Never played FUDGE. I ran a FATE oneshot. The universal mechanic intrigued me at first but in practice it's totally bland. Every situation is approached the same way, mechanically, which is supposed to be the draw of the system, but the lack of a concrete difference between any two challenges makes it incredibly boring.
If only characters had an infinite world of narrative differences to draw upon to make them interesting and unique. Better roll 3d6 for your Class! You gay.
Currently preparing for a FUDGE non-solo campaign, by preparing solo campaign so that I would test the game. I can't say whether it is a good system or not yet, but it seems to be manageble for those who can improvise.
With Fudge you are given parts and tools and you assemble the system yourself.
Modern FATE (Core, Accelerated) feels like a prebuilt computer, that you could modify to your liking, but you feel less in controll of the machine.
I kinda like FATE, but I don't like when player actions are driven by the metacurency economy and not in-character thinking. On the one hand the system encourages players to roleplay the destructive aspects of the characters, on the other it also encourages OOC thinking.
huh, it makes us two.
Do you guys prefer FATE Core or FATE Accelerated?
In the past I run FATE Core as a GM, I can see some merits to FATE Accelerated (rearanging the list of skills to the setting can be a pain in the ass in Core). I remember that FATE 2 was the least restricting (in a good way) edition of the game, but it was a long time ago, and I don't trust my memories on that one.
An interesting concept plagued by one core issue, the lack of progression. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't introduce some sort of mechanic, it's actually an issue with the dice always giving you a value between -4 and 4 (adding more dice will still keep you in this range). So the only way to introduce someone who is a challange is just budging a number up which is basically a way to say shoving people into a hamster wheel that's very easy to notice, unlike other TTRRPGs. Now there are ways around it which you can add, you can use another type of dice with a bell curve like 2d6, 3d6, anything that involves a fixed dice pool, you can introduce stats for more customization and even allow characters to grow, the issue here is that the game is fairly constrained by the dice a bit too much, as intriguing as they are, they can end up being a detriment if you seek something a bit more complex. However it does have some good points regarding the structure of a character and how the game is played as it gives more control to the players in this colaborative writting effort we call a game, they have more power to pull a rabbit out of their ass due to the vagueness of how characters are structured via things like aspects or stunts, but as I said before, constrained by the lack of higher range of possibilities in a roll and character development.
>colaborative writting effort we call a game
RPGs are not "collaborative writing" nor "collaborative storytelling" nor "improv theater" and I wish this meme would die. The only thing correct about this statement is the implication that systems pursuing such goals are not actually games.
>lunatic rambling with no argument
You are genuinely in denial if you think I'm the only one who thinks this way on /tg/. Go ask /osr/ what they think of "collaboartive storytelling".
>RPGs are not "collaborative writing" nor "collaborative storytelling" nor "improv theater" and I wish this meme would die.
A lot of people disagree with you.
You keep playing your GM-driven mechanistic "simulation", and people who have sex with play VtM Mind's Eye Theater.
>A lot of people disagree with you.
So? >You keep playing your GM-driven mechanistic "simulation"
Thanks, I will. >and people who have sex with play VtM Mind's Eye Theater.
Wow, another non-argument. Is, "Oh y-yeah? Well w-we have s-sex!" really the best you can come up with? You sound like a woman.
Different types of play, for different kinds of players, Anon.
You hit the nail on the head: these sorts of "games" are different, fundamentally so, from RPGs, so naturally they result in an entirely different experience.
If you take on the role of your character and there are mechanics in place to define what your character can do and how he interacts with the world, it's a roleplaying game. Dungeon crawlers and narrative games about feeling and relationship drama are both games, they're both roleplaying, and they're both recognizably in the same category of games. Valuing and prioritizing different aspects of what makes something a roleplaying game is just variation within the category of roleplaying games, not something that could make anything not be a roleplaying game.
>lunatic rambling with no argument
You are genuinely in denial if you think I'm the only one who thinks this way on /tg/. Go ask /osr/ what they think of "collaboartive storytelling".
