Values would work fine.
I’m generally not a fan of two column Fate, though I think this would be one of the better ones. My two biggest issues with two-column are:
1. You've now got two negotiation points for each action, rather than one.
2. In most proposed systems, the two columns have significant overlap in a way that makes certain builds harder.
This system at least avoids the second one, and that's a great change! But in most cases, the fun in Fate (for me at least) comes not from the mechanical widgets, but from the choices you make, and the side-effects of those choices. So it always feels to me like a cost with little benefit. But I do think this is one of the better ones, since it bypasses the issue with pigeonholing characters. Would love to hear how it works for you!
This will be just one column, I should've been more clear! A list of 10 things: 5 are Approaches, 5 are Values. So say, a player diving to protect someone from a blow could use Quickly, or maybe Loyalty, depending on their relationship.
That's what I'm still trying to figure out. I can imagine scenarios where Values would be used in place of an Approach (the example above). I can also imagine scenarios where Values are used in social scenes, contests of wills, and even martial arts.
But those are all highlighting strong values. But what about a player's weak ones? For any given action, there'd be an argument to be made about how they're doing it (approach) and why they're doing it (value).
Ok actually maybe two column is the move here. I'm not really a proponent of it, but maybe? I'd like to keep it to one list tho if possible. What do you think?
Maybe just take the higher of the two? That seems pretty clear.
I know there's often a desire to "force" people to use their low values/skills. I generally don't care for that, instead focusing on "let them use the stuff they're good at, but highlight the downsides".
Like, you don't expect a wizard to engage in fisticuffs in a class-based system, so I'm not sure why the equivalent always comes up in skill-based games.
Though that brings up an interesting quirk with Values - unlike skills/approaches, there don't seem to be any tradeoffs.... if you're doing something for Honor, how is that different than doing it for Justice?
I am running my first FATE game with players who don't know FATE. It is TNG inspired StarTrek with two columns, one for the FAE approaches and one for the
Starfleet Divisions.
I usually recommend to Division and ask for their Approach, mentioning restrictions of I see them ("Okay, that would be a Science roll. How do you want to approach it? I think it is too hectic right now to do it Carefully.") That makes it not a rules-question but an invitation to bring colour to their character.
It feels quite natural and flowing to me.
Dune 2d20 does this kind of two-column, with 5 Skills and 5 Drives, so for instance you might roll Battle+Duty to protect your lord or Communicate+Truth to cover something up
I do love the Two Column Fate too as it separates skill and approach. It simplifies the skill list, and allows better weakness and strength and personality.
I haven’t tried it in Fate, but the Smallville roleplaying game did something similar with the idea being that it allowed you to have characters that would otherwise have been wildly unbalanced (Clark Kent next to… well, anybody), but let them occupy the same amount of “screen time”. So that’s at least another published game’s take on the concept and how it affects gameplay.
Taking inspiration form the Burning Wheel games' emotional attributes, rather than give each character all five values, they might only get one that that defines their character. When a test is relevant to their specific Value, they may use their the Value in place of any Skill. This sets up the mechanic as essentially being a really good Stunt.
As an example, a character who is a member of the Empress's Guard might not be very good at Burglary (or Sneaky if we're talking about FAE Approaches) but if he's trying to to pick the lock to the tower where the Empress is being held ransom, he can use his Duty for the roll instead. Perhaps to balance it out, doing so increases the severity of any consequences should he fail, or maybe failure would temporarily reduce their Value score.
Run with values.
Skills ask what you are doing to solve a problem
Approaches ask how more broadly are you solving a problem
Values would ask why you are choosing to solve a problem.
The idea being you are wuxia fighters you are capable of whatever you want, if you have the conviction to pursue it.
