Gateway Post Mortem

So! Gateway went pretty well. The swashbuckling game was great, which easily had as much to do with my players as with anything else. I unwisely put off almost all my game prep for both that game and the D&D game I ran until the very last minute. I knew I was in trouble a few days earlier when I realized that if I were to take my printer with me to the hotel on Friday, I could just print stuff off there. This I did, and it meant running two games and playing in a third on Saturday powered by, say, two hours' sleep. I don't know how I made it, but I'm still catching up on sleep.

Anyway, this isn't a blog about me, so let's get to the mechanics.

• The roll-and-keep Fudge dice mechanic was good, as expected (and previously experienced).
• Also as expected, players tended to save up their Elan for when it really mattered. As evidence, I present the three simultaneous duels at the end of the game, all of which pretty much ended as soon as a player got Advantage.
• Speaking of which: The Advantage mechanic continues to be workable in spite of initial reservations about it slowing things down. Then again, I don't think it's gotten the workout it needs, either. In the playtest we did here in Irvine, our one duel had a lot of back-and-forth. At Gateway, those three duels resolved really quickly, because the players were loaded for bear while I didn't use any Elan at all for the baddies. In my defense, it was nigh unto the time of quitting and I wanted to wrap things up in a suitably heroic manner. Still, I maintain that the primary goals of the Advantage mechanic -- to encourage a more action-packed, dramatic narrative within combat and to make all skills matter in combat -- was met... with extreme prejudice. One attempt to obtain Advantage was essentially a staredown: Esprit vs. Esprit (or Resolve vs. Resolve, in SotC terms).
  
• A couple of the characters had higher Status/Social Class than the rest, and one was decidedly low-class, but... it didn't really come up, which was too bad. I blame myself for that, because it should have, but I missed it. The Baron Francois de Chevreuse had a few social conflicts in which Status easily could've acted as a complementary skill. So... my bad, there.

The basic plot involved the siege of La Rochelle in 1627-ish, which lasted for an interminably long time. Cardinal Richelieu assembles a diplomatic envoy to go into the Huguenot-controlled city and negotiate the terms of a surrender. This group includes Henri and Christian D'Aramitz (a pair of Gascon brothers renowned as among the bravest of the King's Musketeers who are also fierce rivals), Gaspar de Rocheforte (one of the Cardinal's Guardsmen, and therefore somewhat at odds with the Musketeers), Virgil (his reluctant manservant), Pascal Labrousse (a Catholic priest who secretly dreams of being a Musketeer), and the aforementioned Baron de Chevreuse (a young nobleman and the Cardinal's nephew, with an aspect of "Flighty, Arrogant, and Charming as Hell"). In addition to the stated mission, they're also to conduct reconaissance on the city's defenses and disable, by any means necessary, the La Vierge, a 500-tonne, 80-cannon ship captured by the Duc de Soubise, a leader of the Huguenot rebellion and the military mastermind behind La Rochelle's defenses.

(This is stolen in equal measure from reality and an old Flashing Blades adventure. Flashing Blades continues to be an awesome resource for the genre; I highly recommend it.)

It ended up being full of swashbucklery goodness and intrigue, including a secret message passed via a dropped handkerchief, a masked ball, disguises, mistaken identities, naked fencing, and three simultaneous duels aboard an exploding ship, among others. Best of all, as a playtest it vindicated a lot of the little tweaks and alterations I'd made here and there for the swashbuckling genre. More playtesting is needed, obviously, but it feels pretty solid now.

Gateway to Anglerre

Event pre-reg for Gateway started this morning, and my swashbuckling FATE game was full by noon. Bwuh? Well, "full" in Strategicon-even-pre-reg-speak actually means "half-full" -- the other three slots are left open for people to sign up on the day -- but still, good to see. Off hand, I can think of four or five people who would've jumped on it right away, so maybe it's not that surprising.

Here's the blurb:
Flashing blades! Courtly intrigue! Puffy shirts! Come swing on a chandelier or two in this swashbuckling romp through 17th-century France. Familiarity with the FATE system -- the engine that powers Spirit of the Century and Starblazer Adventures -- not required. So if you dig Dumas, savvy Sabatini, or relish Rostand, grab your rapier and get your derring-do derring-done. Have at thee!

(I'm also running a 4th-edition D&D game Saturday morning, but that's not really the kind of thing we talk about here.)

