FATE is really not that bad.
>>98922288The character sheet fits on a postcard but it somehow has a 300+ page rulebook.
>>98922288True, but I prefer Cortex.
>>98922288True, but it's really that good either.
is accelerated any good I should I learn core instead? and I really need creating stunts explained to me again, please
>>98922288>FATE is really not that bad.True, but Fudge is better.
I like the dice system (they're snowflake dice but it feels very elegant) but the ladder with "good" "great" and other adjectives makes it feel very wishy-washy like the PCs are never supposed to fail, just get flavortext vaguely and arbitrarily assigned based on what they roll.
Nor is the common cold, but I don't want to meet up weekly to share it.
>>98922648based. Thought I might be the only one on the board.
>>98923042It's the exact same system with a less marketable name though?
>>98923752>It's the exact same system with a less marketable name though?Nope, both FUDGE and FATE use the same kind of die (4dF) but FUDGE tends to use the trait ladder as opposed to numbers (although that is optional). So instead of having a Resiliance stat of +3 you will have GREAT Resiliance etc. Speaking of wich FUDGE lets you choose what stats you have in your game so if the GM decides that your game needs a called PIMPLES you can play that. Fun fact, the name Fate is actually a backronym for "Fudge advantures in tabletop entertainment" because fate started out as a build of Fudge.
>>98922648SPBP
>>98922288There's worse games, like FATAL and ACKS but it's still not that good either.
>>98922648Pitch it to me
On a related note, I think more people should give FATE's first addition a chance, there are a lot of fun ideas here that didn't make it into later additions of the game, in a lot of ways it feels like a middle ground between FATE and FUDGE wich makes it really interesting. Also it's free so you have nothing to loose!
>>98923939>So instead of having a Resiliance stat of +3 you will have GREAT Resiliance etc.I've never understood why people think is a problem, and not a con.
>>98928296*Pro, and not a conFucking autocorrect.
>>98925439Cortex Lite is free and pretty short (and all you need) so you can pitch yourself if desired.For me:* Conflict resolution mechanics mean you can frame pretty much anything like a combat, so mechanical interest can centre on lots of kinds of conflict (arguments, cookery competitions, races, whatever)* XP rules based on little character arcs, which incentivises a very different game than gold for XP or kills for XP* Stress/Health mechanics are interesting without being a harsh death spiral* Willingly sabotaging your own rolls for plot points which help later makes for push-your-luck mechanical interestThose are some highlights, but generally it's just a neat light narrative-type system, and when that's what I want it does the business.
>>98928296>>So instead of having a Resiliance stat of +3 you will have GREAT Resiliance etc.Do people really think that? Hell if it bothers them so much they can swap out the adjectives for numbers for numbers, the system supports that too.
>>98922288I prefer my own system that happens to be like it but better
>>98930466The anon I replied to posted it as if it was something worthwhile, and the books sure act like it's a great idea. Meanwhile, +X is immediately legible to everyone at the table and no one needs to learn a bunch of nomenclature for what bonuses actually mean.
>>98922288That's the thing about FATE. It's not that bad. Will anyone play it? No. will anyone want to play it? They won't NOT want to play it, but they won't want to play it? They will shrug. You play it anyway and you go "that's alright" and you play something else. You'd rather play something else. All the things you thought you wanted that FATE delivers on seem unimportant. They don't make it more fun, they might do the opposite. Let me explain my extremely universal common and relatable experience with owning a FATE book. My friend gave me a copy, because he had been given two copies by two different sources and he doesn't need two copies. Another friend also gave me a copy because they never really used it and thought maybe I'd use it. I have two copies. I played two sessions of one game. My group's immediate next game was a sort of spooky Halloween one-shot that ran late into december, in fucking DnD. We never even considered playing more FATE. Not because it's bad. Not because DnD is good. FATE. "It's really not bad".
>>98931384>+X is immediately legible to everyone at the table and no one needs to learn a bunch of nomenclature for what bonuses actually mean.There isn't a whole lot of learning you have to do to know that a MEDIOCRE stat is worse than a GREAT stat etc.
