Salutations. I have been off RPoL for a while after a personal family matter, but I am back, mainly because I got my stuff straightened out and I re-found FATE. I was intrigued with FATE (v2) a long time ago, recently I saw the Core release, which lead me to the Accelerated release, and intern back to RPoL. I am leaning toward FAE do to it being a LOT more minimalistic.

I like what they did with it, for the most part. So, after trying to absorb both iterations over the last few days, I have questions. I will ask them singly, so as not to muddle the thread:

When someone wants to create a new aspect, talking mainly put on the scene, using Create an Advantage - what is the target number to do so? On an NPC, I am sure it would be contested with a Defend action, but what about the scene (assuming it hasn't been Fractal-ed) be?

Thanks in advance.

You're right about Create Advantage being an opposed roll if the it's on an NPC or if the scene has been Fate-fractal'd.

As for Creating Advantages on a Scene that hasn't been fractal'd , the GM sets the difficulty based on what seems appropriate. It really depends on how skilled your PCs are and how much you want to challenge them. There's no hard and fast rule. You just used your best judgement. Page 133 of Fate Core gives some great guidelines though.

In general, my tendency is to aim for low difficulties for CA (because it's always fun for everybody when players create advantages), and then modify them from there. For instance, say I had a group trying to sneak into a castle and one of the characters wanted to Create the Advantage Distracted Guards. Assuming the guards weren't on high alert or something I might set the difficulty there at maybe one or two for CA. But if the guards were on high alert for some reason the difficulty might be increased by 1 or even 2 assuming the guards thought a threat was eminent. Conversely, if there were fewer than normal guards or there was a mob drawing attention away already. I would put the difficult at 1 or 2 lower.

In reply to Cripple X (msg # 7):

Thanks for the response and the pointer to the page in Core. TBH, I kind of started getting glossy eyed about that point. I mean 300+ pages for FATE? Anyway, I digress...

That page sums it up well I suppose, though it would have been nice, since they seem to reenforce everything a myriad of times in Core, that referring to Skills rolls there were for any type of action; Create an Advantage, Defend, Attack, or Overcome an Obstacle.

Now, onto commenting on your response, which again I appreciate. You use an example with NPCs, which would work I suppose if they are not aware of the PCs to describe how to do a passive Create Advantage. But though it cleared up my question, it brings others to mind:

Namely; why isn't your example an active challenge (I realize it was for my benefit, but am I wrong to lean the other way on this), and if it were passive, why not just use the target number to flesh out the Guards: Careful +2?

Now you would have done two things to the PCs benefit; "Distracted Guards" (assuming they beat Careful +2 Guards) and locked in an Approach (if they, the guards, get fully fleshed out, which I am assuming they won't, the PCs know that if they do - one of the +2s has been used up on Careful. Gaming the system? Sure, but it could have as easily figured that they are being SO Careful, that they won't react quite as Quick. As an example.

Now I probably did horribly (-4) explaining what I mean, since I am having a hard time asking questions about something I don't know. So, please bear with me? Thanks.

In reply to The Bane (msg # 8):

You're right, my example was a little fuzzy in that it used people. The reason I did it that way is just a matter of preference since the guards would have been more background features of the scene than active participants in the narrative. It absolutely could be an active challenge as well.

In reply to Cripple X (msg # 9):

Okay, got ya. FATE, even when FATE v2 was the thing, always made me think... exponentially. It really made me wander off into the weeds, so to speak. Which was sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing.

For example, your clarification as to why you chose them really makes me think about my experiences with other RPGs... if you mention guards in a 'conventional' RPG, they immediately become an obstacle to circumvent and players start digging through their skill list to figure out the best way to do that. In FATE it is a "background feature of the scene" and not necessarily a plot devise. It can become one, but not necessarily. It is a whole other way of thinking...

Question two of Creating an Advantage (CaA).

So it says that you can use it to create a new Aspect on the scene or learn of an Aspect on the scene or other character (assuming NPC mostly).