[...] >A lot of people disagree with you.
So? >You keep playing your GM-driven mechanistic "simulation"
Thanks, I will. >and people who have sex with play VtM Mind's Eye Theater.
Wow, another non-argument. Is, "Oh y-yeah? Well w-we have s-sex!" really the best you can come up with? You sound like a woman.
[...]
You hit the nail on the head: these sorts of "games" are different, fundamentally so, from RPGs, so naturally they result in an entirely different experience.
>You are genuinely in denial if you think I'm the only one who thinks this way on /tg/. Go ask /osr/ what they think of "collaboartive storytelling".
I assume that /osr/ knows a lot about OSR games, but why would anyone consider them an authority on anything else? I think we can all agree that collaborative storytelling isn't OSR-tyle roleplaying, but that's all.
>If you take on the role of your character and there are mechanics in place to define what your character can do and how he interacts with the world, it's a roleplaying game.
Even if we accepted this definition or roleplaying games, it would still exclude FATE and any other system that allows the player (NOT the character) to dictate events and the state of the world. Moreover, one of the problems with "narrative" systems is that they generally don't have solid rules for what your character can do and how your character can interact with the world. They tend to be handwavy at best.
>So?
So...you aren't some sort of internationally-appointed arbiter of what counts as an RPG.
RPGs are whatever people say they are. If some people say that they're collaborative storytelling experiences, that's what they fricking are.
Do what you want, but you don't get to say "what RPGs are".
>truth is whatever you say it is
Ok, I say you're wrong. What now?
The point is that there is a profound difference between the types of systems historically known as RPGs and the narrative systems that arose later. At first glance it may not seem so: they both have something like rules, GMs, players, PCs, and so forth. However, when you get down to what these systems actually do and produce, the result is wildly different. Lumping the two under the same label is simply misleading.
>Even if we accepted this definition or roleplaying games, it would still exclude FATE and any other system that allows the player (NOT the character) to dictate events and the state of the world. Moreover, one of the problems with "narrative" systems is that they generally don't have solid rules for what your character can do and how your character can interact with the world. They tend to be handwavy at best.
Narrative systems are still game systems. They're not freeform, and they are, objectively, not as a matter of opinion, games. Whether they're good games is a different matter. They're not my cup of tea, but they're definitely games. As for your other point, as long as players primarily act on the world through their character, having also some mechanics for player directly affecting the world does not conflict with my definition.
Many of these "games" don't really have goals, or worse, give conflicting goals to the player and his PC. FATE's complications are a good example of the latter: the PC knows nothing about FATE points and would not choose to deliberately fail at a task to gain one, but the player makes him do so anyway. If the player is regularly making metadecisions about his character instead of decisions from his character's perspective, it's hard to call it a "roleplaying" game.
Play something other than the branch of OSR D&D that aims to recreate Bob Kunt'z DM style, because that is the only time your word salad even comes close to making sense.
Feel free to come back when you have an argument. You could really stand to learn a thing or two from the other anon responding to me. He's a much better debater.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not here for a debate, or to indulge your moronation. I'm here to mock you for being a homosexual who has not played broadly yet pretends to be an academic on a field you have no expertise in.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The only person of whom you are making a mockery is yourself. For the record I have run FATE, and it was the antithesis of an RPG in addition to being total garbage. If you can't see the the vast gulf in design between RPGs and "narrative systems", you should stay far away from game design.
8 months ago
Anonymous
This level of seething only works to prove me right.
Play something other than the branch of OSR D&D that aims to recreate Bob Kunt'z DM style, because that is the only time your word salad even comes close to making sense.
>s convoluted coin-flipping to ultimately end up with scores 1 to 3. 4
And that's bad how? A plus 1 is a lot in Fudge, especially since you use adjectives instead of numbers. >bankai anime shit.
Bleach>Naruto
Fudge is half-decent. Not good, but not overtly bad, and can be run.
