Hello all,
I've just posted my new system for a cooperative narrative, usable with all RPGs.I'll be glad to hear your comments and suggestions. Thanks !

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shuttle/6021/hf.htm

I like this as a metagame mechanic. Although I can see this quickly overtaking the original game's mechanics. Have you playtested this at all?

"Critical success or fumble" You may want to specify that this is in the original game. When I read this first, I thought it meant a 1 or a 12 on the d12.

The whole d12 issue may be too random, also. Unless that's what the group wants, it could get real frustrating to spend fate points and keep rolling low. Maybe there should a less variable roll? Like d6+6, 2d6, 3d4? That would guarantee more than 1 fate point at least.

(Oh and did you intend the pun, Manu? The Hands of Fate? Check it out: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0060666 )

Thanks for the input, Zak. I've actually decided to change the name of my system, as I was receiving more feedback on the title than on the content ! :smile:It is now called Fate's Warning (a tribute to a great band)

To answer your question, I haven't playtested it yet; it was a quick draft, a stream of consciousness thing.That's why I expect a lot from all the posters here, who I deeply respect; This site made me want to explore the narrativist side of my game addiction.
I don't know yet which is the best option to generate the fate points; obviously, I want it to stay Fortune-based, as it is Fate after all.I'd like to keep the option of gaining only one point (i.e. just an auto success), since players cannot expect to have powerful Director powers all the time.If any of the readers here find time to playtest it (I don't have a gaming group handy :sad:), I'd appreciate feedback on this issue.I'm not too afraid about FW overwhelming the initial game system, since a narrativist attitude is expected from all players anyway.The 3D4 option seems interesting, as it meshes with the option I initially proposed to use a D4 for each table.

Hmmm. So if I get a twelve I can narrate a Dramatic Change that affects the Universe in such a way that lasts for the whole Scenario. That sounds like more power than anybody needs at a time. Also, you want to have the roll result in one possibly, otherwise I don't think that you'll see people selecting the automatic success for a character very often. What I'd suggest is 1d10 or 2d6-1 or something like that. Or something like 1d6 and players can increase the effect of the roll by spending more points on a (very inefficient) one for one ratio.

Also, are some of these combinations non-functional? Like taking an automatic success for the Universe? How about an automatic success for a scenario? I suppose I could see that as meaning that you'd just automatically succeed at that skill for the duration. Is that the intent? You might want to be more specific as to what certain combinations might mean.

Also, I'd change the replenishment rule. If a player gets a critical, they've already had something special happen; why should they get more special stuff. In this case you are rewarding blind luck (and as such, I'd personally never get any more than my starting allowance).

Also, depending on the game, certain character types are more likely to get criticals than others. For a game like GURPS, for example, you'd at the very least want to specify that only on "natural" crits for players gain a Fate point (as opposed to a roll that is a crit because it is ten less then the skills level). And, of ourse, there are some games that don't have crits at all.

Simpler would be to just have a standard replenishment per session. Or, perhaps you could link it to the game's normal reward system, though these are diverse enough that the GM would have to make a conversion for the particular game. If you did this, you could have a list of rates for popular games to work from. Also, an interesting option, a GM could decide to give these out instead of other rewards when appropriate. I like that. This would work well with games like Hero System (Champions) and GURPS, which some complain have too rapid advancement. Instead of two character points, give out one CP and a fate point.

Mike

Hmmm. So if I get a twelve I can narrate a Dramatic Change that affects the Universe in such a way that lasts for the whole Scenario. That sounds like more power than anybody needs at a time

Also, are some of these combinations non-functional? Like taking an automatic success for the Universe? How about an automatic success for a scenario? I suppose I could see that as meaning that you'd just automatically succeed at that skill for the duration. Is that the intent? You might want to be more specific as to what certain combinations might mean.

Also, I'd change the replenishment rule. If a player gets a critical, they've already had something special happen; why should they get more special stuff. In this case you are rewarding blind luck (and as such, I'd personally never get any more than my starting allowance).

Also, depending on the game, certain character types are more likely to get criticals than others. For a game like GURPS, for example, you'd at the very least want to specify that only on "natural" crits for players gain a Fate point (as opposed to a roll that is a crit because it is ten less then the skills level). And, of ourse, there are some games that don't have crits at all.

Simpler would be to just have a standard replenishment per session. Or, perhaps you could link it to the game's normal reward system, though these are diverse enough that the GM would have to make a conversion for the particular game. If you did this, you could have a list of rates for popular games to work from. Also, an interesting option, a GM could decide to give these out instead of other rewards when appropriate. I like that. This would work well with games like Hero System (Champions) and GURPS, which some complain have too rapid advancement. Instead of two character points, give out one CP and a fate point.

A new feature has been added to Fate's Warning; scroll down the page, and let me know what you think; I think this GM interaction gives a more balanced result.

I like the option at the end. It'd be especially good in groups where the GM trusts MOST of the players, but not all of them.

The problem I usually have with the removal of GM control often proposed here on the Forge is that it only takes one player's lack of "maturity" to ruin the game. And even the best, most mature people can sometimes be swept up in a moment that makes them act them use a metagame mechanic inappropriately -- and it only takes this happening once, in many cases, to ruin a campaign.

Of course, the GM can ruin the game just as easily. But when there is only one person capable of doing that it's less likely that they'll get carried away. Plus, if the players have been with the GM for a while they know how much they trust him.

Just to double-check: when using fate points are the Scope, Duration and Impact must purchased separately? For example, would a fate that impacted the NPC Merchant (1), for one scene (2), with a major change (3) end up costing 6 fate points (1+2+3) or 3 fate points, defaulting to the cost of the highest category, in this case Impact.

Second question, what happens if two players disagree over the point value of a proposed fate expenditure? Who's going to make the final decision regarding level of Scope, Duration, and Impact- the GM? Group vote? The player making the purchase?

Laurel

Laurel,

Your example would cost 6 points; the values are added.

For your second question, I'd suggest that the GM makes the last decision; it's his game after all, and FW isn't meant to create a totally GM-free environment or remove control from the GM's hands.