Topic: Alternative to Fatepoints

[Ecthelion]

The essence of this rule is, while eliminating Fate Points, still keep players from dying too often and give armors an little extra edge. But still maintain that its not a permanent thing, once the piece of armor is broken it cannot save against a second Critical in that location.

What ya think?

At the moment for me the existing Fate Points rules seem to clearly be the better choice. So what do you see as the advantage of your rule vs. the Fate Point rule? Perhaps this helps me understand it better.

[Temujin]

That said, one thing struck me. The NPCs have armor too, and it stands to reason that they would make use of this rule as well as the players. So if enforced I would end with neverending combat with bits of armor flying about

Mending Ways for the win

[Nejira]

At the moment for me the existing Fate Points rules seem to clearly be the better choice. So what do you see as the advantage of your rule vs. the Fate Point rule? Perhaps this helps me understand it better.

I want a rule that has an ingame explanation for the character surviving an otherwise lethal blow. With a game mechanic which runs in the background but with visuals in the foreground. IMO Fate Points don´t do this, it´s a deus ex machina game mechanic. But it´s also needed to allow for less mortality among player characters, as RM is quite lethal.

So my thoughts were with armors taking the blow instead, you would have both the saving of the PC´s hide and an ingame mechanic which explains why and how the PC survives that deadly blow (the armor breaks).

After posting my idea here and getting feedback, I was made aware of the flaws of this system:
A: Armor is cheaper than Fate Points, and in essence this rule could lead to endless Fate Points just by a different name.
B: NPCs use armor too, but not all NPCs have Fate Points. Of course I could use the same concept of just having the major NPCs take advantage of the armor rule, but that made little sense as reference to my need for an ingame explanation. So either it would be everyone had Fate Points in form of their armor which would lead to long battles with pieces of armor flying all over the place, or the concept of a piece of armor suddenly being imbued because a PC wears it.
C: Unarmored PCs would get the short end of the stick.

A possible solution (for me at least was inspired by Arioch)

What about this: a player can choose to ignore a crit result (not the damage done by an attack, just the crit) by increasing the "level" of risk run by his character. This means that he must put his character in a dangerous situation to avoid the effects of the critical.

I took the "dangerous situation" and made it into "complication", as I feel that putting your character at risk runs contrary to the point of sacrificing armor to save your own butt. So the PCs (and major NPCs) have a number of Fate Points which they may spend to negate a Critical, but spending them creates a complication of its own. EG: The armor or weapon breaks, the E Crit to the head only knocked the PC out instead of taking off his head, and so forth.

So conclusion? I can´t say this is better than the normal Fate Point rules or worse for that matter. All comes down to your preferrence of play I guess. I am glad I posted the idea in its raw here, so I could get all the feedback allowing me to see the idea from a different pov 

[Cory Magel]

There are far too many characters in our games that do not wear armor for such a system to work.  You are also forcing your characters to use armor if they want to have the opportunity to use your version of fate points, which I doubt is your intention.

Still, when someone takes a 100 E crit and you change it into "Your armor breaks" isn't that the same as saying someone uses a Fate Point to avoid the same... well... fate?  I really don't see a difference when it comes down to it.

[Nejira]

Still, when someone takes a 100 E crit and you change it into "Your armor breaks" isn't that the same as saying someone uses a Fate Point to avoid the same... well... fate?  I really don't see a difference when it comes down to it.

Yeah it is. It was an idea, and in its present form it doesn´t fly right.

[RandalThor]

I want a rule that has an ingame explanation for the character surviving an otherwise lethal blow.

Then what I suggest you do (other than what I have already  ) is explain it. For that situation, each being different, work with the player to determine how you think they "got lucky." Use your imagination and you just might find it a good way to expand upon your existing story-line. We have all read those books that have the incredibly lucky incidents. (Just before the slavering beast jumped our hapless hero, the ground broke under his feet and he dropped into a previously unknown chamber.....)

Because of the sheer variety of situations possible, the number of ways in which this can be handled are likewise incredible. Use your imagination, don't just make a same-old-same-old scenario rule.

[yammahoper]

Here's an alternative to fate points;

"Ah, no, geez, see...your dead."

Just finished a killer session of SM.  As the story unfolded, the climax included a rush into the enemy compound.  Trip Adams, my Armsman, engaged two guards with surprise, fumbled the attack roll (jamming the weapon) and BOTH security guards lit him up good...as in good and dead.

Not to worry since I had an engineer PC for back up.

[Nejira]

Alas, poor Trip Adams! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that.