On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:39:14 -0000, Dave Hill <dave@...>
wrote:

> I ran a test mini-scenario for three players this evening (in prep
> for the more full-blown five-player game I'm running tomorrow) in my
> espionage FATE setting. Some semi-random thoughts on the outcome.

Random aside: Your character sheet rocks. I modified it a little, and it's
my modern-day campaign's official sheet now. If I could figure out how to
move the graphics on it, I'd be a very happy person.

> 1. Understanding the challenge tracks and how they work is really
> essential for players (and the GM).

Agreed. It's important, too, to make sure the results of all rolls (even
for GM characters) are announced on the table, to give players maximum
freedom in controlling outcomes with Fate Points and Aspects. I don't know
how connected that may be to your observations or not, but D&D sometimes
encourages "rolls behind the screen", which IMO, Fate is not about at all.

> 2. Also essential is getting out of the "1 round = 1 small set of
> actions" D20 mentality. This is difficult to some degree because of
> its ingrained nature (though D20 actually carries that sort of
> abstraction with it), and in part because of the tactical nature of a
> lot of combat in the setting (and my continued use of figures and
> battle maps). Will require some thinking.

What it really boils down to is the difference between conflict-based and
task-based resolution, and the difference (when you're talking about
tactics) in challenging the players as opposed to challenging the
characters.

Mike Holmes is the voice for most of this stuff when it comes to Fate, and
it gets bandied about on the Forge too, so I'll try not to sound redundant
here. :) Basically, the big differences from d20 combat to overcome: in
d20, you perform a lot of individual tasks (abstracted or not) with the
hope that they will add up to the eventual outcome you want. Your goal is
totally irrelevant in the rules and has no hard mechanical impact. In
Fate, your goal is the starting point of resolution, and the individual
tasks you may perform to get there are little more than descriptive fodder
once the result of the roll is on the table. Really, though, those
individual tasks are irrelevant as far as the rules are concerned and have
no hard mechanical impact. They're just the way you justify getting from
point A to point B. Sometimes they'll change the nature of the situation
(you may choose to switch weapons for a superiority bonus), but that's
about all.

Also, Fate is not designed (in terms of the rules) to challenge players
from a tactical perspective. In d20, you as player need to know the ideal
combination of spells, moves, maneuvers, power use, etc. to be as
effective as possible. In Fate, you as player just need to know how good
your character is at something and decide how important success is to you
(i.e., how many Fate Points and Aspects you're willing to commit to the
goal). Any other tactical stuff that might get you bonuses will come
purely from the in-game situation, and has nothing to do with the base
Fate rules setup.

In other words, while it is possible to have tactically challenging
situations in a Fate game that a player might have to really think about,
his/her knowledge of the Fate rules isn't going to contribute
significantly to whatever choices they make except to say that if a player
has Fair Driving and Great Gunfighting, he'll probably try to deter his
pursuer by shooting rather than trying to outmaneuver. No-brainer.

> 3. I went for the "mooks have half the Aspects of the PCs" and "use
> the simple Aspects for the mooks ('Mook - Fair +1 [][]') in lieu of
> their skills" suggestions, and found that the mooks felt pretty
> darned powerful, especially with the advantage of numbers (and less
> breadth of Aspects). I need to consider how to balance this properly.

Simplest change: Mooks don't get to invoke Aspects at all to alter rolls.
They're not important enough characters, dramatically, to invoke Aspects.
They don't even have names. They're stuck with whatever rolls they get,
whereas PC's can let loose with Aspects and FP's and clean house.

Additionally, see my mook rules on your wiki. :)

> 4. For a spy game, area effects (explosives, flash-bang grenades,
> etc.) are a major thang. I haven't yet figured out well how to keep
> them under control, integrate them into the exchange-based combat
> system, etc., especially with other activites going on.

To me, it depends on your reality level and the source of the explosion.
Grenade and explosion damage is another thing I have as an entry in your
wiki, but it was an untested system when I posted it. :)

If a grenade is thrown as part of an exchange, I'd just say that giving
the attacker 'superior firepower' bonus is in order - if grenades are
supposed to be things to truly fear, +2 or +3 might be appropriate.
Warning, though: that can get pretty nasty pretty quick.

Here's something to consider that might help when thinking about how to
incorporate grenades into exchange-based combat: not everyone will be
aware of the grenade. If you have four PC's and four opponents, and each
of them is fighting a pitched gun battle, and someone throws a grenade
into the midst of it, not everyone would know what's going on. In which
case, the grenadier's Thrown Weapons (or whatever) roll would be made and
everyone not aware in the blast radius would get treated as having rolled
a Mediocre as per the rules.

And assuming they are aware of the thrown grenade, the nature of the
exchange immediately changes, because the PCs' new goal will be "to avoid
damage at all costs". That roll to avoid not only counts against the
grenade, then, but also anyone else shooting at them. If some of the
enemies are in the area of effect, they might be rolling against the
grenadier /also/.

I think the key to figuring out how all that stuff balances out is having
a clear process for action in an exchange, from declaration to results.
The usual process I use is this:

1.) Everyone declares their intent for the exchange, as well as any
specific details that might add bonuses to the exchange result. The GM
declares the intent of any NPC's under his control.

2.) All dice roll modifiers are announced.

3.) Exchange rolls are made, and base results are announced.

4.) Aspects and Fate Points are spent to change outcomes.

5.) Final results are detailed and described.

YMMV, but for me, this process is rather formal and ensures that I'm able
to keep track of everything involved and action still proceeds smoothly.
Hence, if in stage 1, the GM says: "Well, Thug #2 is throwing a grenade,"
all the players might say, "Oh. We want to avoid the grenade." Then the GM
says: "Well, people are still going to shoot at you, too." So there's
maximum range of choice there. One player might even say, "I want to
snatch up the grenade and throw it back before it goes off." Which puts
you in a Thrown vs. Thrown exchange with just the one dude.

> Overall, though, I thought it went well, and most of the feedback I
> received was positive.

Glad to hear it.

> I don't know that the combats (always a
> bugaboo) were significantly shorter, at least to start with, but I
> feel like we'll get the modifiers absorbed and handled more
> intuitively than in a D20 setting.

Once you get the basic process down, it flies. Or at least, it has in my
games.


-Landon Darkwood