Fate is crammer up to the brim with useless stuff that's supposedly there to "help play", but all it does is making the game incredibly stiff, while boiling down to piling +2s
FATE Core honestly, mostly because I have more experiences with it. But also the "Fate system toolkit" has tips on combining the two, so you could do that.
I prefer core, due to approaches meaning players would do everything in their power to only use the top 1 or 2 approaches they had for everything, skills meant for a more varied use in play.
Fate is interesting in how confusing the system seems to be until everything suddenly clicks into place. I'm still bad at putting the pieces together in interesting ways but referencing pre-built stuff from other people works well enough.
Yeah, FATE is surprisingly hard to explain for how simple it is.
This video https://youtu.be/RKa4YhyASmg?si=tezaI7CX8yrLVdSK is probably the best explanation I've seen for this phenomenon, which is basically that fate tells you the rules, but doesn't actually explain how the game works.
The best way I've had to explain fate to new players was to watch tv/movies with them and use that as an example of play.
Fate is nice if you are prepared to use it as the toolkit it’s meant to be. Concepts, stunts, and skills can be as granular as you like. In my early days I made a basic Ars Magica ripoff in Fate that worked okay-ish but it led to the exploration of more nuanced skills based games. Ultimately, it’s a crap combat engine so don’t use it for that primarily. Do other things and it will shine. Maybe that makes it niche as a useful toolkit but that’s what you should be doing. My 2c.
I wouldn't tell since I have zero experience with Cortex Prime games, From what I understand It's pretty Narativist, so it's probably more like Fate than Fudge, which is rules light but does not have the whole "aspects" and "invokes" thing going on unlike FATE which would fall apart if you tried playing it without the "Fate point Economy" getting involved while Fudge holds up. Basically Fudge, Fate and Cortex are pretty distinct from one another all things considered. Pic related is probably the best explanation of their relationship.
You aren't worth seriously responding to if you don't contribute.
Okay. Bye.
I play FU2 which shares some of the letters but is probably otherwise completely different.
Never played FUDGE. I ran a FATE oneshot. The universal mechanic intrigued me at first but in practice it's totally bland. Every situation is approached the same way, mechanically, which is supposed to be the draw of the system, but the lack of a concrete difference between any two challenges makes it incredibly boring.
I like that FATE does its best to force you to include roleplaying in mechanical stuff, but I agree with that it ends up a little bland.
If only characters had an infinite world of narrative differences to draw upon to make them interesting and unique. Better roll 3d6 for your Class! You gay.
I wanna try solo RPGs using FUDGE, hopefully it goes well, I'm very new to the solo RPG concept.
Currently preparing for a FUDGE non-solo campaign, by preparing solo campaign so that I would test the game. I can't say whether it is a good system or not yet, but it seems to be manageble for those who can improvise.
With Fudge you are given parts and tools and you assemble the system yourself.
Modern FATE (Core, Accelerated) feels like a prebuilt computer, that you could modify to your liking, but you feel less in controll of the machine.
I kinda like FATE, but I don't like when player actions are driven by the metacurency economy and not in-character thinking. On the one hand the system encourages players to roleplay the destructive aspects of the characters, on the other it also encourages OOC thinking.
huh, it makes us two.
In the past I run FATE Core as a GM, I can see some merits to FATE Accelerated (rearanging the list of skills to the setting can be a pain in the ass in Core). I remember that FATE 2 was the least restricting (in a good way) edition of the game, but it was a long time ago, and I don't trust my memories on that one.
An interesting concept plagued by one core issue, the lack of progression. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't introduce some sort of mechanic, it's actually an issue with the dice always giving you a value between -4 and 4 (adding more dice will still keep you in this range). So the only way to introduce someone who is a challange is just budging a number up which is basically a way to say shoving people into a hamster wheel that's very easy to notice, unlike other TTRRPGs. Now there are ways around it which you can add, you can use another type of dice with a bell curve like 2d6, 3d6, anything that involves a fixed dice pool, you can introduce stats for more customization and even allow characters to grow, the issue here is that the game is fairly constrained by the dice a bit too much, as intriguing as they are, they can end up being a detriment if you seek something a bit more complex. However it does have some good points regarding the structure of a character and how the game is played as it gives more control to the players in this colaborative writting effort we call a game, they have more power to pull a rabbit out of their ass due to the vagueness of how characters are structured via things like aspects or stunts, but as I said before, constrained by the lack of higher range of possibilities in a roll and character development.
