Dec 11, 2018 Open Table Fate Core’Hey all’I’m a...
*Open Table Fate Core*
Hey all!
I'm about to start an experiment in an open-table Fate Core game, roughly using something like Game of Thrones as a template. Here's the rule modifications, basically:
1) Every player starts with a Main Character. These are created as normal, including Phase Trio, etc.
2) The game starts in a single location where all of the main characters are for some reason. After this, there is no presumption that the characters stick together.
3) A player may call for a scene at any logical point. If other characters wish to be in the scene, they can. Otherwise, they can be Compelled to be in the scene.
4) Any player that does not have a character in a scene can create a Supporting Character to be in the scene. This character is created as per the Quick Creation rules - High Concept and peak skill to start.
5) (debating) Supporting Characters are not "owned" by their players, and are available for general use.
6) Fate Points are owned by characters, not players.
7) Minor Milestones happen when characters get sufficient downtime to rest/recuperate
8) Each Main Character has a "question" that is their arc. Progress towards resolving this question (positively or negatively) creates milestones for Main Characters.
9) Supporting Characters get the benefits of milestones with the Main Characters that they are traveling with/"attached" to.
10) Supporting Characters can be upgraded to Main Characters when the table agrees that they have become narratively significant enough and have their own goals that are interesting enough to pursue.
11) If sufficient new players enter the game at one time, standard character creation + phase trio and starting "episode" can happen as per the beginning of the game.
Thoughts? Any reasons that this is immediately horrible? This is primarily a first draft, and I do presume that it will end up getting tweaked as it comes into contact with reality.
Hey all!
I'm about to start an experiment in an open-table Fate Core game, roughly using something like Game of Thrones as a template. Here's the rule modifications, basically:
1) Every player starts with a Main Character. These are created as normal, including Phase Trio, etc.
2) The game starts in a single location where all of the main characters are for some reason. After this, there is no presumption that the characters stick together.
3) A player may call for a scene at any logical point. If other characters wish to be in the scene, they can. Otherwise, they can be Compelled to be in the scene.
4) Any player that does not have a character in a scene can create a Supporting Character to be in the scene. This character is created as per the Quick Creation rules - High Concept and peak skill to start.
5) (debating) Supporting Characters are not "owned" by their players, and are available for general use.
6) Fate Points are owned by characters, not players.
7) Minor Milestones happen when characters get sufficient downtime to rest/recuperate
8) Each Main Character has a "question" that is their arc. Progress towards resolving this question (positively or negatively) creates milestones for Main Characters.
9) Supporting Characters get the benefits of milestones with the Main Characters that they are traveling with/"attached" to.
10) Supporting Characters can be upgraded to Main Characters when the table agrees that they have become narratively significant enough and have their own goals that are interesting enough to pursue.
11) If sufficient new players enter the game at one time, standard character creation + phase trio and starting "episode" can happen as per the beginning of the game.
Thoughts? Any reasons that this is immediately horrible? This is primarily a first draft, and I do presume that it will end up getting tweaked as it comes into contact with reality.
Shared to the community Fate Core - Public
The progression rules may need tweaking but hard to say without playtest.
Like the idea that supporting cast are not owned by any player.
Maybe a way to promote a supporting cast member to a series regular?
I wonder if trying to fit in a post-start phase trio is cleanest way to accomplish connection in an open table game. It might be interesting to take a page from Fiasco, and have a pool of "relationships" that joining players could chose from. Or, to give players more say in the sort of stories that would happen to their characters, perhaps players could establish relationship stems that new entrants could pick up.
"Any player can call a scene" are you imagining players calling flashback scenes or just contemporaneous scenes?
Is progression actually important to such a game? The outcome of including it would seem to be that surviving main characters get progressively more secure and capable relative to new mains and support characters. That seems undesirable. Sure, a character like Arya does the "zero to hero" arc at a cost. But the overall War of Roses thrust of GoT is that people do horrible things to try to make themselves safe, making the world overall more unstable and dangerous, so that they feel they have to do even worse things. Letting people "level up" seems counterproductive.
"Fate Points are owned by characters, not players." Is the intent here to facilitate engagement and play of support characters? Because it might encourage bloody GoT action if players had their own Fate points when playing their main character. I'm imagining something like the person playing Ned Stark conceding and being executed, and the player keeping the tasty Fate points from concession for their next main. Or something like that. Just thinking if you want a story with lots of sudden bloody reversals, making them rewarding them could be an effective design strategy.
Anyway, that's a lot of random questions, inspired because the core idea is so neat.
I wonder if trying to fit in a post-start phase trio is cleanest way to accomplish connection in an open table game.
I doubt it, and that's why I wouldn't do it. My template for adding a character is basically Tyrion meeting Bron. There's clearly not time for a Phase trio there, and that wouldn't work. Just quick-character-create and be on your way.
Phase Trios post-start would be reserved for the equivalent of "Hey, let's start a new set of main characters in a different geographical area".
"Any player can call a scene" are you imagining players calling flashback scenes or just contemporaneous scenes?
Hadn't really considered flashback scenes, to be honest. It's an interesting thought.
Is progression actually important to such a game?
Honestly, I don't know. Leaving it in was more a point of "that's what Core does, so don't muck with it unless I have a strong reason to" than anything. That might be a thing that gets deprecated over time. Of course, Fate doesn't have the level of character advancement that something like D&D does anyway, so I'm less concerned about it. Still, a good thought.
"Fate Points are owned by characters, not players." Is the intent here to facilitate engagement and play of support characters? Because it might encourage bloody GoT action if players had their own Fate points when playing their main character.
This is something I vacillated on, and still do to an extent. Mostly I came down where I did because it removes some level of gaming, and seems to make more narrative sense to me. What I don't want is a situation where character A has all the bad luck and just funnels the Fate Points to character B who has a super easy path.
For the Ned Stark situation (which I'd disagree on it being "sudden", much like the Red Wedding), I'd probably be more likely to go with some kind of "reward" given to another primary character, if anything. I think that'd give what you're looking for with less intentional or accidental abuse potential.
Open table means that the people who play for a given session are those who showed up. No presumption of ongoing commitment exists.
The entire conversation spawned from a discussion about one-shots vs. long-form campaigns - and how to deal with scheduling sessions when you also have "adulting" to do. :) I really desire long-form campaigns but its so hard to find and maintain groups with a consistent meeting schedule - which leads to lots of one-shots and abandoned campaigns.
Keep us posted, +Robert Hanz if you work it through further.