If you're in the LA area and want to check it out, by all means come on down. Even if the swashbuckling thing ends up having a line of people waiting at a red velvet rope, there are tons of other great games being run -- seriously, there's everything from RPGA D&D games to Houses of the Blooded to Toon -- plus a pretty sweet dealer room and lots of other non-RPG stuff. If you've just come from GenCon, it might seem a bit tame in comparison, but you'll still have a good time.

In other news, Legends of Anglerre is coming right along. After finishing the skills and stunts chapter (whew!), I was pretty much given free rein to work on just about anything that struck my fancy. So far that's resulted in new rules for Gambling conflicts, a method for turning a group of PCs into a single "group character" (along with rules to handle "group character" conflicts), and the thing I'm working on now, which started as a sort of abstracted-space random dungeon generator (an homage to one of my favorite bits of the old 1st edition AD&D DMG) but has morphed into a random location, terrain, zone, aspect, motivation, and antagonist generator. Still, I love me some random tables! Starblazer's full of 'em, so why not LOA?

The other LOA task hanging over me right now is writing up the demo I ran at Gamex. I've never had to write an adventure in a way that made sense to anyone but myself -- i.e., something more than sparse notes -- so it's a bit daunting right now. But I'll have it done in a week or so. I'll probably end up using my random stuff generator, to be honest.

Swashbuckling: Playtest!

So! Sorry for the radio silence. Parents are fine, baby's kicking, everything's good. I've been back and forth between home and my parents' place in the past few weeks, so the ol' blog has kinda fallen by the wayside.

Speaking of this blog-thing, though, last week we had our first actual playtest session using these swashbuckling rules, and it went pretty well. We had three PCs -- the M-Team: Michel the magistrate, Marion the musketeer, and Merlin the... er... ex-priest and 17th-century French equivalent of John Belushi in Animal House -- and two fights: one against some mooks, and the other a proper duel.

The plot, in brief, involves a kidnapping. Wealthy and powerful Michel is approached by the wife of a fellow Parisian magistrate, M. Des Lauriers. He's being held for ransom in Nice, only he's actually in Poitiers with his Huguenot mistress and the kidnappers have his double, but either way she begs Michel to round up, say, two friends and head down there to resolve things as discreetly as possible.

The mook fight was pretty much along the lines of every FATE mook fight in terms of mechanics, although I have to mention one highlight. The PCs had been tricked into thinking a bandit in a "broken-down" carriage was actually a mademoiselle in need. Shortly after her colleagues burst out of the foliage to either side of the road, Merlin knocked her out with a single punch in her face. Bam!

The duel, though, was definitely a focal point of the playtest, since it actually involved new mechanics. I have to say it went well. The opposition, a member of the Cardinal's Guards, wasn't quite the equal of Marion, but it was still a pretty good combat between them. The Advantage mechanic didn't have a perceptible effect on the speed of the combat, but I'd say it definitely added a lot in terms of the narrative. Both the player and I were encouraged to creatively one-up each other with our various attempts to gain Advantage. He used Physique to swing on a chandelier and land behind me, I used Brawn to try to trip him up by yanking on a rug, and so on. Ultimately, Marion got the upper hand, but chose to just knock me out instead of killing me, so... hello, recurring antagonist.

Meanwhile, the other two PCs faced off against the Guard's two companions. I'd anticipated that all four of them might sit on the sidelines and put aspects on the two combatants, but Merlin was so offended that they refused a friendly drink that he went right to throwing blows. So the four of them tussled, managing to get off an insult or two only occasionally but enough to make them feel part of the central conflict. I ran the other two Cardinal's Guards as true antagonists instead of just minions (i.e., they took consequences, not stress), so they were pretty persistent foes despite having a skill pyramid that topped out at Good (+3).

One thing we instituted and that I can really see myself sticking with is limiting aspect invokes/tags to once per scene. It meant that invokes were a little less frequent, and gaining access to more aspects (through story aspects, assessments, declarations, and consequences) became much more important. It made for a more dynamic conflict, since Andy couldn't just fall back on "Sargeant-at-Arms of the Black Musketeers" every time he drew his rapier -- and when he scored his first consequence, it felt like a bit of a bigger deal.

The next session's scheduled for this Thursday, so stay tuned for some more vague observations.

