Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Addicted2aa

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
DFRPG / Re: Son of Thor.
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:07:34 PM »
I'm pretty sure the +1 is the one time discount

32
DFRPG / Re: Son of Thor.
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:48:09 PM »
Check out the custom item of power thread.
The one listed here has +1 one time discount because it's externalized. It might be +2 since it's probably not easily concealable, but you can't have a have a discount equal to the items refresh.
So +1-2=-1
Breath weapon -2
One time discount +1

33
DFRPG / Re: dfrpg elements in standard fantasy rpg format
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:13:53 AM »
No. I intend to eventually though.

Rules that let you resolve standard dungeon challenges in an interesting and satisfying way. It's important that those challenges never become trivial or completely bypass-able.

Because inevitably, whatever games people like are "about" whatever playstyles those people like. Saying "D&D4 is not about story, D&D3.5 is" is usually a way for 3.5 players to express their contempt for 4e. And because it tells people that their fun is badwrong or that they're foolishly using the wrong game.

Well then Fate may actually be your Dungeon Crawl System.

There's no such thing as bad fun. That said, certain games are better at certain tasks. That doesn't mean you can't use one game for something it isn't optimal for. In fact you should most of the time, because going through the massive amount of games trying to find the best one for your group and playstyle for each type of game you want would be virtually impossible. But games are about certain "themes" and "concepts" in the same way poems and story are. They are good at some subset of actions and not as good at others. Looking at games as tools, use the analogy of a hammer and screw. You can use a hammer to bang in a screw, but you've lost the benefit of the screw, and it didn't work that well as a nail most likely.
You can use most games to do whatever you want but there may be a better game for that objective. Sometimes you will end up with a hammer and screw combo, which works but not well or elegantly. Sometimes you end up with a screwdriver and screw combo, which works better, but still not as well as the screw and power drill combo.  You're not wrong as long as you achieve your objective.
In RPG's the main objective is usually fun, so if that's being had, you aren't doing it wrong. There may be better tools that allow you to get more out of the experience though. That doesn't make you foolish for not using them. There are many reasons why switching tools is not worth the time or effort.

As to you're comment about people using adjectives like story games to shit on other games, I can't say I've experience that. When I say 4e isn't about story(the thing I prefer in games) Dread is, I'm not saying 4e is bad, I'm saying it doesn't give that experience. I actually love 4e and would play the crap out of it. I also say 4e isn't about "realistic simulation", GURPS. I hate Realistic Simulation in my games. But from what I've played and read of Gurps, it does a really good job of it.

Objectively it's not.  It may be inferred as insulting if you tie the concept discussed to your identity...but, objectively, it's just an opinion.
Objectively, it's just an opinion.... Something about that phrase...

34
DFRPG / Re: dfrpg elements in standard fantasy rpg format
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:08:06 PM »
Have you tried the OSR games? Also what is it that you look for in a dungeon crawl?

Almost forgot, Sancta, why is it insulting to say that fate isn't about dungeon crawls?

35
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 09:47:54 PM »
Apologies, that was a bit harsher than it should have been. I've been frustrated in general today.

36
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 09:29:07 PM »
@ baron, chill bro. It's a board. I took it to PM though. If you don't want rules discussions, put it in the title or OP.

37
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »
I don't see that in the RAW. You can read the metaphor that way, but I don't see that being the case. That's why they ask you to determine what is you want to do narratively before you decide maneuver, block, or attack. You seem to want to put mechanics first than come up with the narration based on what the mechanics did. Again I think we are just adjudication differently. Personally I feel that my version sticks closer to the write up in the DFRPG books(but then of course I would) and yours is closer to fate core.

@Taran, I agree that that D&D frustration is terrible. But I also don't like the cheesyness of throwing a car on someone and them surviving. I think there is a middle ground. You are given the option, provided it can make narrative sense. Also remembering GM rule number 1, don't be a dick. Don't F you're players, and in return ask them to try and keep some sense of realism in the game.

38
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 07:55:40 PM »
If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.

This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.

A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.

I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?

39
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 07:23:07 PM »
Weapons have aspects, scenes have aspects. Make a declaration and compel it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if it's not interesting either way, then who gives a shit?

a)I suppose, but that seems...cheap and forced. I don't see why it's a big deal to let the narrative play out.
b)The player? If they want to keep someone alive in that situation.

Any time you see Harry narrate something to the tune of, "I could _____, but ______," that's him getting a compel.

When a player rolls Guns to attack, they're not by default saying, "I shoot him. The roll determines how hard." What he's saying is, "I'm using Guns in such a way as to stop my opponent. The roll determines how effective this tactic is." The rolls are an abstract for how the tide of the conflict is going, not a direct simulation of how much damage someone takes.


I would read that as a player driven compel. Meaning they have asked for it. Which I already said I'm cool with.

You keep not addressing the point the player has already decided the action. This is not, I roll guns at him. It's I choose to summon up a gout of fire underneath his feet. The point is he's established a narrative action, succeeded at it, and no longer wants to follow the logical result. That's all I'm talking about. That specific situation. In that situation I don't feel I'm complicating there life, if they want the NPC alive.

40
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 06:29:58 PM »
I have found that this seems to happen frequently. Its like "hey this cool story" then theology breaks loose

RPG wanks are just more fun than RPG stories.  :P

41
DFRPG / Re: dfrpg elements in standard fantasy rpg format
« on: November 07, 2012, 04:57:36 PM »
Correction, I'm not saying Fate is bad for dungeon crawling. I'm saying there are likely better options.

