Summary of Differences Bwtween FC and D&D

[Desertpuma]

There is a general mentality that killing the obstacle is the only way around it. Gladly, Spycraft weaned me off of this but most players in RPGs have never found that.

[Nova]

AD&D had a few bonuses for beating things without combat. For psykers, using your powers to avoid a fight (like by using mind control or stealth) gave you 1.5x the class xp bonus you'd get for straight combat use. Lots of bonuses were for things that weren't fighting, such as treasurefinding, traps, converting people to your cleric's faith, etc.

It was encouraging players where you can get most of them; the points.

[EmptyOwl]

I have a few questions about FC as it compares to D&D3e/Pathfinder.  Specifically, I am concerned as to how over-the-top cinematic/heroic it looks to be.

I have always (since TORG/Masterbook/Deadlands) used a "fate point" mechanic which puts some narrative control in the player's hands and as such I am pretty free with giving out points (even allowing players to reward each other and me as the main mechanic of earning them).  I would hazard a guess that 15-25 "points" a session per player is pretty standard for my games.  Is this going to be too many AD?  How many do you give out in an average 6-8 hour session?

Does the mechanic of exploding action dice get crazy?  Are your players challenged when they can increase their die results so much?

I like tactical combat but I encourage players to be useful in combat and out, building characters in a setting vs. in a vacuum like many old-school role-playing games.  Is it common to min-max and make just ugly characters with no role but slaughter (like D&D4e)?  Is it easy/common to gimp a character for heroic play which includes a typical amount of combat (like most D&D modules/games)?

With scaling NPCs I like the thought that players are growing in depth and tools they can bring to the table vs just raw numbers and power.  In play, do you really get much mileage out of creatures they fought at level one and that have only scaled with them vs increasing in ability and powers as well?

So far I like what I see and have read in the forums, but I only have so many game-system switches in me and my group left and I would hate to waste one on a system that reads well but will ultimately disappoint once we get to the mid/high game.

Thanks in advance!

[ArawnNox]

I have a few questions about FC as it compares to D&D3e/Pathfinder.  Specifically, I am concerned as to how over-the-top cinematic/heroic it looks to be.

I have always (since TORG/Masterbook/Deadlands) used a "fate point" mechanic which puts some narrative control in the player's hands and as such I am pretty free with giving out points (even allowing players to reward each other and me as the main mechanic of earning them).  I would hazard a guess that 15-25 "points" a session per player is pretty standard for my games.  Is this going to be too many AD?  How many do you give out in an average 6-8 hour session?

Most of my d20 experience was with DnD and it's settings. I loved the Action Points in Ebberron when I first encountered them. However, I found them to be very limited. They only refresh each level, so there's little desire to use them, lest a situation come up where you need it.
The Action Die, on the other hand, are WONDERFUL. They refresh each session and the guidelines for giving them out are flexible enough to adapt to the style of game you are running. My players used them and used them frequently. I'm middle of the road when I give them out, I suppose. If I get a description beyond "I attack" I give an action die. If a player comes up with an interesting idea, I give one or two. When one of my players took charge of a situation and got the party going, rather than standing around waffleing, she got an action die.

Does the mechanic of exploding action dice get crazy?  Are your players challenged when they can increase their die results so much?

Since you start with d4s, the exploding will happen more often, but I've never seen it get crazy. It's also a cause for excitement at my table.

I like tactical combat but I encourage players to be useful in combat and out, building characters in a setting vs. in a vacuum like many old-school role-playing games.  Is it common to min-max and make just ugly characters with no role but slaughter (like D&D4e)?  Is it easy/common to gimp a character for heroic play which includes a typical amount of combat (like most D&D modules/games)?

Many people on this forum that the only way to "gimp" your character in Fantasy Craft is by overspecializing. The system really favors well-rounded characters, built around a concept rather than "what combat mechanic can I exploit". My roommate built his Drake around the idea of emulating a Dragon as close as he could, so he took a lot of species feats, but had made him with the background of being an enslaved gladiator, and took levels in Sage. He was the groups heavy artillery, and was there to make everyone work better together with the Sage skill related abilities.

With scaling NPCs I like the thought that players are growing in depth and tools they can bring to the table vs just raw numbers and power.  In play, do you really get much mileage out of creatures they fought at level one and that have only scaled with them vs increasing in ability and powers as well?

That depends. I can't speak from personal experience, but some have noted that the monster you use at level one won't be up to par with the players at level 10. They'll be good from a numbers department, but because the players will have gained more feats and class abilities, they'll have more options for defeating the monster, and thus it'll be less of a challenge. I myself don't have much of a problem with this because that would help the players feel more powerful, rather than going "man, even after all this adventuring, those kobalds are still a challenge, what gives?"

So far I like what I see and have read in the forums, but I only have so many game-system switches in me and my group left and I would hate to waste one on a system that reads well but will ultimately disappoint once we get to the mid/high game.

Thanks in advance!