Swashbuckling: The Princess Bride Test

So I'm watching The Princess Bride on cable right now, and I can't help but see it in light of these swashbuckling rules. Even though the emphasis for this conversion is 17th-century French musketeers and the like, if a swashbuckling game can't do this movie, what good is it? Call it The Princess Bride Test. A couple scenes in particular stand out to me in mechanical terms.

First up: Inigo confronts Count Rugen. Neither has Advantage when it comes to Readiness rolls, although Rugen wins the roll and gets to go first. He jockeys for Advantage by running away, and obtains vitesse (a.k.a. spin) against Inigo on his Physique roll. This means that when Inigo rounds the corner after spending his turn dealing with that locked door (a Brawn roll that he gets Fezzik to help him with), Rugen's able to deal a pretty significant physical consequence to him with that thrown dagger (an Arms roll). If you've read the book (and if not, why haven't you read the book?), you'll know that this probably qualifies as a Grievous consequence: "Bleeding Out." Rugen is content to just watch him die, but Inigo refuses to make a concession, instead responding with his classic catchphrase. Rugen still has Advantage, and attacks again, tagging that consequence in the process; Inigo goes full defense, and only takes a Trifling consequence of "Arm Wounds." Determined to win Advantage, Inigo repeats his "Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya!" a few times in succession as part of his use of Presence to intimidate. Success! I'm sure he spends some Fate Points on this one, too. Once he has Advantage, his superior swordsmanship virtually guarantees him the win. Rugen, being an NPC (albeit an important one), can't survive a Grievous consequence, which is what Inigo gives him when he runs him through while politely requesting the return of his dead father, you son of a bitch.

Note that even though Rugen and Inigo spend a lot of time actually fencing after Inigo gets back on his feet, that's mere window dressing for the contest for Advantage. Up until he actually deals an injury, he's isn't using Arms. The idea is that Arms is only used for dealing consequences. Everything else is describing what you're doing, be it fencing or otherwise, in terms of some other skill.

Example the Second: Westley confronts Prince Humperdinck. Westley frames this as a mental conflict, using Presence (again) and maybe even Art, for being creative with that whole "To The Pain" thing. This one's interesting, because even though Humperdinck could escalate things from a mental conflict to a physical one, he doesn't. His response to Westley isn't to shove three feet of steel into his gut -- it's "I think you're bluffing."

Let me back up, though. Westley wins initiative and, in the process, Advantage. And because he wins intiative, he gets to control what kind of conflict it is (or at least what kind it'll start off as). He chooses mental, so he can freak Humperdinck out with a bunch of mind games. It's pretty much his only option, since he's still weak as a kitten from being mostly dead all day. When he calls Humperdinck a "warthog-faced buffoon," Humperdinck's reply of "That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me" indicates that he's probably taken a Trifling consequence of "Insulted."

Westley's player then tags this consequence for an unusual effect: Humperdinck won't escalate things to a physical conflict. As easy as it would be to impale Westley and be done with it, the player suggests, the prince's pride and curiosity preclude him from essentially admitting defeat in Westley's little challenge. The GM agrees. Of course, Humperdinck's no match for Westley in this conflict, even going full defense as he does (Humperdinck isn't especially proactive here -- he's all "Yes, yes, let's get on with it," leaving Westley to drive the conflict).

Westley carries on with some disturbing talk of Humperdinck losing his feet, hands, and eyes (but not his ears) as part of this bizarre "duel." (I'm not clear on how "To The Pain" works, anyway -- you lose body parts until you cry "Uncle"? Can't we just fight?) Like Rugen, he can't take a Grievous consequence, so when it comes time for him to defend against Westley's final salvo of words -- ending with his impossible-to-ignore "Drop! Your! Sword!" -- Humperdinck makes a concession rather than get Taken Out. "Fine," the GM says. "He stumbles backwards, horrified by the gruesome picture you've painted. You've intimidated him into submission, but you let him live so he can contemplate what a total coward he is." The player agrees, Westley collapses, and Humperdinck realizes he's been had.

This latter example brings up something I've been thinking about lately, and that's the concept of conflict framing and escalation. More on that as it develops.

Swashbuckling: More Stuff About Fencing

So we sorta kinda playtested these swashbuckling rules for the first time last night. I say "sorta kinda" because all we really did was make characters, talk about new rules tweaks, and play out half of a duel between two Joel's fencing mistress and Sayler's fencing student to see how Advantage worked in play.

