I'm looking at the system and trying to determine if it's busted or not.

Here's how I think it works:

You've got a bunch of abilities with various prose descriptors (from Poor to Extraordinary) but they all really translate into numerical values. Each one also has an associated suit, with the grouping based on broad fields of action (physical, social, mental, emotional).

At start of play, each player gets a hand of four cards, as does the GM.

In an unopposed action, the GM fixes the difficulty as a number. To succeed you must beat that number with your ability. But at the time you make the attempt, you can throw in one or more cards from your hand. If the card's suit matches the ability, then it adds points equal to its face value (2-15, with Jacks-Aces as 11-14, and the two Jokers as wildcard 15's). If the card's suit doesn't match, it's only worth one point.

However the GM also gets to play his/her cards to add to the difficulty of the task.

Note that after a task has been resolved, played cards are shuffled back into the deck (not discarded?) and new cards are drawn to replace the ones that have been played.

Problem 1: Does the GM have to "follow suit" to get full value of the cards?

If not, then the GM's hand seems enormously overpowered. If the GM does have to "follow suit", what suit is used? Same suit as the PC's ability?

Problem 2: The range of sample difficulties seems to be pretty high. Even assuming the GM has to follow suit, it seems like PCs are going to have a tough time of it.

Problem 3: Is there any guidance in the rules about how the GM should play the cards? It seems to me that a GM could quite unfairly choose to play or reserve cards.

The GM has to follow the same suit as the player and typically should only play a card if he really wants the player to fail for some reason or is representing an NPC in an opposed action.

Remember the PCs know what cards they have, so they tend to only attempt tasks they know they have a reasonable chance of succeeding in. Comme Il Faut goes into a lot more detail about the games mechanics and is a pretty good guide to Victorian life as well.

However, in all honesty, the mechanics are not very good and I ended up converting it to the CODA rules.

The GM has to follow the same suit as the player and typically should only play a card if he really wants the player to fail for some reason or is representing an NPC in an opposed action.

Remember the PCs know what cards they have, so they tend to only attempt tasks they know they have a reasonable chance of succeeding in. Comme Il Faut goes into a lot more detail about the games mechanics and is a pretty good guide to Victorian life as well.

However, in all honesty, the mechanics are not very good and I ended up converting it to the CODA rules.

Quote from: jadrax;333400The GM has to follow the same suit as the player and typically should only play a card if he really wants the player to fail for some reason or is representing an NPC in an opposed action.

Right, the bolded part is all I can divine from the rules as written, and if so, it's broken AFAIC. My reasoning:

1. The GM should never have to arbitrarily accept results that would be bad for the game.

2. It follows that no possible result (as constructed by the folks at the table) should be bad for the game.

3. Ergo if the game is played right, the GM should never play a card, or rather, has no basis for deciding whether to play a card or not.

I'll have a look at the dueling system, which has gotten some positive comments over the years, but I have a feeling I'm going to just takes some notes and send this one on to eBay.

So far the things I do like about the system is the use of abilities for everything, instead of attributes + skills, along with the baseline assumption that if you don't have an ability recorded, you've got it at Average.

Some of the rules are theater. The gm builds tension where he needs it by playing cards. I have a feling you're not going to like the duel rules much, either. I love them, but I like the overall feel of the game.

It definitely isn't crisp. A lot of folks were playing it with GURPS before GURPS did their version of it. I've probably seen Falkenstein and Shadowrun played more with GURPS than the original rules. Anyway.

Comme Il Faut does a whole lot to add better, crisper iterations of the rules, but as written in the core book, the rules are squishy.

Well, thanks for the answers, folks.

This is why I threw out the whole card system and replaced it with FUDGE.

Edit: Which is kinda of funny actually because I made the switch after reading Chris Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit.

Regards,
David R

Cards are NOT returned to the deck until end of scene, nor are player's cards played replaced until end of scene.

Quote from: aramis;333447Cards are NOT returned to the deck until end of scene, nor are player's cards played replaced until end of scene.

I am pretty sure that is an option from Comme Il Faut rather than the core rulebook.

Castle Falkenstein is a great setting, but the rules need work IMO.  If you want to stick with the rules, I'd recommend that the GM, rather than having his own deck, is able to add a card, face down, from the top of the deck to the difficulty.  Neither he nor the players know what that card is until the action is resolved, and this adds some tension and chance of failure to the system.

Also, I houseruled (among many other things) that cards of the proper suit were worth full value, cards of the proper color but wrong suit were worth half value, and cards of the wrong color were worth 1.  This gave more variety to the results.

What I would really recommend, though, is keep the CF books for setting information and download the free Spirits of Steam and Sorcery FATE3 supplement I wrote that lets you play in a Victorian age of magic and steam using the Spirits of the Century RPG as the base rules.  It has everything from races and rules for magic to card-based resolution for FATE3.  You can get the latest version, 1.15, on the FATE yahoo group.  I tried to attach it here, but the file size limit is too small for it.

Thanks, but I was mainly interested in the game for the system. I like your patch, though.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;333458Thanks, but I was mainly interested in the game for the system. I like your patch, though.

I think you're the 1st person I've heard of that wanted CF for the rules rather than the setting!  LOL.  What specifically did you want from the rules?  A good card-based resolution system?  You might want to check this out then: http://evilhat.wikidot.com/card-based-resolution

I wouldn't say CF is known for it's outstanding rules system.  IMO, with modifications, it can work pretty well, but it has its issues.

Quote from: jadrax;333449I am pretty sure that is an option from Comme Il Faut rather than the core rulebook.

No, it's the answer I got from Mike Pondsmith before I ever got CIF...

Quote from: aramis;333463No, it's the answer I got from Mike Pondsmith before I ever got CIF...

Ah that makes sense.

However it is not what the core book seems to say (p. 182.)

Page 182 being vague is why I asked Mike in the first place!