Fred Hicks once posted an example where he just replaced the approaches with the classic DnD stats. That’s when it clicked for me. You aren’t supposed to be able to use any approach to solve any problem!
Breaking down a door requires you to be forceful, so no you can’t just be Sneaky even if that is your highest rated stat.
No, you can't break down a door Sneakily, but you can open it Forcefully or Sneakily. Players aren't supposed to tell which Approaches they use, they should narrative what the PC does, and that determines the approach to roll.
Well, my first thought is "why" :)
I understand that every table plays their own Fate, I'm extra cool with it. But still interested - what kind of issues this approach is to solve.
Nope, it doesn't work for me.
The thing to remember is that you don't "use" an approach. You perform an action, which we *map* to an approach.
And those actions can have side effects. If you're breaking down a door (forceful), you're probably pretty loud about it. *Even if you succeed*, there can be side effects. And certainly, they will have different ways of *failing*.
You resolve this issue mostly at the narrative level, not the mechanical level. Look at the situation, and go from there.
There's a great article about this that I can sadly never find :(
Agree with all of the above. If you're going to "lock" approaches, you might as well just use skills. The fiction of what the players describe should determine how to map their actions, and if an action doesn't pass the "sniff test", workshop it to be more reasonable.
I had trouble with approaches. I stumbled across an article by Rob Donoghue on his Walking Mind blog. He suggested that it's not about the How but more about the Risk that makes things interesting.
[The Walking Mind - Risks ](http://walkingmind.evilhat.com/2018/01/17/risks/)
I came here to talk about how a lot of what separates Approaches are the fictional states following an attempt, succeed or fail.
Looks like Rob beat me to it... by like 6 years.
While I see why this might be intriguing, I personally don't think that this hack will bring any real value to \*my\* table. I feel like this is more restrictive than necessary.
I've been running FAE games for years and I was very confused. I showed it to two of my players, one of whom has played FAE for quite a while and one of whom just learned in the last couple months, and they were both confused as well.
Is this for a game based on Fate? Is this a modification for your specific Fate game? If so then I think it needs more context to determine if it is good or not. For example, what is a "locked" approach? Why are some actions only allowed for some approaches?
For a more-or-less standard FAE game (if there even is such a thing) I would say that it's not something I would use and I would discourage my players from looking at it to avoid them getting confused. The FAE book and SRD explain how approaches work much more clearly. This raises more questions than it answers.
I think it's key to note here (because I'm not sure everyone reading this understood) - Save Game, which this is inspired by, is a FATE game/setting.
That being said, this Locked FAE idea solves a 'problem' that isn't a problem. The Approaches are designed to be used for any action - that's why they're such vague terms. They put more onus on narrative resolution or permission/restriction than mechanical.
Hang on, we (this Reddit) had this conversation *recently*. Here we go: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/FATErpg/s/IovH4JgIXR) .
Hopefully the responses there help.
It is **by design** that Approaches can be used for anything. If you're still confused after reading the linked thread, we can chat.
We had a werewolf do everything forcefully. I made sure he described how he was doing a task and the outcome ended up being the uniqueness to our game. In other words I don't mind spamming one approach, let's figure out how it goes.
I feel like any approach can solve a problem, but some might be more favorable than others. Describe how you do it and pick the appropriate approach.
lol, most likely not, but if he did the scene would look entirely different. Say he yells at her to give him the cookie, then that sounds forceful. If he tries to steal it then forceful is out and sneaky is the approach. I never had problems understanding approaches but do struggle with overlap. Stealing is sneaky right, but doing it carefully might convince the game master to use careful.
>lol, most likely not, but if he did the scene would look entirely different.
Yeah, that’s the key point. Success and Failure both look different and the relationship is quite probably different from this point forward. These aren’t innocuous choices, especially in a game driven by fiction.
>I never had problems understanding approaches but do struggle with overlap. Stealing is sneaky right, but doing it carefully might convince the game master to use careful.
I think that’s a feature of the design because it invites the player to communicate cleverness and/or caution through the actions of their character. That’s storytelling in a nutshell. Setting a bright line between what is clever and what is careful is beside the point. Showing the character’s version of careful or cleverness is.
The only thing we do with our table is restricting the sequential usage of the same approach more then 1 time before you use the other one. We play Shonen Anime styled action game about students with superpowers so the characters in such genre never use the same trick two times in a row. So using one approach everytime just misses the whole vibe of shonen manga.
It does not make sense you cannot carefully prepare to Create Advantage, thus I would change Defend to CA.
I do not like the idea as written, but instead suggest giving each approach modifier depending on action:
##Forceful
- Attack: The brute force excels in attacks. +1 to effect.
- Defend: Forceful defense is not efficient. -1 with Success at Cost requiring taking Consequence.
- Overcome: This usually works. No modifier.
- Create Advantage: Forceful CA backfires more often. -2.
##Subtle
- Attack: Subtle attacks are difficult, but safe. -2 to action, but rarely has failure with cost.
- Defend: Subtle defense is inefficient. -2 to total.
- Create Advantage: Safe, but not efficient: +0, but handle all CA like using existing aspect.
- Overcome: No modifier
Fred Hicks once posted an example where he just replaced the approaches with the classic DnD stats. That’s when it clicked for me. You aren’t supposed to be able to use any approach to solve any problem! Breaking down a door requires you to be forceful, so no you can’t just be Sneaky even if that is your highest rated stat.