Andy had some concerns that the Advantage rules, as written, might draw out a combat unnecessarily, a point well-taken. In practice, I don't think this was the case, but it was also kinda hard to tell just how quickly or slowly things were going because we kept stopping to talk about it. Ultimately, Nat had a good point about the relative importance of "fun" over "fast" -- who cares if it's taking a while as long as it's creating an interesting narrative and people are having fun? This is especially valid in a swashbuckling game, where personal combat has such a focus. Sayler and Joel said it certainly had the back-and-forth feel of a duel, with each of them constantly jockeying for advantage (and Advantage) over the other, and there was a lot of thought-provoking discussion about it all.

BTW, the characters:
Andy's playing a would-have-been priest who dropped out of seminary and took up a sword
Joel's playing a fencing mistress, largely self-taught, with a unique weapon
Nat's playing a "Chamingly British" nobleman (in France!) with a title and not much else
Sayler's playing another former man of the cloth and novice swordsman
Tony's playing a high-ranking social combat monster who spreads rumors better than Twitter

It should be restated that the Advantage rules are only for one-on-one duels with NPCs of relative importance. E.g., if you bothered to name the NPC, Advantage should probably come into play. Fighting minions uses the usual FATE rules for combat. Moreover, nobody should really be ganging up on a Big Bad: Either every PC has his own Big Bad or group of minions to fight, or one fights while the rest contribute from the sidelines. Last night I compared that latter situation to the film version of The Three Musketeers starring Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan (it's no Scaramouche, but it's a lot of fun). There's a bit early on where he duels with a sargeant (or something) of the Cardinal's Guard -- and Athos, Porthos, and Aramis just watch, shouting out insults and les mots justes now and then. Mechanically speaking, they're using skills like Art, Presence, and Perception to create aspects on the sargeant, D'Artagnan, or the scene. So they're contributing to the combat, but they're letting someone else do the fighting. I mean, together, they could easily slaughter the guy, but that just isn't cricket. I don't know how (or if) I'd enforce that mechanically, though.

On a related note, I'm thinking about limiting aspects to one tag or invoke per scene. Invoke it once, and you can't invoke it again. This would encourage more aspect creation through maneuvers and declarations (and maybe assessments, depending on the nature of the conflict), which seems to fit the genre very well. It also makes the Three Musketeers' insult-generated aspects that much more important. I compare it to the Blue Raja throwing forks into the wall so Mr. Furious can climb it. If you think of every fork as an aspect, it's a pretty appropriate analogy. Right?

Anyway, here's some actul crunch.

I had the idea that disarms could happen normally, or by voluntarily taking "Disarmed" as a consequence once per scene. As a Trifling (Minor) consequence, it'd be relatively trivial to pick up your weapon again (a supplementary action, say). As a Moderate (Middling) consequence, it'd require a skill roll, like usual -- say, opposed Physique rolls between the two combatants as one tries to block the other's path. As a Severe (Grievous) consequence, it'd be something appropriately dire. At the very least, you aren't getting that weapon back anytime soon. Maybe it's broken, or drops into the ocean. Unlike the usual rules for consequences of that degree, though, it might not necessarily change your life forever. Or it might. I dunno.

Anyway, if disarms work differently in this game than usual, I got to thinking about what other fencing maneuvers could be simulated.

• Bind: A defense usable only in Melee -- spend shifts obtained on a Block vs. Brawn.
  
• Dodge: Using Physique to defend. Nothing special.
  
• Feint: Chicanery vs. Arms (or something); shifts obtained = +dF to next attack, with maximum +dF determined by Arms skill (something like Arms - 1).
  
• Fleche: Arms modified by Physique, spend shifts to close distance from Ranged to Extended to Melee to Corps-a-corps (1 shift/pace, +1 shift for R to E, plus any other modifiers for crossing borders or barriers). If you don't have enough shifts to make that happen, you can take stress instead to complete the move (resulting in a consequence).
  
• Footwork: Use Physique vs. Physique to increase or decrease pace by one.
  
• Lunge: +1dF to your attack, +1dF to opponent's next attack.
• Parry: Using Arms to defend. If your next action is an attack, +1dF to Arms.
• Prise de Fer: An attack usable only in Melee -- spend shifts obtained on a Block with Arms (usually) vs. Brawn.
  