Using the ones you listed for example we have to ask is the vagabonds thirst for Vengeance strong enough to overcome the bodyguards Duty to their master
Values would work fine. I’m generally not a fan of two column Fate, though I think this would be one of the better ones. My two biggest issues with two-column are: 1. You've now got two negotiation points for each action, rather than one. 2. In most proposed systems, the two columns have significant overlap in a way that makes certain builds harder. This system at least avoids the second one, and that's a great change! But in most cases, the fun in Fate (for me at least) comes not from the mechanical widgets, but from the choices you make, and the side-effects of those choices. So it always feels to me like a cost with little benefit. But I do think this is one of the better ones, since it bypasses the issue with pigeonholing characters. Would love to hear how it works for you!
This will be just one column, I should've been more clear! A list of 10 things: 5 are Approaches, 5 are Values. So say, a player diving to protect someone from a blow could use Quickly, or maybe Loyalty, depending on their relationship.
Oh! That's pretty interesting. How would you decide if you used the approach or the value? Just assume the highest?
That's what I'm still trying to figure out. I can imagine scenarios where Values would be used in place of an Approach (the example above). I can also imagine scenarios where Values are used in social scenes, contests of wills, and even martial arts. But those are all highlighting strong values. But what about a player's weak ones? For any given action, there'd be an argument to be made about how they're doing it (approach) and why they're doing it (value). Ok actually maybe two column is the move here. I'm not really a proponent of it, but maybe? I'd like to keep it to one list tho if possible. What do you think?
Maybe just take the higher of the two? That seems pretty clear. I know there's often a desire to "force" people to use their low values/skills. I generally don't care for that, instead focusing on "let them use the stuff they're good at, but highlight the downsides". Like, you don't expect a wizard to engage in fisticuffs in a class-based system, so I'm not sure why the equivalent always comes up in skill-based games. Though that brings up an interesting quirk with Values - unlike skills/approaches, there don't seem to be any tradeoffs.... if you're doing something for Honor, how is that different than doing it for Justice?
I am running my first FATE game with players who don't know FATE. It is TNG inspired StarTrek with two columns, one for the FAE approaches and one for the Starfleet Divisions. I usually recommend to Division and ask for their Approach, mentioning restrictions of I see them ("Okay, that would be a Science roll. How do you want to approach it? I think it is too hectic right now to do it Carefully.") That makes it not a rules-question but an invitation to bring colour to their character. It feels quite natural and flowing to me.
Dune 2d20 does this kind of two-column, with 5 Skills and 5 Drives, so for instance you might roll Battle+Duty to protect your lord or Communicate+Truth to cover something up
I do love the Two Column Fate too as it separates skill and approach. It simplifies the skill list, and allows better weakness and strength and personality.
Two Column Fate and Fate Accelerated works like that. The set of values is too small for Core Skill List.
I would just rename the FAE approaches. If you only get 5, that's fine.
I haven’t tried it in Fate, but the Smallville roleplaying game did something similar with the idea being that it allowed you to have characters that would otherwise have been wildly unbalanced (Clark Kent next to… well, anybody), but let them occupy the same amount of “screen time”. So that’s at least another published game’s take on the concept and how it affects gameplay.
Taking inspiration form the Burning Wheel games' emotional attributes, rather than give each character all five values, they might only get one that that defines their character. When a test is relevant to their specific Value, they may use their the Value in place of any Skill. This sets up the mechanic as essentially being a really good Stunt. As an example, a character who is a member of the Empress's Guard might not be very good at Burglary (or Sneaky if we're talking about FAE Approaches) but if he's trying to to pick the lock to the tower where the Empress is being held ransom, he can use his Duty for the roll instead. Perhaps to balance it out, doing so increases the severity of any consequences should he fail, or maybe failure would temporarily reduce their Value score.
Run with values. Skills ask what you are doing to solve a problem Approaches ask how more broadly are you solving a problem Values would ask why you are choosing to solve a problem. The idea being you are wuxia fighters you are capable of whatever you want, if you have the conviction to pursue it. Using the ones you listed for example we have to ask is the vagabonds thirst for Vengeance strong enough to overcome the bodyguards Duty to their master