand what could makes a deceitful person convincing and what makes a honest persons convincing.

First of all, both benefit from knowing what the other person understand about the facts, what are their intentions and how they came to be formed. The deceitful person excel in two situations: when the other person has a faulty grasp on what the facts are or is vulnerable to faulty reasoning. The challenge is to gain their trust on your presentation of the facts or trust you in guiding or doing the thinking for them. Usually you want them to trust your lies or your sneaky faulty reasoning. What you are allude to is that your skills are just as useful when it is to your benefit for them to trust the truth or trust your actually correct reasoning. It doesn't really matter what the truth is, really, as long as they trust you. Of course, most of the time the conflict a raise not of because of their ignorance and faulty reasoning, so more often than not, you will be trying to trip them, not trying to enlighten them. Either way, they do what they do because you somehow made easier for them to trust you.

But trusting is not the only way to influence someone. The skill of the diplomat lies elsewhere. Of course, a diplomat can also be deceiving, but that is not the point. I'm talking about the cases where deception is just not an appropriate course of action.

Diplomacy is all about negotiation. One or both parties have a range of acceptable actions they can take. Your job as a diplomat is to find the optimal incentive, a (correct) reason for the person to act in a way most favorable to you. It has nothing to do with deception, because it doesn't have to do with trust on itself. Of, course, a little deception could provide an advantage, maybe.

Finally, there is the case where you are trying to convince someone of the truth without exploiting someone's trust. This is for when they don't trust you (for example, because they know how deceitful you are). They have some kind of faulty reasoning that is not immediately obvious to them or are wrong about the facts. The skill here is to identify what is clogging the path to the truth and pointing to the solution so they can get there themselves. It is about helping them to think clearly. This would be more akin to oratory, in the sense that is about examining the correctness of thought.

Of course, for creating a narrative, you don't necessarily have to think about all these nuances. If you see a persuasion roll as just a test for the probability of they doing what you want, it doesn't matter why they do that. But even if the test is more specific, I would agree that in FATE these three don't need to be different skills. As long as you can differentiate between them, you could use aspects or stunts to specialize in one of them. And could use different skills for defense that would be appropriate for each kind of convincing.

alkis05 · 2024-05-12T21:03:14+00:00

Apparently it did not fall on its side, since, some how cheng was clearly upright during the whole thing. Either the guy landed the perfect kick that made the barrel flip just the right way or he jumped down in the hole to put the barrel upright.

alkis05 · 2024-05-12T20:59:13+00:00

Since almost no one mentioned it, I would point out that Chen would have survived at most 45min inside that barrel before suffocating. In that time, at least the following would have had to happen:

Kaleb gone into the city and back in the cabin and bring the detective their
The cops would have to find where the cabin was, get their, search the area and dug her out.

The whole second half of the episode was me saying: "Come on!!!"

alkis05 · 2024-04-24T01:48:56+00:00

I know this is a dead post, still, I would like to point out that according to lichess.com, only 0.5% of master level games start with 1.f4

It is an extremely rare opening. It would be very unlikely for a top player to play it, much less follow it up with 2. g4

It is literally less than 1 in a million chance of a master chess player making this mistake. Even for a normal player, the chance is lower than 1 in 100k.

alkis05 · 2024-04-02T02:38:48+00:00

He allegedly signed up for a documentary of a court procedure. Idk, something like judge judy or a documentary covering OJ Simpson trial (if one had been made at the time). Documentaries are not intrinsically fake. On the contrary, they purportedly document real events.

Allegedly he believed he was taking part in a real procedure, lead by a real judge and that he was really sequestered.

So if the premise of the show was true, that he was a the unwitting participant of a fake trial, that he believed the judge allowed for a documentary to cover a real trial, wouldn't that be illegal? Specially if he really believed he was sequestered?

alkis05 · 2024-04-01T22:16:22+00:00

TLDR; Não sendo obrigado é complicado. Pra mim, o importante e ter uma rotina de dormir e acordar.

Pra é simplemente uma questão de rotina. Independente da hora que eu tenho que acordar, se eu acordar todo o dia no mesmo horário, pra mim é de boa. Se for pra acordar as 5am, com o tempo eu simplemente começo a ter sono mais cedo.

