I am a big fan of FATE and have been since Spirit of the Century. Just from that one version I was extrapolating all over the place and could run something at the drop of a hat.

I'm also a fan of later titles but especially of Diaspora because it covers all the bases in a very refined manner very, very well. The other titles that are tomes are bits of setting/genre run through the FATE-dough Fun Factory giving you more knobs, buttons, switches, and other gizmos to expand on the (for me) light core.

I'm not aware of the claim that it's free-form? Like, I have Spirit of the Century, Dresden, Strands, and a PDF of Diaspora and I've never seen a description of it as "free form".  It's easy to make NPCs and obstacles, so it's good for quick play once you have characters done? But it's never been touted as free-form, at least to me.

Same here.  I also don't see where people get the impression it is or ever was "rules light" by default.  You can certainly take it down a couple notches, but the default was never supposed to be anything as light as say, Dragon Warriors or BoL.

Idk, maybe people get confused when they think of "narrative" games always being light.

Quote from: JDCorley;459078I'm not aware of the claim that it's free-form?

That's why I said free-form-ish and not free form.

People who like the game frequently claim, "You can choose just about anything as an Aspect that defines your character."  Which is true, and semi-free-form.  

What it leaves out, however, is that your character is also defined by elements like Skills and Stunts that are just as pre-defined as Skills and Feats in 3e D&D.  This light game of getting to choose what defines your character just got a hell of a lot more crunchy.

Look at the difference between Fate 2e and SotC to see what I mean.  It's a noticeable difference.

Quote from: Peregrin;459079Same here.  I also don't see where people get the impression it is or ever was "rules light" by default.  You can certainly take it down a couple notches, but the default was never supposed to be anything as light as say, Dragon Warriors or BoL.

Idk, maybe people get confused when they think of "narrative" games always being light.

I think it was because Fate 2e was considerably lighter.

Quote from: misterguignol;459082I think it was because Fate 2e was considerably lighter.

It was also a generic implementation with less of a direction to expand into.

Still, I don't see crunch as a bad thing.  Not anymore, not so long as it supports actual play and doesn't exist in encyclopedic form to be consulted only when the stars are right.

Quote from: Peregrin;459085It was also a generic implementation with less of a direction to expand into.

Well, sure, but it also didn't have Stunts as a standard part of the game, nor a lot of the "scene tagging" things or "zones."  What was once a lighter framework has become a huge brick of a game.

Quote from: misterguignol;459090Well, sure, but it also didn't have Stunts as a standard part of the game, nor a lot of the "scene tagging" things or "zones."  What was once a lighter framework has become a huge brick of a game.

I don't know, really.  Burning Wheel?  Huge effing brick.  All rules, some 600 digest sized pages, and that's without the supplements (which add immensely to the game).  3.5 D&D?  Tons and tons and tons of numbers and stats that never get used.  FATE, even in it's current form, with all the bells and whistles, can supposedly be boiled down to maybe 80-100 pages or something like that, and you'll only be using a portion of those for actual play.

I know it's all relative, but I don't know if I'd use "brick" to describe it.

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.

So does it really work? Or is it only for the jaded gamer who wants something different for difference's sake?

Yes, it works. Or, certain implementations of it work. But they are not all the same, and not all players take to them.

To me, it's the first "light yet robust" game I really feel lives up to the hype. The aspects are subjective. If you are looking for a highly simulationist mechanic, they ain't it.

What they do do is elicit creativity out of the players and give them a real stake in playing to a nuanced character concept. The sorts of roleplay I see coming out of it is really refreshing.

I ran a standard SotC game as well as a kitbashed planetary romance setting I've been running over the last few years. Its proven fast paces and interesting in a breakneck sort of way I've seen few games elicit.

If you use SotC, I do recommend you hunt up the deadlier combat variants; the default PC rules have them pretty resilient. Some other fate variants do this already.

Quote from: JDCorley;458895Yeah - for low-Fate-point implementations (Dresden, Spirit of the Century), you really have to kick the shit out of the players via their Aspects first, then they'll have a nice store ready to go after the bad guys.

