If you include ICONS under the Fate umbrella then it's the simply the best game ever made :-)

If we are just looking at straight Fate 3.0 I have my reservations. It's a very powerful and flexible system and allows you to model all sort of situations with few simple components.

The downside it can be very gamesy. Fate isn't one of those games in which the rules fade discreetly in the background or a "tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll system".  Of course that can be said of many more traditional game systems as well.

Also, in its more recent incarnations Fate has become way to crunchy for my tastes. I still can't forgive Legends of Anglerre's takes 57 pages to cover skills.  You the whole Barbarian of Lemuria in 57 pages.

I haven't had a chance to play/run it, but one of the only things I liked about Mutants & Masterminds was the way hero points tied in with PC complications, and it seems Aspects would scratch the same itch for me.  Those sorts of mechanics can lead to all sorts of awesome, but you need to be playing a game in-person for it to work well at all, or at the very least via voice-chat.  FATE seems to lend itself to off-the-cuff improv using aspects as a base, and I can't imagine improv being entertaining via text -- there is a social dynamic missing from online play that hampers all RPG play, but some moreso than others.

Quote from: The_Shadow;458872I've never played or read a FATE game despite hearing about it for years. The idea of aspects is somewhat opaque to me. They seem so subjective...I mean, on rpg.net you hear of aspects like "I BRINGZ TEH AWSUM!!!" or "perpetually furrowed brow" or whatever. It doesn't help that the implementations seem to be huge 400 page tomes.

I dislike FATE.  The system really doesnt make sense and is really too free form for me.  They way it is set up it is more of a storygame system.

I prefer traditional role playing games so FATE isnt a good fit for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWF8O3NoVKw

I like the fate system, I have played Dresden Files with it and it was fun.  BUT and its a big but, we did not call aspects much.  I included game geeks indepth review of the fate system and spirit of the century.

Quote from: Soylent Green;458954Also, in its more recent incarnations Fate has become way to crunchy for my tastes. I still can't forgive Legends of Anglerre's takes 57 pages to cover skills.  You the whole Barbarian of Lemuria in 57 pages.

I have just started this chapter and I find it extremely inspiring. They bundled many of the stunts with their related skills which makes their interactions very clear to me. Actually just reading the part about the awareness skill I got caught with enthusiasm and said a big "YES" out loud. They totally sold me on the character concept of fighters specialized on awareness. I can really see myself selling this type of character to a player confused about char gen. I can't wait till I'm reading my book tonight some more.

Another thing to remember is that Evil Hat's FATE is different from Cubicle 7's FATE is different from Diaspora.  They all went slightly different directions.

One of the problems with C7's take has been organization and expression of ideas, but they're still ok systems if you can get around that.

Also, not sure how "long list of abilities" == crunch.  It's also inconceivable to me to compare a 24-hour RPG entry like BoL to a more standard product.

The copy of BOL i have was certainly not made in 24 hours.

Quote from: Aos;458983The copy of BOL i have was certainly not made in 24 hours.

The essential guts of the system didn't change that much; the essential guts of the system are still very much it's 24H incarnation.

That's a testament to Simon's skill as a designer, though, that he got it so right first time.

Quote from: Daedalus;458964I dislike FATE.  The system really doesnt make sense and is really too free form for me.  They way it is set up it is more of a storygame system.

I prefer traditional role playing games so FATE isnt a good fit for me

FATE is more abstract than some RPGs. It is a bit more free form than other systems. I can see why that wouldn't appeal to some folks. It is a far cry from Universalis or Primetime Adventures though, which I would consider to be very non-traditional games.

To each his own. But I think FATE is pretty much a traditional RPG outside of Aspects.

Quote from: Todtsteltzer;458893FATE is probably the only system I'm close to hating...

Close to my sentiments... and yes, a lot of my distemper about it comes from reading the jokers on RPGnet.
In a more generous moment I can see how it would work well for the right group of people... but I don't know those people.
However, I did enjoy Icons... some of the things I don't like about the system seem to work well for lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek superhero gaming.

Despite the art, ICONS is capable of handling just about any kind of supers. What we do with it isn't anymore tongue and cheek than any other sort of supers game I've ever played.  
Of course, if you require a GURPS/HERO level of granularity in order to take supers seriously, it probably wont work for you.

Quote from: Todtsteltzer;458893We prefer rule systems that fade into the background and don't get in the way of our fun. FATE is like an extremely annoying pet that constantly jumps up and down in front of you to grab your attention. It wants to be engaged and interacted with, it just doesn't know its place (out of sight).

Lots of games have some type of Bennie, what really makes Fate disruptive in the way you're describing is the "Fate Point Economy" that develops due to Aspects, Compels, etc.  It's a traditional RPG onto which is bolted a very storygamey mechanic, that's a dealbreaker for many.

Fate is all about how comfortable you are in your genre and how tight the group consensus is on what you're doing. I like SotC, although I've never thought it was a "pick up" game. I love Starblazers and Legends of Anglerre. I devoured those funny books when I was in high school. Further, the group I play these with when I do consists mostly of GMs who can't find players and rotate games for each other. They're steeped in the same source material and don't mind making things up.

I haven't played Dresden. Although I dearly love the occult detective genre, and would be excited to play in the worlds of Teddy London or Inspector Chen, I just don't like the Dresden books. I read the first five from pure peer pressure and found them increasingly annoying. So I just can't contribute. You can't just like the genre. You have to be comfortable with the canon.

I also think the recent iterations of Fate are too crunchy, but I'm well-versed in Fudge and don't mind letting things fly. I'm sure the crunch is reassuring for folks that want those rules for everything. Nothing wrong with that.

Truth be told I tend to play most roleplaying games a little tongue in check. No matter how you dress it up somehow or other it always seems comes back to wizards, space aliens and vampires. Not to mention the dumb stuff that tends to happen in game because lets face it we are just well-intentioned amateurs making stuff up on the spot.

But that's okay, tongue in cheek is underrated anyway.

Quote from: PaladinCA;459023FATE is more abstract than some RPGs. It is a bit more free form than other systems.

The thing I don't get about FATE is that it claims to be a free-form-ish game, yet always seems to come in the form of a phonebook with detailed lists of Skills and Feats and crunchy stuff like that.