Adding some FATE to LL?

[kaomera]

Hello, fellow Labyrinth Lords and assorted Dungeon Denizens (and even any Heroic Explorers!), been a bit since I've been around, lovely new forums you have here...

I have been considering the possibility of combining some aspects (literally ) of the FATE rpg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATE_%28role-playing_game_system%29 ) to Labyrinth Lord. Here's what I've come up with so far (with some included explanation):

Fate Points: FP are the basic currency of the FATE system, as shown below. I'm thinking of setting the "refresh" (how many FPs a character would start each adventure with) at 3 at first level, increasing by 1 for every 2 levels thereafter. I'm not sure this isn't too few at lower levels, nor am I certain if increasing refresh as you level is the best idea... (Note: the LL has an effectively infinite number of FPs, but when he uses one he gives it to the affected player.) Ideally FPs are represented by some physical token (I use "stones" to refer to these, but poker chips etc. are good too, M&Ms not so much...)

Aspects: Aspects are little narrative "truths" about the game. Characters (PCs & NPCs), locations / scenes, and objects / items can all have aspects to them. I'm thinking of starting each PC with 3 at 1st level, gaining one additional at 3rd, 5th, and 7th levels (to a maximum of 6 total). Your 1st-level aspects should be tied to three of: your character's race and/or class, your character's background / training, your character's highest and/or lowest ability score, and why exactly your character has taken up life as an adventurer instead of settling down like normal folk. Later aspects should have to do with the events of actual play. You can also change an aspect at an appropriate point - usually when you level, and only if something significant has happened to the character to warrant that change.

Aspects on NPCs, etc. are more open-ended. They should be assigned as needed, and the LL should be open to (good / reasonable) player suggestions. For instance, if you've described how wet and slimy the stones of the dungeon are, the players could choose to tag "Wet and slimy" as an aspect to gain a bonus when attempting to upset the footing of monsters they encounter, even if you never specifically decided that was an actual aspect of the dungeon. Of course, now that you've had it pointed it out to you it could well be that the next time the M-U casts a fireball you push a stone his way and describe the huge cloud of steam created...

As an example, a 1st level Dwarf with a 16 Dexterity and a 6 Wisdom who is a former tunnel-scout for a Dwarven hold might choose three of:
* "Holds his friends close to his heart - and his gold just a bit closer."
* "Stand back - I'm a professional!"
* "Light-fingered but lacking in judgment."
* "Honestly, I meant to give it back!"

Note that aspects should generally have both good and bad sides to them. This creates a kind of economy - the LL has bad things happen to your character, but that gets you the resource (FPs) you need to make good things happen to your character... And, ideally, getting FPs should be a win-win situation for the players, as it not only gives their character an advantage to save for later but should be making the game more interesting right now.

FPs are spent to say "Hey, this aspect is important to the story right now!", in three ways: You can spend a FP to "tag" an appropriate aspect, gaining a +2 bonus to a roll or a re-roll (more on that in a second). You can also spend a FP to "compel" an aspect (this is normally something the LL would do, but I'm definitely amenable to players throwing compels at NPCs where appropriate). When you compel an aspect you force an appropriate course of action on the target of the compel, although the player or LL still has control over the character as appropriate. So, for example, the LL could compel the above character's "Stand back - I'm a professional!" aspect to have him step forward to deal with a trap the party has encountered, but the player gets to actually choose how to go about it. You can also outright refuse a compel, but it costs you a FP (so, if the LL compels one of your aspects and you accept, then you gain a FP; if you won't go along with it, then it costs you a FP instead). Lastly, you can make a "declaration" related to an aspect for a FP. A declaration is some reasonable (usually fairly minor) fact or statement about the game-world. Declarations are handled at the LL's discretion; the LL can over-rule a declaration outright and/or suggest a more reasonable alternative. If the declaration is over-ruled or the player doesn't accept the alternative then no FP is spent and nothing happens.

Bonuses and re-rolls: A +2 bonus in FATE is really significant, but IMO it works well OK d20 rolls (given the scarcity of other large bonuses). Re-rolls would, IMO, be more problematic, I'm thinking of maybe making them cost 2 FP or more. For other checks (d6 rolls etc.) I think the issue is reversed - re-rolls are the way to go, +2 is too much. In either case I think I'd go ahead and allow tagging after a roll is made, especially since it avoids situations where you'd waste your FPs otherwise.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions? I need to clean this up a bit, but it's basically what I'd be presenting to the players as info; any ideas on making it clearer or even more interesting to them?

[kaomera]

To explain why I would want to do this: kind of ironically (but not really) it's because I'm a "we don't need a rule for that" kind of guy... However, I've found that the players I've talked to that seem interested in the possibility of doing something with Labyrinth Lord (or BD&D / AD&D / other retro-clones) don't approach the idea of "we don't need a rule for that" the same way that I do. A number of the players I'd really like to run for, and who I'd think would make for a fun, cool, creative game, seem to want to stick exclusively to the stuff that there's specific rules for. So if they want to roleplay cool, interesting characters they grab an indy RPG or something, and if they where playing something like LL they would pretty much stick to the hack & the slash & the buying of equipment, etc...