I, personally, advocate FC to all my RPG buddies. I will say this, if you pick up FC, you'll need to look at it as a whole new system, and not a port of DnD. That'll save you a lot of headaches and confusion when you start reading it.
Also, if you do find yourself confused as you read it, come to these forums. I've never seen a better, more helpful community and the creators are regularly around to answer questions.

[Krensky]

I have a few questions about FC as it compares to D&D3e/Pathfinder.  Specifically, I am concerned as to how over-the-top cinematic/heroic it looks to be.

It's variable depending on the GM's style and what campaign qualities he uses.

I have always (since TORG/Masterbook/Deadlands) used a "fate point" mechanic which puts some narrative control in the player's hands and as such I am pretty free with giving out points (even allowing players to reward each other and me as the main mechanic of earning them).  I would hazard a guess that 15-25 "points" a session per player is pretty standard for my games.  Is this going to be too many AD?  How many do you give out in an average 6-8 hour session?

Per player? That seems sort of high. Then again, 6 to 8 hours a session seems high.

I ran my SG-1 game last night, things started a little late (45 minutes) because work had me 120 miles away from my neck of the woods and it took me slightly longer to get to the game then usual. Game ran for about two and a half hours, which covered the team inserting into a target system, running some sensor scans, breaking their cloaking device, alerting the bad guys they were in system, effecting repairs, almost crashing three times, avoiding the bad guys, finding some useful intel, identifying a target, coming up with a plan heading off to put it in effect. This is a SC2.0 game, but it's close enough for our purposes here. I gave out eight action dice in total, and most players still had some of their starting dice left. This was with a four die Perk on their part, and using dice to cover their asses in places.

One thing to remember, is that Action Dice don't serve any function outside of their Narrative Control. They don't contribute to XP or advancement. Also, if you're handing out 30 action dice a session to the players, it also means you're giving yourself 30 dice to use as well.

Does the mechanic of exploding action dice get crazy?  Are your players challenged when they can increase their die results so much?

Dice don't explode that often unless the player really, really works at it. Even then it's not that common.

I like tactical combat but I encourage players to be useful in combat and out, building characters in a setting vs. in a vacuum like many old-school role-playing games.  Is it common to min-max and make just ugly characters with no role but slaughter (like D&D4e)?  Is it easy/common to gimp a character for heroic play which includes a typical amount of combat (like most D&D modules/games)?

It's hard, numerically, to do so. There are no dump stats and typically getting small bonuses to all stats is more useful then a large bonus to one and a penalty to some. Classes get decent numbers of skill points. Skills are important in combat (Harsh language (Intimidate) 'kills' standard NPCs (the vast majority of all adversaries) just s fast as lethal.

With scaling NPCs I like the thought that players are growing in depth and tools they can bring to the table vs just raw numbers and power.  In play, do you really get much mileage out of creatures they fought at level one and that have only scaled with them vs increasing in ability and powers as well?

I've been using the same SS Squad, Totenkopf Squad, Schlepangel, Mad Scientist, and Officer stat blocks for ten levels. To be honest, I may have tweaked them a time or three, but it was two or three points at the most and I can't recall doing it. If you find the PCs walking over NPCs as they gain level nothing stops you from spending a minute or two adjusting them. I've even done it in combat when I realized that the ghouls my SG-1 team encountered didn't have enough grunt in their bite to punch through the team's armor. One minute later and they were scaring the begeezus out of the players and characters. They weren't really in danger, they had too much terrain advantage and there weren't enough ghouls, but the players thought they were.

So far I like what I see and have read in the forums, but I only have so many game-system switches in me and my group left and I would hate to waste one on a system that reads well but will ultimately disappoint once we get to the mid/high game.

[TheTSKoala]

There is a general mentality that killing the obstacle is the only way around it. Gladly, Spycraft weaned me off of this but most players in RPGs have never found that.

Took forever to get players off that mentality.  The learning point was finally attained when between them and their objective was a fully functional T-72 MBT and all they had was small arms.  

Does the mechanic of exploding action dice get crazy?  Are your players challenged when they can increase their die results so much?

Not to the point where it's broken.  Typically, when / if they explode, it leads to.. "AWWWWW YEAHHH!" player moments, and not "Damn it.. that was suppose to be a 7 hour fight" moment.

I like tactical combat but I encourage players to be useful in combat and out, building characters in a setting vs. in a vacuum like many old-school role-playing games.  Is it common to min-max and make just ugly characters with no role but slaughter (like D&D4e)?  Is it easy/common to gimp a character for heroic play which includes a typical amount of combat (like most D&D modules/games)?

Depends on the GM.  My players used to.  Then I would min / max the NPCs to work on their min maxing.. ..and they quickly got the hint.  In FC or SC, if you min / max, you have a very obvious and vulnerable weakness.

[EmptyOwl]

Depends on the GM.  My players used to.  Then I would min / max the NPCs to work on their min maxing.. ..and they quickly got the hint.  In FC or SC, if you min / max, you have a very obvious and vulnerable weakness.

