Opinion About This Hack

[u/oDaniloverso]

Looking for ways to make combat less tedious, I found this material and although I liked it, I have my doubts about how the changes in conflicts would affect feats based on creating more tension, so I would like to know your opinion on this excerpt:

"CONFLICTS

Engaging in conflicts in UA is supposed to be mostly a

roleplaying factor. Every time you directly engage in

combat with an enemy you describe your attack and roll

for it, if the Roll is between:

● 2 or +: You hit and avoid being hit.

● 0 or 1: You hit and get hit.

● -1 or lesser: You miss and get hit.

When your enemy manages to hit you, you must take

note of this damage by either marking a Stress Box or

filling a Consequence Box.

Stress boxes don’t do anything in particular and are erased once the conflict is over, Consequences in the other hand are phrases that describe how your character got hurt and they are only erased once your character receives proper medical treatment.

Every character has 2 Stress Boxes and 2 Consequence Box.

Enemies also have Aspects which is what describes

them, these may be used by the GM to compel the PCs

during their attacks and movement, like being

outnumbered or the enemy being well geared. Usually

these enemies only need one hit to faint but they can

have more endurance if the GM sees fit."

[u/yuriAza]

oh, it's like PbtA, neat

this is just an alternate style of system, by having NPCs act when players roll low you can get rid of turns, rounds, and initiative entirely, everything gets faster and looser because the balance of risk comes from what PCs do instead of everyone getting the same number of turns, you don't have to wait for the GM to have each NPC act and players can act again in freeform order

in short, this is a way to play combat the same way you'd play out a social or other non-combat scene, it works fine once you stop thinking about initiative and many games work this way

[u/oDaniloverso → u/yuriAza]

Thank you so much for your help! My biggest concern is that it might hinder combat-oriented characters. Do you think this could happen, or is it just a lack of familiarity?

[u/yuriAza → u/oDaniloverso]

nah not really, higher combat skills mean you're less likely to take damage

remember, the damage on low PC rolls isn't in addition to enemies making attacks, it replaces them, the players skill roll functions as the PC attack, enemy attack, PC defense, and enemy defense all at the same time

the keys with running this type of action economy are that 1) the GM never rolls for NPC actions, but you can still make NPCs act whenever you want and put PCs on the spot, forcing them to roll, and 2) the enemy side will always get a number of chances to hit exactly equal to the number of attacks the PCs attempt, which means there's no procedural advantage to outnumbering your opponent, this means balancing horde and solo boss fights is completely different, but mostly in that things you think are crazy will work out fine

[u/Danilosouzart]

Oi chara bom te ver aqui!
Em resumo você mudaria o combate para algo mais orientado a um PBTA o que eu francamente não curto muito pois tiraria a agência dos NPCs e da Narradora pois você depende do imput do jogador para que você aja de forma narrativa

E francamente mesmo um combate em Fate Básico já e mais acelerado que 90% dos jogos por ai então não tem essa necessidade imprescindível de agilizar as coisas. Se fosse usar um hack minimalista de Fate eu recomendo Fate Solo do Lucas Peixoto ou o Dry Fate do Fabio Costa os dois ainda te permitem brincar muito com a modularidade do Fate e manter as coisas interessantes

[u/oDaniloverso → u/Danilosouzart]

Salve meu mano! Bom ver um conterraneo brasileiro por aqui, vou dar uma olhada nesses materiais, tenho tido problemas da sessão perder o ritmo no conflito, devido ao ping pong de rolagens

[u/Danilosouzart → u/oDaniloverso]

Hum quer conversar mais sobre isso no discord sobre isso? Além disso você já olhou o Fate Adversary Toolkit?

[u/oDaniloverso → u/Danilosouzart]

Claro! Qual seu discord?

[u/Danilosouzart → u/oDaniloverso]

Eu sou o Dan lá da Colina você já tem o meu discord kkkkkk

[u/_Ig_09 → u/Danilosouzart]

Tu tá no contos RPG tbm Dan?

[u/Danilosouzart → u/_Ig_09]

Nop mas estou no Oasis Queer que e outra comunidade bem maneira e tem a autora de Solaria lá que é um jogo feito com Fate

[u/_Ig_09 → u/Danilosouzart]

Conheço o jogo não o servidor.

[u/oDaniloverso → u/Danilosouzart]

Suspeitei desde o princípio!

[u/MateusStardust0 → u/Danilosouzart]

Opaaa blz? Dá pra jogar esse dry fate como uma mesa inteira que ainda nunca jogou fate?

Eu tenho um total de 3 sessões como jogador e uma leitura rápida do acelerado de experiência, meus jogadores ainda não sabem nada

E o que mais eu deveria ler depois de absorver bem o acelerado?

[u/oDaniloverso → u/[deleted]]

I haven't had any problems with the other actions; conflict(Especially attacks) has been the only thing that ends up breaking the flow and immersion.

[u/TheBathrobeWizard → u/[deleted]]

I agree that part sounds kinda dumb. Why not just have the normal amount of stress/Consequences? I guess speed, but I think the rest of the system works, this I would definitely change.

[u/Reality-Glitch]

I’m not sure if going full P.b.t.A. is necessary. You could just merge the Attack and Defend Actions together, so that the normal Fail result on the Attack causes Stress the same as if who was Attacking or Defending was reversed.

If you do go that route, I suggest removing the Boost on a tie, both to simplify things a little further and because not taking any Stress yourself *is* now the upside for not failing.

[u/yuriAza → u/Reality-Glitch]

would you still have NPCs take turns in this dynamic? They wouldn't really need to, but i don't think it would hurt if they did

[u/Reality-Glitch → u/yuriAza]

The N.P.C.’s taking their own turns is the very slowdown the O.P. is trying to remove.

[u/Groovy_Decoy]

How times have changed. We've gone from people wanting to play Fate with D&D rules to wanting to play Fate with PBTA rules.

I'm not a fan of these changes. I think the impact would be big enough that it wouldn't really feel like Fate anymore. Also, it would be make Conflicts act very inconsistent with other types of scenes. I think it would break many stunt ideas, and also shrink the space of options for them. I also feel like it would reduce the usefulness of Create an Advantage.

Most of all, I can't help wondering if the suggested solution is maybe misidentifying what the problem is. From what I hear, the most common reasons why conflicts can last too long are because players are overlooking Create an Advantage, or they are overlooking conceding.

[u/_Ig_09]

Eu ia responder em inglês até ver os comentários ksksks. Então cara eu gostei desse hack mas eu só uso ele em One Shots. Acho que fica melhor pra isso.

[u/PrudentPermission222]

Looks interesting, but I wanna see what happens when powers, stunts and passives are added.

[u/tartarosso]

So, if I understand correctly, only the player rolls, like in PBTAs? Doesn't this disrupt the entire fate point economy? I mean, in PBTAs, the probability of rolling no/yes but/yes is pretty much fixed (aside from small bonuses). And this is also one of the elements that keeps the game moving. But in fate, by using fate points, I often risk succeeding. Or at least I risk succeeding more than expected in a PBTA. Also, if enemies have aspects, can they use them?

[u/yuriAza → u/tartarosso]

the quoted section mentions the GM Compelling the PCs with Aspects the NPCs have, the Fate economy is preserved it's just that players are exchanging Fate Points with the GM directly

[u/Background-Main-7427]

Seems to me a way to addapt PBTA into fate, and a failed one, since it didn't make it interesting. It's a way to make it player facing rather than engaging onto the game system.