I'm trying to think of how Fate Points were used in my 40k games, and about 90% of times they're used as rerolls. The only times they weren't were when someone had Faith Powers (but only BoM ones, really, and the basic Pure Faith, as the rest of the IH stuff just never seemed worth it) and a few times when the Tzeentchian Psyker in BC used the "add d5 DoS" option when screwing with people's minds.

Maybe if the "automatically succeed" abilities were usable in lieu of a reroll they'd see more use, i.e. the sage rolls Forbidden Lore: Daemons, fails, and instead rerolling, spends FP to automatically succeed with a number of DoS determined by the ability. That'd make those abilities pretty much a straight upgrade to rerolling in specific situations, and thus quite worth it.

I've allowed my Players to spend FP to mitigate the Damage result of a hit, rather than spending them to heal Damage they've already taken. Aside from that input, I don't like the idea of "special abilities" being triggered by FP.

For those that may not know: There has always been a difference between 'spending' a fate point (for rerolls and such.) and burning one (To avoid death). I agree with Moriangas; Most uses of fp in my game have been rerolls. Still, I agree that FP as a guarantee of success is less then satisfying! I mean, If the sage decides he's going to research the nature of the screaming vortex (An insanely difficult proposition by default). Do I really want my player just 'popping' off a fate point and now he knows all about the Vortex? And what would the results of such sudden influx of knowledge be? (Let the Insanity and Corruption points roll!!! )

So its seems there are a fairly diverse ideas on what people would like to see as Role Abilities.

G1- There is the Pragmatists like myself, Lynata, and Tenebrae who desire the abilities to more practical and not competing with for use in an already limited resource.

G2- There are those like Ton Cruise and others who don’t mind using Fate Points for Role Abilities but doesn’t want them to be boring auto-success and want something more dynamic to use.

G3- There are those (having posted yet but its wise to assume they exist) that currently like the abilities as they are, and don’t see a reason to change.

G4- There are also those that believe that Role Abilities should just be scrapped for various reasons, which isn’t entirely a wrong idea as we survived (or not) Old Heresy without them.

I am thoroughly in G2. I like the idea of a more proactive Fate option (although I'm sure everyone will hoard one FP for Dodge no matter what). I'm sure that members of my party would love to throw their fate points towards winning instead of just away from losing.

I'm G1 but as we're on what's wrong with fate points can I add using them as lives? why is it that as I level up my fate pool drops? Ok I can see few ways to explain it like my luck runing out but it's still me getting weaker as I should be getting stronger.

Last beta got me thinking we could roll a d5 for fate points at the start of each session get them in play more often as we can't keep them and find a new way to cheat death.

Any takers?

This brings up a question for me- do most GMs force their players to roll rank 1 characters when they die? If not, what motivation does one have to burn fate- the new guy will be better than the old guy because he'll have more fate. If so, eesh that's brutal.

I am also no fan of fate-point triggered abilities.

I'd prefer unique non-fate abilities, similar to most in DH1

This brings up a question for me- do most GMs force their players to roll rank 1 characters when they die? If not, what motivation does one have to burn fate- the new guy will be better than the old guy because he'll have more fate. If so, eesh that's brutal.

This is a terrible, terrible way to play RPGs. Starting at a lower power level than everyone else is further punishment after having to start a new character. They'll be underpowered and unable to contribute.

Burning fate is so you don't have to start a new character, but if for whatever reason the player wants to they come in at the same XP total. Nobody goes killing off characters just to start a new one with more fate - that I would have a problem with, but realistically only the most terrible player would do that and wouldn't last long in our group.

This brings up a question for me- do most GMs force their players to roll rank 1 characters when they die? If not, what motivation does one have to burn fate- the new guy will be better than the old guy because he'll have more fate. If so, eesh that's brutal.

This is a terrible, terrible way to play RPGs. Starting at a lower power level than everyone else is further punishment after having to start a new character. They'll be underpowered and unable to contribute.

Burning fate is so you don't have to start a new character, but if for whatever reason the player wants to they come in at the same XP total. Nobody goes killing off characters just to start a new one with more fate - that I would have a problem with, but realistically only the most terrible player would do that and wouldn't last long in our group.

Well, in my own experience, I (and my group) tend to be a little restless and always wanting to try new roles. It's much less "Oh, Steve would have reduced fate? I want to reroll!" so much as "Well, being an Arbite was a fun thing for a bit, but now that I've had some free time, I've always wondered what it would be like to be a psyker..." and the fate thing just provides an incentive for constantly rolling new sheets.

I think a lot of misgivings with the fate system would be solved if GMs were a lot more liberal with giving the **** points out. The books don't help this; they tell the GM that he should be handing out fate points, but don't go to any decent lengths to explain when it's appropriate to do so. Which, in my experience, leads to GMs just not handing the things out, ever.

I think a lot of misgivings with the fate system would be solved if GMs were a lot more liberal with giving the **** points out. The books don't help this; they tell the GM that he should be handing out fate points, but doesn't go to any decent lengths to explain when is appropriate to do so. Which, in my experience, leads to GMs just not handing the things out, ever.

Truest thing ever. I just used "Eye-meter" to give fate points. Something like having the players vote who they considered the best character of the adventure and rewarding a Fate point, or a simple rule as "When everybody lost at least one and two of them lost two or three, award one". I also gave one away a time one of my players did something brutally awesome.

But, still, rules for it would be great.

I would go so far as to say that I'd appreciate it if the system would further integrate the encounter narrative rules and have fate points refresh back to full at the end of each encounter. That would actually go a long way toward fixing some of the "incompetent character" issues.

Of course, then they have to tackle the age old task of defining a non-combat encounter. If the group is investigating a string of murders, is that one long encounter? Is each crime scene an encounter? What if they get ambushed at the crime scene- is that part of the same encounter or do their points refresh?

That said, I'd love to see PCs gain a fresh fate point every encounter (but not all, so that they can still question whether it's worth spending now or if they should save, because limited precious resources is fun!)

Hence why FFG needs to clean up their narrative chapter and put down some firm guideline establishing out how to distinguish encounters. And I would say that it could work too to have the GM refresh fate points by the largest amount spent by a player minus one.

I would go so far as to say that I'd appreciate it if the system would further integrate the encounter narrative rules and have fate points refresh back to full at the end of each encounter. That would actually go a long way toward fixing some of the "incompetent character" issues.

In WFRP 2e, spent (not burnt) Fate Points were automatically renewed each morning. Kinda wondering why they didn't stick with that.