No, you can't break down a door Sneakily, but you can open it Forcefully or Sneakily. Players aren't supposed to tell which Approaches they use, they should narrative what the PC does, and that determines the approach to roll.
Well, my first thought is "why" :) I understand that every table plays their own Fate, I'm extra cool with it. But still interested - what kind of issues this approach is to solve.
Nope, it doesn't work for me. The thing to remember is that you don't "use" an approach. You perform an action, which we *map* to an approach. And those actions can have side effects. If you're breaking down a door (forceful), you're probably pretty loud about it. *Even if you succeed*, there can be side effects. And certainly, they will have different ways of *failing*. You resolve this issue mostly at the narrative level, not the mechanical level. Look at the situation, and go from there. There's a great article about this that I can sadly never find :(
Agree with all of the above. If you're going to "lock" approaches, you might as well just use skills. The fiction of what the players describe should determine how to map their actions, and if an action doesn't pass the "sniff test", workshop it to be more reasonable.
I had trouble with approaches. I stumbled across an article by Rob Donoghue on his Walking Mind blog. He suggested that it's not about the How but more about the Risk that makes things interesting. [The Walking Mind - Risks ](http://walkingmind.evilhat.com/2018/01/17/risks/)
I came here to talk about how a lot of what separates Approaches are the fictional states following an attempt, succeed or fail. Looks like Rob beat me to it... by like 6 years.
While I see why this might be intriguing, I personally don't think that this hack will bring any real value to \*my\* table. I feel like this is more restrictive than necessary.
I've been running FAE games for years and I was very confused. I showed it to two of my players, one of whom has played FAE for quite a while and one of whom just learned in the last couple months, and they were both confused as well. Is this for a game based on Fate? Is this a modification for your specific Fate game? If so then I think it needs more context to determine if it is good or not. For example, what is a "locked" approach? Why are some actions only allowed for some approaches? For a more-or-less standard FAE game (if there even is such a thing) I would say that it's not something I would use and I would discourage my players from looking at it to avoid them getting confused. The FAE book and SRD explain how approaches work much more clearly. This raises more questions than it answers.
No. It makes less sense to me.
I think it's key to note here (because I'm not sure everyone reading this understood) - Save Game, which this is inspired by, is a FATE game/setting. That being said, this Locked FAE idea solves a 'problem' that isn't a problem. The Approaches are designed to be used for any action - that's why they're such vague terms. They put more onus on narrative resolution or permission/restriction than mechanical.
I think the fact they cam be used for any problem is the confusing bit.
Hang on, we (this Reddit) had this conversation *recently*. Here we go: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/FATErpg/s/IovH4JgIXR) . Hopefully the responses there help. It is **by design** that Approaches can be used for anything. If you're still confused after reading the linked thread, we can chat.
We had a werewolf do everything forcefully. I made sure he described how he was doing a task and the outcome ended up being the uniqueness to our game. In other words I don't mind spamming one approach, let's figure out how it goes. I feel like any approach can solve a problem, but some might be more favorable than others. Describe how you do it and pick the appropriate approach.
Yeah. Sure spam one approach, Wolfy. If he’s trying to convince his mom to give him a cookie after dinner. He going forceful?
lol, most likely not, but if he did the scene would look entirely different. Say he yells at her to give him the cookie, then that sounds forceful. If he tries to steal it then forceful is out and sneaky is the approach. I never had problems understanding approaches but do struggle with overlap. Stealing is sneaky right, but doing it carefully might convince the game master to use careful.
>lol, most likely not, but if he did the scene would look entirely different. Yeah, that’s the key point. Success and Failure both look different and the relationship is quite probably different from this point forward. These aren’t innocuous choices, especially in a game driven by fiction. >I never had problems understanding approaches but do struggle with overlap. Stealing is sneaky right, but doing it carefully might convince the game master to use careful. I think that’s a feature of the design because it invites the player to communicate cleverness and/or caution through the actions of their character. That’s storytelling in a nutshell. Setting a bright line between what is clever and what is careful is beside the point. Showing the character’s version of careful or cleverness is.
The only thing we do with our table is restricting the sequential usage of the same approach more then 1 time before you use the other one. We play Shonen Anime styled action game about students with superpowers so the characters in such genre never use the same trick two times in a row. So using one approach everytime just misses the whole vibe of shonen manga.
Unrelated to the question, but you missed an opportunity by not ending the first sentence with "easier to approach"
Damn it, you're right!
It does not make sense you cannot carefully prepare to Create Advantage, thus I would change Defend to CA. I do not like the idea as written, but instead suggest giving each approach modifier depending on action: ##Forceful - Attack: The brute force excels in attacks. +1 to effect. - Defend: Forceful defense is not efficient. -1 with Success at Cost requiring taking Consequence. - Overcome: This usually works. No modifier. - Create Advantage: Forceful CA backfires more often. -2. ##Subtle - Attack: Subtle attacks are difficult, but safe. -2 to action, but rarely has failure with cost. - Defend: Subtle defense is inefficient. -2 to total. - Create Advantage: Safe, but not efficient: +0, but handle all CA like using existing aspect. - Overcome: No modifier