An Idea: Tagging for Continuous Damage

[Deadmanwalking]

So, I was looking on RPGnet, and they were discussing a potential problem in realism for FATE, which can be summed up as follows: You can maneuver to place the Aspect "On Fire!" on someone, and yet they will not take damage from it by default. Thinking about it, that actually bothered me so I tried to come up with a solution. I also found the section on ongoing damage on p. 325. These together gave me an idea:

If you have put an appropriate aspect on an individual (such as "On Fire!", or "Slowly Dissolving" with Water Evocation) with a Maneuver you may immediately give up your free tag on the Aspect to have the individual take a 1 stress hit every exchange until they successfully take an action to maneuver to remove the Aspect in question. The aspect still exists and may be used, you've just given up your free tag.

Does that sound workable? It'd solve the believability issue in a mechanically supported manner, and it doesn't look too unbalanced either.

[Korwin]

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm still learning the system...

[iago]

That's firmly in house rule territory -- remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal (though easily obviated by the presence of applicable armor, I suppose) -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!

[Knave]

I think you're onto a win 

[Belmonte]

I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.

Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it).  So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds.  Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.

[SaintAndSinner]

That's firmly in house rule territory -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!

We have a house rule to create continuing damage you reverse the block maneuver.  It continues afterward until they do a maneuver to eliminate it.

[SaintAndSinner]

I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.

Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it).  So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds.  Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.

That would work too I suppose.  Does your method give you the level of continuing damage or is it always +1?

[Belmonte]

I think 1 point of stress per round works well for most effects, myself.

[LCDarkwood]

So, I was looking on RPGnet, and they were discussing a potential problem in realism for FATE, which can be summed up as follows: You can maneuver to place the Aspect "On Fire!" on someone, and yet they will not take damage from it by default.

Okay, so, here's the problem I have with this argument - it assumes that the people at the table aren't evaluating the aspects they want to place in terms of intent and circumstance.

As a mechanic that functions primarily off of conversation, I can't honestly see how in play, the group would accept any aspect as a maneuver that didn't make sense in context. Intent precedes mechanics, right? The idea that you'd say, "Oh, I want to burn this dude up, so I'm going to place a maneuver on him that says 'On Fire!'" is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, because the clear intent of setting someone on fire is to continually inflict stress and consequences, which a maneuver by itself does not do.

On Fire! is, by contrast, a great scene aspect, because it can logically function to do all the things a scene aspect needs to do - modify and restrict certain actions and color the narrative.

So, if I wanted to set someone on fire, I would look to create a "targeted" environmental hazard using the rules in Running the Game, because that's the tool the rules have to match my intent. Asking the GM if I can do that with a maneuver instead of inflicting an aspect? That's fertile ground for an at-the-table call. (I'd allow it, but I'd prolly make it hard.) Or, I'd try to modify a grapple to apply, because that can also do stress every round. It'd depend if I had a flamethrower, or if I was just setting someone on fire.

Just sayin'. The fact that you can describe anything as an aspect doesn't mean it's always the best tool for the situation.


-L

[srl51676]

remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal.....I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!

We are talking about being ON FIRE!!!! here right? That would be more than a "big deal" and what else would you be able to do until you put it out.  I like this rule however it is up to the GM to mitigate its use as a combat tactic with collateral damage by expressing the horror of what is being done.

[Deadmanwalking]

That's firmly in house rule territory -- remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal (though easily obviated by the presence of applicable armor, I suppose) -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!

Oh, I'm aware. And actually, that's one of the thigs that worried me about the idea. Until I saw this:

I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.

Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it).  So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds.  Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.

That sounds like a great idea to keep things from getting out of hand. Though I'd add any Weapon rating to the number of rounds in question just to make Fire evocation and flamethrowers appropriately scary. I'd also set the difficulty of a maeuver to get rid of the Aspect (and thus the damage) at a difficulty of the original attack.

Okay, so, here's the problem I have with this argument - it assumes that the people at the table aren't evaluating the aspects they want to place in terms of intent and circumstance.