• Punch: Fisticuffs, only when Corps-a-Corps.
  
• Shove: Usable only when Corps-a-Corps. Brawn vs. Brawn (usually); success means pace becomes Melee. With vitesse (spin), it's Extended instead. Can't decrease pace.

Of course, I don't want to overburden gameplay with too much crunch, so I don't know if we'll actually end up using these. However, I invite you to try 'em out if you're so inclined.

Swashbuckling: Standing and Social Class

[Note: This is heavily inspired by Flashing Blades and the Size/Scale rules in "Spirit of the Sword" -- which are themselves adapted from the Weight Factor table in SotC. And thus, the circle is complete.]

[Note Too: Also, there's a reference here to Elan. This is known as Will in "Spirit of the Sword" and Chi in "Spirit of the Fist." They all work the same way: Spend a point of it before a roll to replace a Fudge die with a d6.]

One's place in society is a matter of no small importance in the swashbuckling genre. Here, it's represented through your Standing and Social Class (SC).

Standing is rated on the ladder like a skill, but one that's outside of a character's skill pyramid. In some circumstances, it can even be used as a skill, but for the most part it's an indicator of a character's standing in society. If you have someone with Fair (+2) Standing and someone with Mediocre (+0) Standing, you know right away the latter's in more or less a subservient position. Standing can also be used to modify other skill rolls, such as Rapport, or limit their effectiveness, such as with Connections. Social attacks are defended against with Standing, as well.

(Why outside the skill pyramid? Because Standing needs to be a fluid thing. Musketeers get promoted; nobles get disgraced. And I think all of that should be able to happen without having to shift a character's skill pyramid around.)

Standing starts at Mediocre (+0) by default. Right now, I'm thinking that a character could take a boon that increases his Standing by +1 (but that the only way to get this boon would be to take a specific kind of phase in character creation: Position). This would be the only way a starting character could increase his Standing. Of course, if you want to start with a lower Standing than Mediocre (+0), you're free to do so at no charge. As stated earlier, Standing can increase or decrease with promotions or demotions, and traveling to a foreign country can have a negative impact on a character's Standing as well.

Social Class limits the ways individuals of disparate Standing can interact in opposition. For every 2 points by which your target's SC is greater than yours, you must spend a point of Elan to inflict a social consequence on them even on an otherwise successful attack. For example, if a banker (SC 3) attempts to spread a scandalous rumor about the Count D'Arcy (SC 5), even if he obtains three shifts on his Connections roll he'll need to spend a point of Elan to deal the Middling social consequence his skill roll earned.

When making a Connections roll to gather information on an individual, SC limits the people with whom you actually have connections. Apply the absolute value of the difference between your SC and the target's as a penalty to your roll. This reflects the fact that it's harder to discover things about someone who's outside your normal social circles, whether higher or lower in station. For example, a mere infantryman (SC 2) trying to discover the name of a captain's mistress (SC 3) will have the difficulty of his Connections roll increased by +1, but that captain would have an equally hard time gathering information on the trooper. Yes, this does make it virtually impossible for the King of France to learn much of anything about a peasant -- but that's why he has people of lower Social Class in his employ. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable in a highly stratified society. (I know the old "Let them eat cake" incident is somewhat apocryphal, but the point is that it's believable. And this supports that sort of thing.)

Standing	Example	SC
Heavenly (+10)	The King	12
Glorious (+9)	The Queen, Princes	10
Illustrious (+8)	Grand Duke, Cardinals, Royal Ministers	8
Magnificent (+7)	Archduke, Royal Order Masters	7
Formidable (+6)	Dukes, Generals, Noble Order Masters	6
Superb (+5)	Counts, Archbishops	5
Great (+4)	Viscounts, Royal Officials, Magistrates	4
Good (+3)	Barons, Knights, Colonels	3
Fair (+2)	Captains, Bankers, Fencing Masters	3
Average (+1)	Sergeants, Minor Officials, Wealthy Merchants	2
Mediocre (+0)	Troopers, Merchants, Priests	2
Mean (-1)	Townsfolk	1
Embarrassing (-2)	Peasants	1
Shameful (-3)	Criminals	0

Swashbuckling: Skills

This is a short post, but I want to get this skill list out there so I can stop renaming everything back to SotC standard in future posts.

