Makers of Award-winning Role Playing Games › Forums › Arcanis: The Shattered Empires › Harvesters Internal › Fate – Do the Impossible
- This topic has 23 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
- March 18, 2014 at 5:44 pm #150967AnonymousInactive
Was that taken out? Per a question in the Public Forum. I thought we were adding a use of “Ignore a Flaw” once, but didn’t realize that was replacing “Do the Impossible”?
John
March 18, 2014 at 6:00 pm #259701AnonymousInactiveYup…it’s gone. As I understand it, it was being misapplied all around.
March 18, 2014 at 6:02 pm #259702AnonymousInactiveoh thank god!
I would like to suggest we add a ” you may spend a fate to gain use to a talent you have access to “
March 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm #259704AnonymousInactiveWow I am very saddened by this. I read some of the ‘impossible’ things you listed and they are absurd. However, most players use it for very good effect and that should stay. Otherwise, a lot of the arguments of “Well a player can just use a Fate to gain access to “so and so” talent or spell” are now invalidated.
Can it be re-worded to be
“Spend a Fate to gain access to a Talent, Spell, Martial Technique that you don’t currently possess that is your Tier or lower.”
Also, spending Fate to do something cinematic should be kept. I’ve used them before to be able to pull someone from harms’ way with my steel whip, etc. and those still fall within the general realm of “improbable”.
I guess the big issue is, the game has GM’s and a GM should be able to determine what is and is not possible with a “Do the Impossible” Fate. It’s not a hard and fast rule so it doesn’t need consistency in tables.
Overall, I think this is a hammer solution when a scalpel is called for.
John
March 18, 2014 at 6:09 pm #259705AnonymousInactiveYup…it’s gone. As I understand it, it was being misapplied all around.
Having played/run the game for 3 years I’ve not been at a single table where anything like what Pedro listed has occurred.
March 18, 2014 at 6:23 pm #259714AnonymousInactiveYeah, because I disabused Eric of that Idea really quickly
March 18, 2014 at 6:25 pm #259715AnonymousInactiveIt just seems overkill to remove the one major use I see a lot of (within the boundaries it was intended) for a few fringe cases when it’s easily within the GM’s responsibility to say “That’s not possible, even with a Fate Chip.”
March 18, 2014 at 8:15 pm #259746AnonymousInactiveIf you call can come up with wording for “do someone amazing cimimatic bla bla bla not bend space and time to your will or use it as an Iwin button” I’m all for it.
I like the idea of being able to do something outside the rules (pushing someone out of the way, leaping through a window onto a moving wagon, and so on)
March 18, 2014 at 8:33 pm #259757AnonymousInactive“Spend a Fate Chip to perform a desperate or cinematic act that has no associated rule but that is realistic for your character and the setting. The GM has final authority on what is and is not allowed.”
I think this might need to be separate from
“Spend a Fate Chip to use a Talent, Spell, or Combat Maneuver of your Tier or lower that you do not currently possess for one action or gain an additional use of a Talent that you have already used this scene.”
Both of those can be limited to once per session.
John
March 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm #259779AnonymousInactive“Spend a Fate Chip to perform a desperate or cinematic act that has no associated rule but that is realistic for your character and the setting. The GM has final authority on what is and is not allowed.”
THIS is full of win!
March 18, 2014 at 9:08 pm #259781AnonymousInactiveYeah I have the feeling that is going to fall into exactly the same problem as do the impossible
March 18, 2014 at 9:24 pm #259788AnonymousInactiveYeah I have the feeling that is going to fall into exactly the same problem as do the impossible
Care to elaborate?
March 18, 2014 at 9:32 pm #259792AnonymousInactiveyou can come up with any sort of excuse in the name of being cinematic
March 18, 2014 at 9:43 pm #259796AnonymousInactiveyou can come up with any sort of excuse in the name of being cinematic
1) And Realistic
2) And GM allowing itJohn
March 18, 2014 at 9:55 pm #259799AnonymousInactivecinematic to me means slowing the game down because someone wants to play a different game than everyone else, this is precisely the reason Eric Hughes and I butted heads and why i was happy the do the impossible rule was gone
- AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Harvesters Internal’ is closed to new topics and replies.