>colaborative writting effort we call a game
RPGs are not "collaborative writing" nor "collaborative storytelling" nor "improv theater" and I wish this meme would die. The only thing correct about this statement is the implication that systems pursuing such goals are not actually games.
Your made-up semantics are not consistent with your made-up semantics. Also we all know that there's just one of you.
>lunatic rambling with no argument
You are genuinely in denial if you think I'm the only one who thinks this way on /tg/. Go ask /osr/ what they think of "collaboartive storytelling".
>A lot of people disagree with you.
So?
>You keep playing your GM-driven mechanistic "simulation"
Thanks, I will.
>and people who have sex with play VtM Mind's Eye Theater.
Wow, another non-argument. Is, "Oh y-yeah? Well w-we have s-sex!" really the best you can come up with? You sound like a woman.
You hit the nail on the head: these sorts of "games" are different, fundamentally so, from RPGs, so naturally they result in an entirely different experience.
>So?
So...you aren't some sort of internationally-appointed arbiter of what counts as an RPG.
RPGs are whatever people say they are. If some people say that they're collaborative storytelling experiences, that's what they fricking are.
Do what you want, but you don't get to say "what RPGs are".
>RPGs are not "collaborative writing" nor "collaborative storytelling" nor "improv theater" and I wish this meme would die.
A lot of people disagree with you.
You keep playing your GM-driven mechanistic "simulation", and people who have sex with play VtM Mind's Eye Theater.
Different types of play, for different kinds of players, Anon.
If you take on the role of your character and there are mechanics in place to define what your character can do and how he interacts with the world, it's a roleplaying game. Dungeon crawlers and narrative games about feeling and relationship drama are both games, they're both roleplaying, and they're both recognizably in the same category of games. Valuing and prioritizing different aspects of what makes something a roleplaying game is just variation within the category of roleplaying games, not something that could make anything not be a roleplaying game.
>You are genuinely in denial if you think I'm the only one who thinks this way on /tg/. Go ask /osr/ what they think of "collaboartive storytelling".
I assume that /osr/ knows a lot about OSR games, but why would anyone consider them an authority on anything else? I think we can all agree that collaborative storytelling isn't OSR-tyle roleplaying, but that's all.
>If you take on the role of your character and there are mechanics in place to define what your character can do and how he interacts with the world, it's a roleplaying game.
Even if we accepted this definition or roleplaying games, it would still exclude FATE and any other system that allows the player (NOT the character) to dictate events and the state of the world. Moreover, one of the problems with "narrative" systems is that they generally don't have solid rules for what your character can do and how your character can interact with the world. They tend to be handwavy at best.
>truth is whatever you say it is
Ok, I say you're wrong. What now?
The point is that there is a profound difference between the types of systems historically known as RPGs and the narrative systems that arose later. At first glance it may not seem so: they both have something like rules, GMs, players, PCs, and so forth. However, when you get down to what these systems actually do and produce, the result is wildly different. Lumping the two under the same label is simply misleading.
>Even if we accepted this definition or roleplaying games, it would still exclude FATE and any other system that allows the player (NOT the character) to dictate events and the state of the world. Moreover, one of the problems with "narrative" systems is that they generally don't have solid rules for what your character can do and how your character can interact with the world. They tend to be handwavy at best.
Narrative systems are still game systems. They're not freeform, and they are, objectively, not as a matter of opinion, games. Whether they're good games is a different matter. They're not my cup of tea, but they're definitely games. As for your other point, as long as players primarily act on the world through their character, having also some mechanics for player directly affecting the world does not conflict with my definition.