Whenever I start thinking about a new genre conversion, taking a close look at the skill list is one of the first things I do. I like to see what I can cut and what I can combine; rarely, I end up adding something. Regardless, I'm likely to do a lot of renaming. I find it goes a long way toward communicating the feel of the genre in question. For example, in "Spirit of the Sword," I could've left Science as Science, but renaming it to Physik gives it a totally different vibe in my mind.

Anyway, with that in mind, here's a skill list for "Spirit of the 17th Century."

Skill (New)	SotC Equivalent
Alertness	Alertness
Arms	Weapons
Art	Art
Brawn	Might, Endurance
Burglary	Burglary
Chicanery	Deceit
Connections	Contacting
Empathy	Empathy
Esprit	Resolve
Firearms	Guns
Fisticuffs	Fists
Gambling	Gambling
Horsemanship	Drive, Survival's riding trapping
Legerdemain	Sleight of Hand
Occult	Mysteries
Perception	Investigation
Physique	Athletics, Endurance
Presence	Leadership, Intimidation
Rapport	Rapport
Resources	Resources
Scholarship	Academics
Science	Science, Engineering
Seamanship	Pilot
Stealth	Stealth
Survival	Survival, sans riding

For example, there's nothing wrong with Weapons and Fists, per se, but Arms and Fisticuffs just feels so much more right to me. Ditto Chicanery. Chicanery! Is there another RPG out there with a skill called Chicanery?

(I've also renamed consequences for this one: Trifling, Middling, and Grievous. "Well-placed, sir! You have struck me a Grievous Arm Cut Off, indeed!")

Anyway, a few things got combined, so maybe I ought to explain those.

Drive becomes Horsemanship, and deals with both riding horses and driving wagons/carriages/etc. Even though horse-drawn modes of transport are more central to this genre than to, say, fantasy, I still can't see having an entire skill just for carriages. In the source material, those who are good at riding horses are also capable when it comes to controlling a team of them. So Survival loses its horse-riding trapping and is completely about, y'know, survival.

Leadership and Intimidation combine, Voltron-like, to form Presence. Again, in the source material, force of personality is a big thing. Those who are intimidating are generally so because of their charisma. Anyone who wants to be decently intimidating without having any real ability to lead can supplement that with a boon (+1 Presence when intimidating) and an aspect or two, since it's likely to be a situational thing.

Likewise with Might and Endurance. Brawn is all that physical toughness in one skill.

Science kills Engineering and takes its stuff. I just don't think there should be a separation between these here. It's the Age of Enlightenment and/or Reason.

Contacting becomes Connections, which seems minor, I'll admit, but I think it contributes to the more social elements of the genre. It's not about being able to gather information; it's about being well-connected. Connections is the defensive skill in social conflicts, which I'll talk more about later.

And that's all the justification I feel I need to do for you people.

Oh, one last thing: Gamex. Gamex went well. I ran two "Legends of Anglerre" demo games, which were enjoyed by all (or seemed to be), and got some good feedback to boot. Most of the mechanical comments were actually about Starblazer and the differences between it and SotC. I've never met anyone -- in person, in real life -- who actually plays Starblazer, though several of us own the PDF, nor do I think I know anyone anymore who plays SotC as written, so for those in my groups who were already familiar with SotC/FATE, getting used to the way Starblazer does things was an additional obstacle, but hardly one we couldn't overcome.

Swashbuckling: Salons D'Escrimer

Fencing schools -- the swashbuckling equivalent of magic, in a way. FATE being what it is, simply adding a bunch of bonuses isn't really the best route. Small bonuses make a big difference, and the last thing I want is a game of mechanical oneupmanship driven by escalating bonuses for no good reason. So I'm stealing a page from the Leonard Balsera playbook and doing a sort of roll-and-keep thing (roll XdF and keep the best 4dF). This increases the odds of getting a +4 on the dice without actually pushing past that threshold. I tried this out with an NPC in "Spirit of the Fist," and it worked fine. (That's "fine" as in "sometimes I still got a crappy roll, despite rolling 6dF and keeping the best 4dF.)

The simplest thing to do here is to treat each fencing school as a package of benefits -- say, three -- that's accessed through a stunt. I'm thinking there would be a number of these to choose from, organized in tiers that are unlocked by your Weapons skill. I concede that this is double-dipping a bit with Weapons, since it determines both how good you are in a fight and how versatile you can be, but c'mon, it's a swashbuckling game. That said, depending on the school a different skill could be used to determine just what you have access to. I'm thinking here of something like Academics or even Mysteries.