I guess, personally, I'd like to have my cake and eat it as well. One of the really cool things about my BD&D / AD&D experience (especially early on, before I "knew better") was the way we could say cool things about the character / background / setting, etc. and it just was. While I like a lot of newer systems for their own strengths, playing in them often means a significant compromise as far as who my character is. You have to juggle points or pick a few items from a limited menu, you can't just say something like: "My guy's the Baron's son and he's the best horseback rider in the kingdom and he's got a real rivalry going on with that Mr. Fancypants paladin..." and be done with it. (That's an actual character from one of my AD&D games, and the best part was that all of that stuff was added to the character in play, as it came up...)

FATE does that pretty well (except for the adding stuff in play - I could tweak things that way but I don't think it's worth it), with the added bonus that it incentiveizes taking stuff that makes the character more interesting in a broader way (ie: aspects with both positive and negative connotations for the character). But I also like Labyrinth Lord; old-school D&D of any sort scratches some itches that I'm not going to get scratched otherwise. I run 4e, and it's cool and all, but I find myself missing the "feel" of old-school campaigning. And while I could try and pull that off with FATE, it seems easier (more straight-forward, really) to yank the stuff I really like and add it to LL.

So, a couple more ideas on this: One, it needs to be stated that you can use tags "defensively" (or "offensively", really, if you're casting a spell with a save allowed), because of the way that LL handles things. FATE is mostly contested rolls, for LL you should be able to apply a penalty to your opponent's roll, as needed. Also, one of my friends has suggested increasing the bonus from tagging, and I'm thinking about that. On the one hand +2 isn't really that big of an deal, but on the other hand the highest ability bonus you can get in LL is a +3. I'm thinking of maybe making the first tag worth +4 (or -4), and further tags +2 (or -2). That would increase the value of a FP without making it too easy to just buy a success.

Now, buying success with FP is a thing in FATE, but I don't think it fits LL as well. I'm not 100% sure though, I have had a few players claim that the biggest problem they have with D&D (in general) is rolling a "1" and "wasting your turn". I think it depends on the players. Personally I think that something should be happening each round, whether you hit or miss...

[Adapt]

This thread caught my attention right away because I have thought about using FATE's aspects with Mutant Future. I love FATE, and I have ported their aspect system into a few different games, but I found myself asking these very same questions.

I don't see re-rolls on 1d20's as being inherently problematic. If they are overused, then I can see how they would detract from the game, but the limited number of Fate points each character has per session would keep things in check. Since characters only have so many Fate points at any time, I think they should count for something slightly more than a +2 bonus. Also, this way you have just one simple rule for FATE points, instead of having to add a bonus if it's a 1d20 roll, re-roll when it is a 1d6 roll, do who-knows-what if its a percentile roll, etc.

The other thing I realized while musing on using aspects in Mutant Future is that the aspect system really works best in games that have enough opportunities for making dice rolls that aren't combat related. For example, you mentioned a background from one of your old characters: "My guy's the Baron's son and he's the best horseback rider in the kingdom and he's got a real rivalry going on with that Mr. Fancypants paladin...". This is a great background, and - in FATE terms - it is loaded with great aspects, but unless your game features a lot of mounted combat (or unless he's going to be fighting that paladin during every session) there won't be many opportunities for him to use those FATE points. If you use ability checks in your game to handle things like riding a horse or diplomacy, then that same character would have many opportunities to use his aspects and fate points.

In short, I love the idea of using aspects in Labyrinth Lord, and I would probably do so in my own campaign if I had one going, but they won't work very well unless you make sure to give the character's the opportunity to put them into play.

[kaomera]

When I've played FATE, the FPs have just been flying around, so that's where I was coming from thinking that a re-roll on a d20 might be a bit much. PCs usually take at least a few aspects as "FP engines", stuff that's going to come up a lot in a more restrictive / negative way so that they can milk it for FPs. I see where there's going to be an issue with the lack of significant die-rolling out of combat. Well, there's going to be some in exploration stuff, but you won't have the variety you would in a more skill-based game.

I'd really like to be able to just run the kind of free-form system I was used to in 1e AD&D, but a lot of my play experiences in recent years have pushed me towards the idea that if I want a particular style of play I want the system to actively encourage it... FATE does have a lot of similarities (albeit in a much more structured way) to that setup, and one half of the equation fits... But having a very specific mechanical "modulation" for the effect (ie: +2 or a re-roll, also the concept of FPs in the first place) is a big part of FATE. I suppose I there's the "minor narrative declaration" use for FPs, but I've actually found that's something that's a lot harder to get many players in the habit of using - and a lot of players are just generally opposed to active narrative control falling into their hands... Which is kind of a shame because one of the real draws to old-school gaming (for me) is the return of a great deal of significance and consequence to player choices / PC actions.

[finarvyn]

I've played both Fate and Labyrinth Lords, and in spite of your cool (and lengthy) post I still have a tough time thinking of them blended together.

It's just that Fate is so different, with all of the verbal details instead of hard numbers. I tend to run one style when my group tires of the other style, so a mix would be rather intriguing but still hard for me to imagine.

Now, I can sort of see taking the concept of a dungeon crawl and simply running it with FATE, but that that's not really what you have in mind either.

Probably a limit simply in my own mind. I'll have to ponder it further....