Coyote & Crow vs Diaspora

Compare Coyote & Crow and Diaspora side by side. See differences in complexity, dice, genre, cost, and more.

	Coyote & Crow	Diaspora
Genre	Scifi, Fantasy	Scifi
Tags	Character Building, Character-Driven, Classless, Skill-Based, Tactical, Theater of the Mind, Lore-Heavy, Heroic	Worldbuilding, Collaborative, Tactical, Simulation, Toolkit, Sandbox, Tag-Based
Core Mechanic	Build a d12 pool from Skill Rank, the applicable related Stat, and modifiers. Trained Skills use the higher related Stat, while Rank 0 uses the lower. Each die meeting the Success Number, usually 8, adds one success. Each 1 subtracts a success, while each 12 creates a Critical die. A positive total succeeds, 0 fails, and a negative total is a critical failure.	Roll 4dF (four Fudge dice, range -4 to +4) plus a Skill from the character's 15-skill pyramid, compared against a fixed difficulty or an opposed roll. Spend a fate point to invoke one of your Aspects for +2 or a reroll; the referee compels Aspects to push the story and pay fate points back.
Dice	d12 dice pool	4dF (Fudge dice)
Complexity	High	Medium
Accessibility	High	Medium
Runnability	Very High	High
License	All Rights Reserved	OGL v1.0a
Third-Party Publishing	Not yet researched	Not yet researched
Cost	$$	$
Publisher	Coyote & Crow Games	VSCA Publishing
Year	2021	2010
Best For	Groups that want character-driven exploration and protection in an Indigenous science-fantasy future. It suits tables that prefer consequential choices and tactical conflicts resolved through abstract range bands.	Groups who want to collaboratively build a six-to-ten-system star cluster at session zero, then play hard-SF interstellar campaigns where personal firefights, vector-based ship duels, social confrontations, and platoon-scale battles each run as their own dedicated mini-game.
Highlights	Player-authored Goals turn character ambitions into advancement, keeping campaign development tied to choices made in play. Chosen Initiative makes turn order a recurring tactical decision instead of a one-time roll. The Three Path Concept turns non-linear scenario design into a concrete prep tool, so major obstacles support meaningful alternatives to combat.	Cluster generation rolls Technology, Environment, and Resources for each star system on a -4 to +4 scale, then the table maps slipstream links between systems before play: the setting is built collaboratively rather than handed to the players. Space combat collapses range and velocity onto a single -4 to +4 vector track, so a torpedo-heavy frigate trying to hold standoff range and a beam-armed cruiser trying to close create real positional tension without grids or hex maps. Personal, social, and platoon combat each run as separate mini-games sharing one fate-point economy, so debating a planetary council, leading marines into a city block, and a knife fight resolve in the same language while feeling mechanically distinct.
Considerations	The unified check is consistent, but character options and interlocking encounter procedures create substantial rules overhead. Success Numbers and critical Story Events depend on Story Guide judgment, so consistent difficulty and consequences require steady table rulings. The setting leaves much of its metaphysics deliberately open, requiring the group to establish what is real before play.	Built on the pre-Fate-Core 2009 version of the Fate engine: terminology, the aspect-invocation flow, and the older stunt design predate later refinements, so players coming from Fate Core or Fate Accelerated will need to relearn the conventions. Cluster creation, system linking, and the five-phase collaborative character generation are designed to fill a full first session before play begins, so the game does not support spontaneous one-shots or solo character prep. Vector-based space combat enforces momentum, fuel, and reaction-drive constraints, so ship scenes resolve as deliberate tactical exchanges rather than narrative-first cinematic dogfights.