What fencing schools can do:

• +1-3dF (keep best four dice) with Weapons, Fists, or Guns for attacks, defenses, or specific type of weapon
  
• +1 in broad circumstances only with a particular skill that doesn't directly deal stress -- e.g., +1 Athletics to cover ground, +1 Intimidation in combat
• +2 to maneuver with a skill
  
• Use a different skill when rolling initiative
• Some other skill substitution in combat with non-stress-dealing skills
  
• One secondary skill can only complement and never restrict Weapons, Fists, or Guns
  
• No penalty to Weapons et al. when using a particular skill as part of a supplementary action
  
• +1dF when you have Advantage
• +1dF when you don't have Advantage
  
• Withstand an additional Minor consequence (this would be a very high-tier benefit)
  

What fencing schools can't do:

• Grant flat, blanket bonuses to Weapons, Fists, or Guns
• Grant flat bonuses to stress dealt on a successful attack
• Grant flat reductions to stress when successfully attacked
• Skill substitution that lets you use something other than Weapons et al. to deal stress

Notice I'm including Guns in there. That's just the completist in me, really, but there ought to be room for it; they aren't "The Three Rapierists," after all.

For example:
Salon de Montcharles: A school whose techniques revolve around understanding the opponent's mind and intimidating him into submission.

Novice Techniques (Prerequisite: Average Weapons)

• +1dF Weapons with rapiers
  
• +1 Empathy in combat
• +1 Intimidation in combat when you don't have Advantage
  

Intermediate Techniques (Prerequisite: Fair Weapons)

• Use Empathy instead of Alertness for initiative
• +2dF Weapons with defenses
  
• +1 Resolve when you have Advantage

Master Techniques (Prerequisite: Good Weapons)

• +1dF Weapons with attacks
  
• +1dF Weapons with defenses
  
• +2 Intimidation with maneuvers
  
• When you take a physical consequence, you may choose to take a mental consequence of equal severity instead

When you take the stunt for a particular fencing school, you pick three of its techniques from any available tier. The idea here is that I'd stat out a number of schools -- a dozen or more -- for players to pick from. That shouldn't prevent players from coming up with their own, but having pre-established schools would be an important bit of setting, I'd think. Techniques that grant bonus dice stack with each other, but techniques that grant flat bonuses don't: Use the highest applicable bonus. To take an example from the above, if you have +1 to Intimidation in combat and +2 to maneuver with Intimidation, using Intimidation in combat as part of a maneuver will only net you a +2 bonus. Keep in mind the rules of Advantage here. Normally, getting a +1 to Empathy in combat wouldn't be an especially big deal, but when a good Deceit roll can give you the ability to inflict consequences, having a decent Empathy suddenly becomes more important.

I'm not exactly sure how I'd handle other stunts (or their equivalent) here, but it'd be great if I could get away with limiting bonuses to Weapons solely to aspect invokes and tags. Oh, and the other thing I'd do is limit aspect invokes to once per scene, to encourage more maneuvers and the creation of new aspects.

Swashbuckling: Personal Combat Zones

FATE's great for fast-and-loose combat, but for a swashbuckling game you (or I) arguably want something a little more detailed to provide more tactical options. One in-genre way I can see to do this is to expand on the concept of zones by subdividing them into what I'm calling paces.

Like zones, paces measure your relative distance to your opponent in abstract terms. When it comes to personal combat, there are three basic types of weapons: very short weapons (daggers) or fists, swords and other weapons of "normal" length (the middle ground), and extra-long weapons like halberds. With this in mind, when you're in combat with an opponent and you're both in the same zone (i.e., this doesn't apply to ranged combat), you're at one of three paces:

• Corps-a-Corps (1): Literally "body to body." Too close to effectively make use of a rapier or longer weapon.
• Melee (2): The "normal" distance appropriate for your average rapier or the like.
• Extended (3): Too far for two rapier-wielders to engage, but close enough to hit with a polearm. (I'm on the lookout for a good French word for this; "lointain" isn't cutting it for me right now.)

Every weapon is most effective at one of these three paces, expressed like so: Dagger (1), Rapier (2), Halberd (3). Combat begins at the largest applicable pace -- Melee if you're both wielding rapiers, Extended if one of you has a polearm, etc. If your weapon's effective pace is different than your current pace, take a penalty to your attacks equal to the difference as long as that pace is maintained.