>>98931435I don't know how much worse, though. At a glance I know immediately how much worse a -1 is to a +3 though. I don't need to spend any kind of mental capital to figure that out.
>>98934298I genuinely think this is a difference in humans like left/right handedness. Some people grasp language and have to work for quantity, and some are the other way around.
>>98931435>make a roll>ok>now add you stat of MEDIOCRE to it >how do i add the word MEDIOCRE to a number>OMG YOU D&DTARDS NEVER UNDERSTAND GOOD GAME DESIGN
>>98934497But this isn't language brain vs math brain. The words are just place holders for numbers. Every time you do anything, you're going to have to remember that [word] is actually [number]. It's adding a step to every single interaction, it's pointless.
>>98936310They're going to tell you it's not that hard because they're missing the point. Brace yourself.
>>98936310No, that's what I'm saying. You have to do that. Some other people see +1 Vs +3 and have to remember that +3 is great but +1 is pretty mediocre.
>>98936254>>how do i add the word MEDIOCRE to a numberThat's the neat thing, you don't! In Fudge the dice you use don't have numbers on them but pluses, minuses and blanks. Let's say you roll four fudge dice and get +, +, -, _ that means you have to bump your mediocre stat up by plus one and that gets you a FAIR roll. That is not to say that you never use numbers in a game of Fudge however as there is a whole thing with scale but as it stands the system is pretty usable regardless.
>>98937139Good Lord this shit is so fucking stupid.
>>98937534Correct. Fudge/Fate requires a very specific kind of linguistic autism to enjoy.
>>98937139>That's the neat thing, you don't!>proceeds to add a number to a word and comes up with another arbitrary word because it's what the table says is the word for "0"you think counting the number of +1s isn't a number? maybe you think dice with pips don't have numbers either because they have pips?
>>98937606>>proceeds to add a number to a word and comes up with another arbitrary wordIt's fairly intuitive once you read the core rule book for Fudge. The trait ladder goes: Terrible, Bad, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, Legendary. You can replace this trait ladder with numbers, so you would have -3, -2, -1, 0 +1 +2, +3, +4 or even make up your own adjectives like replacing great with Marvelous and bad with Catastrophic or something, not much would change on the rules side of things.>you think counting the number of +1s isn't a number?You're the one making a big deal out it, you said a stat not being a number is confusing but now it turns out that they are numbers and that's somehow bad? Are you on your periods or something?
>>98937674The problem isn't that it's confusing. The problem is that you're adding a step for zero added value.
>>98922288It's not really good, either.
>>98937674>It's fairly intuitiveFor someone extolling the virtue of using words you don't seem to know what "intuitive" means. The fact that you have to list the "ladder" of words, and admit you can replace them, shows it's impossible to intuit.There is no such uncertainty with numbers. No ambiguity about which integer is between 1 and 3, or which comes after 0.
>>98937691>The problem isn't that it's confusing. The problem is that you're adding a step for zero added value.It's evocative and atmospheric for ine, knowing that you did GREAT can be more evocative that getting a roll of 3 for example and Fudge isn't that good for people who like to chase big numbers in D&D you can get a natural 1 or another small number, but you are never getting a roll of minus -3 or having a stat of -1 in Fudge even a bonus that would be considered small in other games would be a significant boost in Fudge like getting a plus 2 to your roll is more impactful and maybe that's conveyed with adjectives better than it would be with numbers.>>98938169>The fact that you have to list the "ladder" of words, and admit you can replace them, shows it's impossible to intuitIt really doesn't, basic comprehention of the English language would tell you that a great roll is better than a good and that both are batter than mediocre that's intuitive in my book, the fact that you might want a list of seven short adjectives doesn't change that, the fact that you can swap them for numbers doesn't ether. I played the game with my group several times and it was never an obsticle we did it both ways (numbers and adjectives) and it just works.
>>98939126>maybe that's conveyed with adjectives better than it would be with numbers.But it isn't. Because you're going to be taking that adjective, and turning it into a number in your head in order to do anything. The adjective is literally just a placeholder for the number.