As a mechanic that functions primarily off of conversation, I can't honestly see how in play, the group would accept any aspect as a maneuver that didn't make sense in context. Intent precedes mechanics, right? The idea that you'd say, "Oh, I want to burn this dude up, so I'm going to place a maneuver on him that says 'On Fire!'" is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, because the clear intent of setting someone on fire is to continually inflict stress and consequences, which a maneuver by itself does not do.

On Fire! is, by contrast, a great scene aspect, because it can logically function to do all the things a scene aspect needs to do - modify and restrict certain actions and color the narrative.

So, if I wanted to set someone on fire, I would look to create a "targeted" environmental hazard using the rules in Running the Game, because that's the tool the rules have to match my intent. Asking the GM if I can do that with a maneuver instead of inflicting an aspect? That's fertile ground for an at-the-table call. (I'd allow it, but I'd prolly make it hard.) Or, I'd try to modify a grapple to apply, because that can also do stress every round. It'd depend if I had a flamethrower, or if I was just setting someone on fire.

Just sayin'. The fact that you can describe anything as an aspect doesn't mean it's always the best tool for the situation.


-L

I don't disagree exactly...but "On Fire!" is totally an Aspect you should be able to put on people with a maneuver if you have, well, somthing you can set people on fire with.  I mean, it's not exactly easy to fight when you're on fire.

Ongoing damage also just seems like it should be something theoretically available to PCs without needing a workaround. Particularly PCs with Evocation.

[iago]

I'd also add the proviso that you can't have multiple ongoing effects on something at the same time.  Being burned by fire AND dissolved by acid isn't an accelerator (it just means it might take longer to shake off the ongoing 1-stress-per-exchange effect).  That'll prevent this from becoming the killer app that everyone and their brother piles onto an unarmored foe at the first opportunity.  Ongoing effects should only ever inflict at most 1 stress per exchange per target.

That said, pay close attention to what Lenny (LCDarkwood) says about this above. He's the lead system developer on the game after all.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'd also add the proviso that you can't have multiple ongoing effects on something at the same time.  Being burned by fire AND dissolved by acid isn't an accelerator (it just means it might take longer to shake off the ongoing 1-stress-per-exchange effect).  That'll prevent this from becoming the killer app that everyone and their brother piles onto an unarmored foe at the first opportunity.  Ongoing effects should only ever inflict at most 1 stress per exchange per target.

Oh, absolutely! Stacking is definitely a bad idea.

That said, pay close attention to what Lenny (LCDarkwood) says about this above. He's the lead system developer on the game after all.

I'll bear that in mind.

[LCDarkwood]

Ongoing damage also just seems like it should be something theoretically available to PCs without needing a workaround. Particularly PCs with Evocation.

Right, my point being, I wouldn't call it a workaround. The tools are available. You just have to make sure your intent tracks to them. The models given are just that - models.

And with Evo, you could theoretically pay maintenance on an attack and have it last for a bunch of rounds, right? Check out the Orbius spell on 295. Why can't that be fire damage?

[EDIT: By no means do I have an issue with the house rules in this thread, by the way. They're cool. I just think the basic argument doesn't actually hold up.]


-Lenny

[Deadmanwalking]

Right, my point being, I wouldn't call it a workaround. The tools are available. You just have to make sure your intent tracks to them. The models given are just that - models.

And with Evo, you could theoretically pay maintenance on an attack and have it last for a bunch of rounds, right? Check out the Orbius spell on 295. Why can't that be fire damage?


-Lenny

Ah, the sample spells, one of the few areas of the book I haven't read yet. 

Yeah, that'd definitely work, probably better than anything I was thinking of, though not so much for people without Evocation.

And I do see what you're talking about with the models and the potential use of environmental effects, it just strkes me that nowhere are there rules for inflicting environmental effects (as per the section) on people...making allowing a maneuver to do so essentially a workaround since you have to come up with the idea and completely wing it sans guidance for how to set up the action. It's a good workaround, that many people might think of, but it still works around the rules rather than with them, since it's an entirely unique action type (not really a maneuver, block, or attack, for example, at least not any of those as written)...unlike just about everything else in combat.

I should note that this stands out so much to me as a problem because it's the only thing I can think of that the normal action types don't cover fairly well. Which is a really impressive feat for a combat system, by the way. I usually run into loads of these things with a new system.