So let's assume you want to discover / reveal an Aspect on the BBEG NPC. Sure it's probably gonna be a contested roll, which isn't my issue at the moment, but the rules say that if you win, you get to reveal the Aspect (or lack of Aspect?) with a free Invoke. Twice if you do it with style. Great. BUT, If you tie however, and here is where I am uncertain, you get a Boost. Which, by itself means it is a one time use on a temporary Aspect. But if it was done for a reveal, does the Aspect vanish after the Boost is used? I mean, did you actually get a reveal of an actual Aspect on the NPC sheet, or just a Boost to a "My approach to finding his weakness has flustered him" kinda temporary Aspect made up just for the use of the Boost itself?

Dang, I even confused myself with that.... sorry.

First off, welcome aboard Bane.

Good questions -- this stuff can seem a little convoluted until it 'clicks,' I've found. The answer to your question, I think, is pretty succinctly stated on p14 of FAE:



Bottom line -- the complex situation is the tie. You don't get to reveal an opponent's aspect or create a new one for him/her or the scene, but you -do- get to create the Boost. The one-time aspect that gets invoked for free, but that then is gone. "Off-balance," "Temporarily blinded," "Shocked by the fact that Dr. Zoomba is still alive!" or the like.

Succeeding creates a brand new aspect you get to tag once for free, and that then sticks around after that for use with Fate Points. As you've noted, doing so with style provides the two free invokes, and leaves the aspect in place.

That help or hinder?

In reply to Harrigan (msg # 12):

HELPs

So missed, "If you’re trying to discover an existing aspect, treat this as a success (see below)." this little gem going through it.

I think that my issue is, that it seems that they repeat parts of the rules again and again through the books (pdfs) - especially in Core, but don't regurgitate it completely. They mention, Creating an Advantage multiple times but that quote might be the only reference to what happens when X is rolled in Y situation - just as an example, It might not be, but it feels like it.

Or they regurgitate it so much I think, "Yep, CaA again," and gloss over it not knowing I missed a tidbit the first time through.

Check out the SRD if you are having trouble ( I use the term lightly ). You can find it here http://fate-srd.com

Will do, thanks!

In reply to Sithraider (msg # 14):

Yea, one of THE best RPG resource sites ever; I use the site often.

Question about Stunts. I get the following format:

Because I <ASPECT>, I get a +2 when I <APPROACH> <ACTION TYPE> when <RESTRICTION>.

Or that's how they seem to be built in the book. However, is this format acceptable as well?:

Because I'm <LADDER> <APPROACH>, I get a +2 when I <ACTION TYPE> when <RESTRICTION>.

Example: Because I am GREATLY QUICK, I get a +2 when I ATTACK with a RAPIER.

Oh?  I don't have the book handy...

I'm assuming that FAE is tying the stunts to Aspects strictly from a narrative and not a mechanical standpoint, since the Aspects are key-character-points.

I don't see anything wrong with setting the stunt up that way.  It really does just lay out some exceptional unique skill and stuation in which it would apply... and that should be independent of the Aspects.

The way I look at that format in FAE, it's sort of the starter version of stunts. In Core and especially the Toolkit, they take the wraps off and Stunts become way more flexible. So what you have is fine -- in the end, they don't even need to tie to aspects, skills, or anything else!

Thanks for the replies. I kinda figured since they were already balanced by refresh - anything described, as long as suitably constrained, might work here.

The advice is appreciated.

Isn't there another more generic suggested format something like the following? I may be thinking of something in Iron Edda.
Because I'm <special in some way>, I can <do something mechanically or narratively unique>

I'm curious what people think of Doctor Who with FAE? Specifically how to handle a multiple Doctor story that would not devolve into them all being nearly identical with minor variations.

The easiest way to achieve this, I think, would be to use a Who specific set of approaches. With the default list of Careful, Clever, Flashy, Forceful, Quick, and Sneaky, most iterations of the Doctor would simply dominate the Clever approach with minor variations from there. Which is exactly what I would hope to avoid.