For example:

• You have a dagger (1), he has a rapier (2): Your attacks with your dagger are at -1 (1 - 2).
• Now you're the rapier (2) guy, and he's got a halberd (3): You still get a -1 to your attacks so long as you're both using those weapons.
• You have a dagger (1), he has a halberd (3): You're at a -2 on your attacks.

Etc.

"As long as that pace is maintained" is important. How do you figure out what pace you're at (that's awful grammar, but...) from round to round? The effective pace of the weapon that hit last is your current pace. If the dagger-guy hits the polearm-guy (despite that -2 for starting at Extended), he can only have done so by stepping inside the halberdier's reach and getting close enough to score a hit -- so you must be at Corps-a-Corps now. That means the halberdier's suddenly at a -2, because his weapon's much worse up close.

Combatants can also change the current pace as a full action with an Athletics roll (opposed by either Athletics or Weapons): 1 shift to adjust the pace by one step, 3 shifts (spin) to adjust it by two steps. If you have Great Athletics but only Fair Weapons, and you're in a dagger-vs.-polearm situation, it's worth your while to close distance before attempting to attack with that dagger.

Why do any of this? Well, in this genre, there ought to be more emphasis put on the weapons combatants use. Most fights are likely to be between combatants using Melee-pace weapons, which means it shouldn't have a big effect on every fight. Also, it's another little mechanical tidbit to play with when it comes to fencing techniques (up next!).

Swashbuckling: Some Basics

A recent thread on RPG.net has me taking a fourteenth look at my swashbuckling FATE stuff, so I figured I'd finally start posting it. There's kind of a lot of it, actually: ideas about fencing schools, maneuvers, non-clunky (I hope) differences between weapon types, a revamped skill list, social class, and more. It's all wildly untested, though, so keep that in mind as we go forward.

Now, like many enthusiasts of the genre, I'm a fencer. Er, at least, I was; it's been years, really, and it's such a physically demanding sport that I've found it tough to get back into after time away. Anyway, the point is that it's easy to get caught up in the details of fencing as a sport and overcomplicate combat mechanics as a result. I know, because I've done it before. So I've tried to stay away from that and stick to the core of what makes FATE so good: narrative elements, cinematic action, and fast-and-loose rules.

So, to that end: Advantage.

At the beginning of combat, roll a skill for initiative. This will usually be Alertness (or the swashbuckling non-union equivalent), but certain fencing schools could let you use something else instead: Empathy, Deceit, Resolve, etc. instead. If one combatant obtains spin in this contest, he gains Advantage. (Use a token of some kind to indicate this to keep it clear.)

As long Advantage is in play, it is required to inflict consequences in combat.

If the combatant with Advantage loses an exchange, he loses Advantage as well.

In the event that neither combatant has Advantage, set the Advantage token aside, out of play.

If a combatant without Advantage obtains spin on an exchange using a non-offensive skill (such as Athletics, Deceit, Intimidation, Art, and so on), he gains Advantage, either by taking it from his opponent or by bringing it back into play. Advantage can't be gained by simply using Weapons or Fists.

Advantage isn't used for combats involving multiple combatants against a single opponent, such as a player character against a bunch of minions. That'd just be a straight Weapons (or whatever) contest.

So what's the point of this? The idea is that it would replicate the back-and-forth of a swashbuckling duel while explicitly encouraging maneuvers and a wide variety of skills in combat. The method by which a combatant gains Advantage is entirely up to the player. He can pull a Cyrano and use Art to infuriate his opponent with his rapier wit. He can use Athletics to grab onto that chandelier (always a classic) and swing into an advantageous position. He can use Might to knock over a statue into the path of his foe. And so on. If you can justify it, go for it! That, if you ask me, is very much in the spirit of FATE and SotC.

A concern here is that it might slow things down. After all, if only one guy at a time even has the ability to inflict stress, lag is a definite possibility. To combat this, and to make supplemental actions more attractive, I'm reducing the threshholds on consequences: Minor is 1-2 stress, Moderate is 3-5, and Severe is 6+. (Actually, for this I'd rename them Trifling, Middling, and Grievous, because I loves me some genre-specific flavor.)

As I said, this is untested, but gosh, it sure feels right to me for the genre.