Many of these "games" don't really have goals, or worse, give conflicting goals to the player and his PC. FATE's complications are a good example of the latter: the PC knows nothing about FATE points and would not choose to deliberately fail at a task to gain one, but the player makes him do so anyway. If the player is regularly making metadecisions about his character instead of decisions from his character's perspective, it's hard to call it a "roleplaying" game.
Feel free to come back when you have an argument. You could really stand to learn a thing or two from the other anon responding to me. He's a much better debater.
I'm not here for a debate, or to indulge your moronation. I'm here to mock you for being a homosexual who has not played broadly yet pretends to be an academic on a field you have no expertise in.
The only person of whom you are making a mockery is yourself. For the record I have run FATE, and it was the antithesis of an RPG in addition to being total garbage. If you can't see the the vast gulf in design between RPGs and "narrative systems", you should stay far away from game design.
This level of seething only works to prove me right.
Play something other than the branch of OSR D&D that aims to recreate Bob Kunt'z DM style, because that is the only time your word salad even comes close to making sense.
>t. bot
I really want to play Dresden Files but since I moved I don't have any friends who have the time to read it and I'm not about to prescribe homework.
+/- dice are for rolling HIV tests.
>Fudge
Bad
>FATE
Worse
I got a friend well...friend is a bit of a strong word.
I know a guy whose a giant homosexual, that wants every game to be fate.
And it's terrible. It's convoluted coin-flipping to ultimately end up with scores 1 to 3. 4 if you think it's some bankai anime shit.
>s convoluted coin-flipping to ultimately end up with scores 1 to 3. 4
And that's bad how? A plus 1 is a lot in Fudge, especially since you use adjectives instead of numbers.
>bankai anime shit.
Bleach>Naruto
Fudge is half-decent. Not good, but not overtly bad, and can be run.
Fate is crammer up to the brim with useless stuff that's supposedly there to "help play", but all it does is making the game incredibly stiff, while boiling down to piling +2s
I'll be posting some of my FUDGE PDFs in case anyone wants to check them out.
I'm playing Fudge tomorrow. The campaign is great and Fudge supports the superpower detective style really well.
Godspeed anon, how has the campaign been going so far? Or is this your first session?
Do you guys prefer FATE Core or FATE Accelerated?
FATE Core honestly, mostly because I have more experiences with it. But also the "Fate system toolkit" has tips on combining the two, so you could do that.
I prefer core, due to approaches meaning players would do everything in their power to only use the top 1 or 2 approaches they had for everything, skills meant for a more varied use in play.
Fate is interesting in how confusing the system seems to be until everything suddenly clicks into place. I'm still bad at putting the pieces together in interesting ways but referencing pre-built stuff from other people works well enough.
Yeah, FATE is surprisingly hard to explain for how simple it is.
This video https://youtu.be/RKa4YhyASmg?si=tezaI7CX8yrLVdSK is probably the best explanation I've seen for this phenomenon, which is basically that fate tells you the rules, but doesn't actually explain how the game works.
The best way I've had to explain fate to new players was to watch tv/movies with them and use that as an example of play.
Fate is nice if you are prepared to use it as the toolkit it’s meant to be. Concepts, stunts, and skills can be as granular as you like. In my early days I made a basic Ars Magica ripoff in Fate that worked okay-ish but it led to the exploration of more nuanced skills based games. Ultimately, it’s a crap combat engine so don’t use it for that primarily. Do other things and it will shine. Maybe that makes it niche as a useful toolkit but that’s what you should be doing. My 2c.
How does this compare to FATE/FUDGE?
I wouldn't tell since I have zero experience with Cortex Prime games, From what I understand It's pretty Narativist, so it's probably more like Fate than Fudge, which is rules light but does not have the whole "aspects" and "invokes" thing going on unlike FATE which would fall apart if you tried playing it without the "Fate point Economy" getting involved while Fudge holds up. Basically Fudge, Fate and Cortex are pretty distinct from one another all things considered. Pic related is probably the best explanation of their relationship.
Thanks for the chart. Going to check out the games I hadn't heard of until seeing this.