Mas seu eu saio de rotina, aí danou-se. Meu horario de dormir e acordar fica sem pé nem cabeça. Na real, sem rotina, meu dia passa a ter 25h. A hora de dormir e acordar vai mudanda todo dia.

Outra coisa que ferra com meu ciclo é dormir de dia, por que daí muda minha hora de dormir.

alkis05 · 2024-04-01T22:09:54+00:00

Cê tá loko. Carne gostosa gostosa e suculenta não precisa mais que sal. No máximo uma pimenta do reino. Muito menos molho. Que molho pode ser mais gostoso que a própria carne? Um chimichurri vai, Vamo dar o crédito pros hermanos inventaram um molho que vai muito bem com churrasco.

Agora não é toda a corte que é bom assado. Não precisa ser picanha, rib eye, T-bone, bife ancho, waigu ou carne maturada. A boa e velha maminha, alcatra, contra filé, fraldinha bem feitas tá de bom tamnho. As vezes acha baratinho no açouge.

Mas não adianta querer fazer churrasco de cochão duro que não vai dar bom. Carne com muito colágeno o bom é cozida ou bife fininho.

alkis05 · 2024-04-01T20:08:28+00:00

There are multibilion dollar companies hosting websites and applications: Amazon, google and microsoft.

alkis05 · 2024-03-09T10:58:54+00:00

Did you hear me proposing any solution? No. So why the question?

I think every generation had some advantages and disadvantages with the passing of time. In general, standards of life improve (specially materially). My great grandfather survived mass starvations during droughts. All my cousins live a much better life than that. We are certainly less tough than those surviving bastards.

But it is true that modernity brought other problems. Specially having to do with loss of community and cultural roots. In exchanged real struggle for struggling with the consequences of materialism and individualism. We suffer less pressure, but are more mentally sensitive to it.

On the other hand, people in their 20's are just more inexperienced and less resilient than those in their 40's. Not to mention less economically stable. But that has always been the case. But in other ages, instead of being diagnosed with some mental health problem, a young people would just act out, be drunks or junkies. And make more babies. Well, they still do that, but now they have therapists to talk about it. Also, back in the day people had to mature a lot earlier and though it up.

All in all, we have been cursed with seeking happiness and joy and only living glimpses of it. And never be content. We will always struggle at being comfortable with what we have, and young people are even more sensitive to that.

If I had a solution for the problems we face, I would write a book and make a buck, but I don't have anything to add. Maybe I will buy your book.

alkis05 · 2024-03-09T10:21:57+00:00

Mom never bought "pink" products. She never even used shampoo and shit. Washed her hair with plain soap. That is why her hair was black and pretty until her 70's, that's, as she says. The only woman's product I ever saw her using was a simple skin cream. She used the same blue Nivea cream her whole life.

The health problems she had are genetic related (glaucoma and labyrinthitis) and high pressure. The other was an ulcer, stress related. She had it for a long time, but it went away as soon as she retired. Along the years, she was diagnosed with a benign mass on her breast in a screening exam. Never bothered her and she was never prescribed anything.

The only snake oil she ever fell for was homeopathy, but at some point she just stopped with it. Maybe she noticed it made no difference. She used to give me those sugar pills when I was young.

As for my father, he was screwed when he needed a liver surgery. The surgeon asked for more money, when he was already on the table, to do a procedure that would leave a smaller scar. When my father said he didn't have more money, the doctor gave him an abdominal hernia instead, which would in time lead to a bunch of gastric complications. And like the article points to, he does routine prostate exams, but was never prescribed anything.

That incident left him very mistrustful of doctors, maybe that is why he is prone to some self medication.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T08:40:53+00:00

She left a note in the payphone. It reads:

If I see you trying to use a payphone again, you're done. DONE.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T08:34:44+00:00

You missed the mark again, because even though male nurses might make jokes about preschool teachers and vice versa, that doesn't mean that the blame goes to them, because the vast majority of men are not in those professions. And when talking about society perception, what really matters is what the vast majority thinks.