Also to address your point, I've heard there was a study asking why people play rpg's and anecdotally seen, that people play RPG's because there is a story. So even your explorer, killer, and archivist, still care about their being a story, but they want other things out of the narrative than just "plot". What that division does it highlight what they look for outside of the plot, or what direction they want the plot to take them. Personally, for RPG theory I prefer using the GNS model, Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist(Think I'm spelling these wrong). For one thing, it includes GM's in the break down better than that model and for another it also breaks down types of games.

Narrativists are interested in character and plot first and foremost. Simulationists are interested in mimicking the real world(or a specific genre) to the best of their ability. Gamists are interested in "winning." FATE by itself is mainly a Narrativists game, with the mechanics designed to bring out interesting conditions, tension, drama, and emotional moments.
DFRPG is a bit Narrativist and a bit Simulationist, with it trying to simulate the Dresden novels.
Neither of them are particularly Gamist in design, though conflicts definitely follow a traditional Gamist model.

That said, the mechanics are perfectly sound for a Dungeon Crawl, with a strong Gamist twist, and could possibly even work to create a Simulationist game in almost any genre, including reality. That's because it's a really well defined and flexible game.

42
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 03:57:23 PM »
I think what Mr. Death (and me too, to an extend) are trying to say is, that in the moment where you askyou would also offer a fate point, if the character has an aspect that makes him prone to overkill.
And you partially agree with it already, the only difference is, that you let the player paint himself into a corner first and then let him try to find a way out of it. If that is the way your group likes to play, far be it from me to say that is a bad thing. But I thought you still didn't see what we mean, so I thought I'd give it another try in explaining our point of view.

A) what if he has no aspect related?
B) What if him killing this guy isn't really going to create any other consequence? Basically what if it's not interesting?

I get Mr Death and your approach. I don't think it fits the feel of the fiction. That's all.

43
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 03:44:49 PM »
I forgot to address the point that this possibly gives creative players the edge. First off, Fate in general gives creative players and edge that games like gurps and certain incarnations of D&D don't. Second, if a player has trouble coming up with a reason and it's a serious problem that he kills the person, there are alot of options. Get the table involved to come up with an explanation, let it go with a flimsy explanation, retcon and reskin the attack, whatever. The point is that shouldn't have to happen. He should be aware of the potential consequence before the attack resolves. If it's a huge narrative deal, like this is the guy with the information they need, then I should have compelled him before he attacked to just kill the dude. You should be in a situation where it's a big deal that NPC X is likely dieing from an attack. It shouldn't blindside him. It shouldn't f him over. Because that's not fun, and if it's not fun, why are you doing it?

44
DFRPG / Re: Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
« on: November 07, 2012, 03:32:15 PM »
@ mr. Death Just reread compels. Pretty sure I'm not abusing them. I add complication to players life, provided they don't pay off with a FP. If that compel is a limitation of choice, they are being pushed to a certain course of action. I was imprecise to indicate I controlled the action, the player still gets to decided how that action is played out, but the compel still pushes towards a course of action.

Fate also is a simulation, or at least DFRPG  is. It's not a simulation of reality, it's a simulation of the Dresden files novels. Which are in turn a *somewhat* realistic fantasy novel.



The reason I'm not going to put a compel after an action is because I'm not introducing the complication. The player is. They put forth a course of action "I'm going to try and shoot the bad guy" I confirmed "With your fifty caliber machine gun, that fires a minimum 3 bullets at a time and uses armor piercing explosive rounds?" They confirmed "Yup". They succeeded on their intended action, shooting the guy, and then decided that they don't want him to die. At that point, I'm still willing to listen to how their explanation of how that doesn't kill him, but I'm skeptical.

The point is they succeed on the action they attempted, which was a potentially lethal action. They tried to shoot him, and succeeded. That should mean they shot him. If you read the metaphor differently, fine, it's your table and all that, but that I find that strains verisimilitude, as well as straining the feel of restricted power, which is a recurring element in the series. Yes, I could compel when they come into a situation like that, (provided they have an aspect like that, which they might not) but unless it's ruminatively appropriate for which I can come up with examples, I'm not going to put forth the compel, forcing them to make a player choice. They can always say it's a self compel if it complicates their life though, and if it really does, great.

45
DFRPG / Re: dfrpg elements in standard fantasy rpg format
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:55:17 PM »
@Addicted2aa: You are incorrect. Aspects do affect combat, quite heavily. And sharing narrative control does not make a game "about story".

My impression, from your post, is that you're using "about story" as some kind of short-hand for narrative mechanics. This isn't correct, please don't do it.

PS: DFRPG is by a wide margin the best game I know of for a dungeon crawl.
PPS: You're providing a pretty good example of what I mean when I talk about insults.

I never said they don't affect combat, I said they do more than that.

I still don't understand why you find that insulting.

I'm not using about story as a short hand, I'm saying the heavy presence of narrative control, plus the heavy reminders about keeping a good story in mind strongly indicates the game is in fact about story.

If you think fate is the best for a dungeon crawl, use it for that. I personally think Dungeon World would create a better feel for the shared experience and if you wanted the original feel I'd guess one of OSR's is better.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8