I'm assuming something like the Doctors and the companions would be on equal footing mechanically (yeah, I know) but the Doctors would get more leeway with things.

So, I'll finally get to the point and ask the group: what approaches would you use for the style of DW game presented above?

In reply to liblarva (msg # 22):

I'd use something more like, Timey, Wimey, Sonic, Charming, Befuddling and Quick (or something like that, that was just off the cuff).

Examples of companions/supporting cast/villians that might have some of these for apex approaches: River Song (Timey), The Master (Wimey or Screwdriver), Pond (Charming), Rory (Befuddling)... Rose was Quick, perhaps? I seem to remember her running a lot. :)

I totally agree on the need for new approaches on this. If you have a Doctor or companion who would have occasion to use Careful or Forceful very often, I'd say you're probably doing it wrong and thus, you'd want an alternate set of approaches.

I was a player in a tongue-in-cheek undead secret agent game a while back that had some fantastic approaches :)  Pretty much was an inverted set from the normal ones.

Fun as heck!

Len Balsera led four of us in an impromptu game at U-Con, starting at the table pretty much from scratch, generating characters.

It turned out that I was a PI who hired three contractors, was looking for a guy in response to an anonymous inquiry envelope (which also included cash). We went through a couple of scenes before our four hours elapsed.

It was a lot of fun! I also watched a Skype discussion w/Balsera as moderator, including Brian Engard, Mike Olson, Ryan Macklin, on how FATE Core was created and altered over a number of years.

See msg#177 in General Discussion thread.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:31, Mon 17 Nov 2014.

In reply to RedAnchorite (msg # 23):

How would you use 'Wimey' in play?

It's probably a catch-all for anything that doesn't lend itself to one of the other Approaches.

Trying to learn how FAE works for characters.

Here's a go at an FAE Indiana Jones Character Sheet

Name: Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr.

High Concept: Two-fisted archaeologist

Trouble: Evil men want ancient powers

Aspects
I'm making this up as I go
It ain't the years, its the mileage
Friends in unlikely places

Stunts
+2 with flashy whip attack
+2 to discover an aspect in an archaeological site
Once per session a friend or ally can appear to help me out

Approaches
Flashy +3, Clever +2, Quick +2, Forceful +1, Careful +1, Sneaky +0


What do people think? Maybe he should be more clever than flashy? Other ideas for stunts or aspects?

Wow, been almost a year since the last post. Aaaaand no one replied to BurningBones's question. Um. Hey! If you're still lookin' for feedback, lemme know and I'll do what I can. It's been a good long time, so...not sure if you still need it.

For my part, I'm putting together a Pokemon game using Fate Accelerated and came across a neat idea from the Fate Codex. It isn't free, so I don't assume most people have seen it and won't post it in its entirety, but it has a wonky idea that I need some feedback on before I'm ready to implement it.

In it, pet monsters are an Extra that includes stunts and consequence slots, and come in three stages. To upgrade from Stage One to Stages Two and Three, netting more stunt and consequence slots each time, you fill in XP boxes. Conceding conflicts in which you take consequences nets you XP, filling all your XP boxes buffs the monster to the next stage.

My issue is that it both feels like a good idea and a bad idea. The bad is that it doesn't fit nicely with the Fate Milestones advancement system and so feels out of place in a Fate game. The good is that it's something I can wrap my head around easily, giving bonuses for losing. Also the rate of advancement is fairly easy for a GM to control: putting PCs in conflicts gives them opportunities for XP so long as they're willing to lose.

I also can't think of a clean way to go about the sort of advancement the Extra needs using Milestones as written. It doesn't seem like this sort of XP tracking actually hurts anything, even if it's weird for Fate. The setup does seem to encourage the kind of heroic action I'm going for (leap into conflict at every opportunity!) while encouraging drama (that was not a wise leap!). What does the hive mind think? Should I just go with it and change things if it becomes a problem?

I have a hard time figuring what Approach to use when the character is defending "passively" like for poison or charm (think charm-person from d&d). In Core, I would use Physique and Will respectively.