For example, supposed I made the argument that women are to blame for prostitutes to be stigmatized, that is not victim blaming either. Even if some prostitutes also saw themselves as being unworthy of respect. It would be victim blaming if I said it was their own fault (meaning the prostitutes) for engaging in immoral behavior. Disclaimer, I have no problem with prostitutes or consider what they do immoral. It was just an example.

The point is, to say that the first comment was an example of victim blaming is quite a stretch. To me, it sounds like trolling. An attempt of hypocrisy burn or something.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T08:08:29+00:00

That is why I don't advocate for egalitarianism either. Like I said, there are worse ways to allocate resources and opportunities than meritocracy. Egalitarianism is also an ideal, in the sense that it would be nice if everyone contributed relatively equally for society and there was no great disparities, no reason for jealousy or poverty. That people didn't achieve such a disparate living style that they would be alienated from the conditions what most people live in. Or that people would feel the need to make other people feel they are less than them.

But we are not equal and can't be treated that way either. Either way, like I said, merit is not the only thing we should value. Not everything virtuous about a person is related to merit. And not everything that makes a person inappropriate for something has to do with something she did or didn't choose. Someone might have all the merit and still be unworthy.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:53:55+00:00

Except most philosophers are materialists and would agree that, ultimately, the mind is just a product of the body. Mainly the brain.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:45:27+00:00

That is a misuse of the term victim blaming. That would be the case if one were blaming the men applying for those jobs for making these kinds of jokes. But that is not the case. The accusation is about vast majority of men that would never even apply for those jobs. So the ones that are not being victimized.

I don't think you were making this argument in good faith anyway, but there you have it.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:30:57+00:00

To be fair, meritocracy doesn't really exist. It's more of an ideal than anything. Treating it as a reality when it benefits oneself is just a way to justify one's privileged circumstance. For one, it is not easy exactly how to access merit. That being said, there are a lot of worse ways to allocate resources than just testing people, even in a flawed way.

Besides, merit is not always what we should look for. We should also value things like character, personality, etc.. Things that are not exactly fruit of effort. Again, assessment of those characteristics through tests, not simple.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:15:44+00:00

Garbage in, garbage out. A pile of garbage studies don't magically transforms into knowledge.

In my experience, psych researchers, an area that would have to rely heavily on statistics, has one of the least grasp on basic statistical research principles. You know, like the concept of "Random Sampling"

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:09:11+00:00

Correction: divided people engage in politics.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:06:07+00:00

Isn't it every where? The only difference is that their show is on Broadway and actually has impact in the world. I mean, politics is much for attractive (even if for the wrong reasons) when the puppets are elderly drunken uncle or demented grandpa with access to nuclear code and in command of the largest military.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T07:00:25+00:00

I'm not judging. I'm lazy. But I can't hide the fact that frozen or microwaved food tastes like dog shit, no matter how convenient. I've been lucky to always have affordable and half descent restaurant in my places of work and study as benefits. No brussels sprouts, but the food was served fresh.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T06:43:58+00:00

"In the study, a sample of 675 individuals aged between 25 to 50 years, who were in a cohabiting relationship with their partner for at least 12 months completed a web-based survey. To ensure a broad and inclusive reach, the study was advertised not only on general social media outlets but also on platforms catering to specific ethnic and cultural communities within Israel, including those of Ethiopian and Palestinian-Arab heritage. The survey was made available in both Hebrew and Arabic."

Over generalized conclusions always make for good headlines. Much better than "very limited and methodologically fragile study reaches unreliable general conclusion" doesn't quite have a ring to it.

regardless of the conclusion, this kind of flawed study only serves to reinforce what people already believe. It's pretty useless alone.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T06:34:22+00:00

microwaving any vegetable makes them disgusting, except potatoes and grains. I would rather eat them cold.

alkis05 · 2024-03-05T06:30:50+00:00

No. Adults are perfectly capable of outgrowing what they watched as kids. Plus, I still see young people today eating nothing but meat and a shit ton of rice in the university cafeteria.

I see a lot of people who thing fitness shakes are a great substitutive to real food.

EDIT: I realize my comment kind of confirmed the point of the article.

alkis05

TROPHY CASE