I certainly appreciate the freedback everyone is giving.  I own and have read the FC 1st edition, so I understand the basics, but comments like the above are where talking to long-term players of the game really help out with grasping the nuances of the system.

Does the stress/subdual mechanic on special characters have a good feel in play or is it something players just abuse or use as a shortcut to ending combats?  It seems like it could really shortcircuit an adventue/combat if the players loaded up specifically to use it.

As far as the AD awards, I can modify how many I award, I just wanted a feel for how many is too many.  I plan on not taking dice when I give them and letting my players award them to each other and the GM as it has always worked well in my groups.  I like how it encourages role-playing and cooperation.  Of course I retain veto power in cases where people get silly and award them for getting them 

[ArawnNox]

Depends on the GM.  My players used to.  Then I would min / max the NPCs to work on their min maxing.. ..and they quickly got the hint.  In FC or SC, if you min / max, you have a very obvious and vulnerable weakness.

I certainly appreciate the freedback everyone is giving.  I own and have read the FC 1st edition, so I understand the basics, but comments like the above are where talking to long-term players of the game really help out with grasping the nuances of the system.

Does the stress/subdual mechanic on special characters have a good feel in play or is it something players just abuse or use as a shortcut to ending combats?  It seems like it could really shortcircuit an adventue/combat if the players loaded up specifically to use it.

As far as the AD awards, I can modify how many I award, I just wanted a feel for how many is too many.  I plan on not taking dice when I give them and letting my players award them to each other and the GM as it has always worked well in my groups.  I like how it encourages role-playing and cooperation.  Of course I retain veto power in cases where people get silly and award them for getting them 

From what I've read on the forums, in the early levels, Stress/Subual isn't really all that different from lethal. Its not until you hit the higher levels that it becomes much easier to take down a Special NPC enemy with stress or subdual, as opposed to hacking away at their mountain of vitality.
If you want the NPC to stand up against this tactic, you can always give them the Damage Resistance quality. And some NPC types will be out right immune to it (undead, for example).

[TheTSKoala]

Depends on the GM.  My players used to.  Then I would min / max the NPCs to work on their min maxing.. ..and they quickly got the hint.  In FC or SC, if you min / max, you have a very obvious and vulnerable weakness.

Does the stress/subdual mechanic on special characters have a good feel in play or is it something players just abuse or use as a shortcut to ending combats?  It seems like it could really shortcircuit an adventue/combat if the players loaded up specifically to use it.

It's another tool / tactic available to the game.  In some scenarios, Stress & Subdual are required.  Take them alive, no casualties, etc.  It's also a GREAT, no... let me rephrase that... INCREDIBLE resource for those who are not strictly combat characters.  While it COULD become an overwhelming tactic, so could a party of 5 drakes with breathe weapons and greatswords...

[Krensky]

One thing to remember too.

FC, despite appearences, has a very strng narrative element to it. Don't view building a PC to have large bonuses to something as the player trying to beat the game or short circuit a scene (assuming they're not a dick). Rather, view it as them saying "I want to be awesome and never loose this type of challenge. I don't care about not doing so well at other things as long as I rule at this thing." Give them chances to rock at what they want to be awesome at. Conversely, you also need to let them fail at the other things.

[Morgenstern]

FC, despite appearences, has a very strng narrative element to it. Don't view building a PC to have large bonuses to something as the player trying to beat the game or short circuit a scene (assuming they're not a dick). Rather, view it as them saying "I want to be awesome and never loose this type of challenge. I don't care about not doing so well at other things as long as I rule at this thing." Give them chances to rock at what they want to be awesome at. Conversely, you also need to let them fail at the other things.

And that right there will always be why I was astonished that the negative reaction to banned checks.

In a (balanced) game you CANNOT say "I always win." Character building is as much about negotiating the types of losses you are comfortable with as with choosing the place you shine.

[Desertpuma]

There is a general mentality that killing the obstacle is the only way around it. Gladly, Spycraft weaned me off of this but most players in RPGs have never found that.

Took forever to get players off that mentality.  The learning point was finally attained when between them and their objective was a fully functional T-72 MBT and all they had was small arms.  

You have no idea how many times I had to remind players that if they die there is no resurrection available (back in SC1.0).

You just have to coach yourself into repeating: "There is no dump stat. All of them are valuable." The low Charisma soldier is going to be a staple early on until they realize that they don't want to do that. Getting bitched in a Stand Off will make them remember more quickly than anything, especially if a Courtier does it to them.

[TheTSKoala]

Side note:  Cheating Death option.  Coolest difference... ...ever. 

[paddyfool]

Narrative Control vs DM fiat.  (OK, so the former is just an option... but it's a really good one, and illustrates a key difference in gameplay).

(EDIT) Also, on a more general note: Less books, more options.

[TheTSKoala]

Narrative Control vs DM fiat.  (OK, so the former is just an option... but it's a really good one, and illustrates a key difference in gameplay).

(EDIT) Also, on a more general note: Less books, more options.

/ agree!