You've not played SotC? It's not a low fate-point variant. That said, I agree with the fundamental point. It's one of the reasons I'm not as big a fan of Dresden Files. Fishing for fate points is an interesting way to let players buy-in to complications that make the game interesting. But Dresden Files more than allows it, it demands it. That's a paradigm shift I'm not comfortable with, and frankly with a larger group, I think its downright disruptive.

Quote from: Peregrin;459094I don't know, really.  Burning Wheel?  Huge effing brick.  All rules, some 600 digest sized pages, and that's without the supplements (which add immensely to the game).

...and is such a huge mess of a game that I would never play it.

Quote3.5 D&D?  Tons and tons and tons of numbers and stats that never get used.

Even if those numbers never get used, they still add to the pagecount.

QuoteFATE, even in it's current form, with all the bells and whistles, can supposedly be boiled down to maybe 80-100 pages or something like that, and you'll only be using a portion of those for actual play.

I know it's all relative, but I don't know if I'd use "brick" to describe it.

It is relative, but I'd certainly call the iterations of FATE 3e that I've seen bricks.  No, they aren't HERO-sized, but they're pretty hefty with lots of fiddly bits.  Far larger than anything I would want to use at the table.

Quote from: misterguignol;459098...and is such a huge mess of a game that I would never play it.

I already know Luke Crane was an asshole to you somewhere on the web, that wasn't my point. ;P

Still, I used to swear off the crunch, and BW doesn't bug me one bit because everything has its place, even if it's baroque *shrugs*.   Plus some new edition is on the way out, and if the trend from BW -> BE -> Mouse Guard is any indicator, it will be much more clear and streamlined.

QuoteIt is relative, but I'd certainly call the iterations of FATE 3e that I've seen bricks.  No, they aren't HERO-sized, but they're pretty hefty with lots of fiddly bits.  Far larger than anything I would want to use at the table.

What do you use at the table?  Just curious, cause I like more rules-lite games as well, and I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from.

Quote from: Aos;459070Despite 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.

The reason I say 'light hearted' and 'tongue in cheek' is because of the way PCs are generated... the random assigning of abilities... and then afterward coming up with a concept that ties together those random elements. It kind of reminded me of Gamma World's mutations... not that GW can't be played seriously.
I only played Icons... didn't read the book... maybe there are alternative methods for rolling up characters.

I think Stu2000's bit about "Fate is all about how comfortable you are in your genre and how tight the group consensus is on what you're doing"...  is an important caveat.

Quote from: Peregrin;459105I already know Luke Crane was an asshole to you somewhere on the web, that wasn't my point. ;P

Luke Crane is the least of my problems with Burning Wheel ;p

QuoteWhat do you use at the table?  Just curious, cause I like more rules-lite games as well, and I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from.

Games I've played in the last year or so: Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Barbarians of Lemuria, WFRP 1e, Risus.  The only one out of that lot that is a Big Book is WFRP, so to me SotC is definitely a brick.

Quote from: misterguignol;459108Luke Crane is the least of my problems with Burning Wheel ;p

To each their own.

QuoteGames I've played in the last year or so: Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Barbarians of Lemuria, WFRP 1e, Risus.  The only one out of that lot that is a Big Book is WFRP, so to me SotC is definitely a brick.

I see.  Those do skew a bit light compared to the "average" pagecount of books on my shelf.  I average in quotes because there are a few 1-5 page RPGs that would probably misrepresent the types of games I play most.  White-Wolf is pretty-much my baseline for "lots of crap to track but manageable" as a GM.

In this context I feel like we're talking beer preferences, almost, heh.

Quote from: CRKrueger;459072Lots 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.

The mechanic of Fate points is only "storygamey" if a) the authors of a particular version of the FATE rules try to make it be, and b) you as the GM let it be.

There's only one single way you can use fate points that is "storygamey", out of a large number of things Fate points can be made to do.  Otherwise, its entirely regular.  

RPGPundit