Spell for Critique: Stone Bridge

[infusco]

That would be the easiest, of course - a great suggestion - but I should have mentioned early on why I didn't opt for that at the time: it is a Fate Point sink for most involved, and all the players in this game are Wizard Apprentices with 1 Refresh. Plus a failed Athletics check, even with that Aspect to tag, would still have been bad. The Evoker was willing to take on whatever Stress and Consequences were needed to get folks out of there.

Devon, you misunderstand ... I literally meant Invoking For Effect (YS99). You hand a Fate point to the GM and say "Oh look, a convenient Stone Bridge. I simply cross it". That's it.

[devonapple]

Devon, you misunderstand ... I literally meant Invoking For Effect (YS99). You hand a Fate point to the GM and say "Oh look, a convenient Stone Bridge. I simply cross it". That's it.

Ah, yes, my apologies for the misunderstanding. That would obviate the need for an Athletics check, but still a Fate Point sink. A good time for a Fate Point, certainly.

[Drachasor]

Perhaps, this could even be a Maneuver evocation that could create an aspect of Stone Bridge that could be tagged and/or invoked for effect? It's shift cost would be that of the zone border +1 to make it last an extra exchange (and to make the Aspect sticky so it could used by several people and not just by one).

I don't really think that's how Aspects are supposed to work though.  It's like having a magic sword that is just an aspect...it doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you think about it.  An aspect-only bridge isn't REALLY there.  I like this more as kind of countering a zone barrier.

[infusco]

Also, while I wouldn't use a standard block since it would get dispelled for the whole group by it being bypassed against a single person, what you could do is set it up as a zone wide *armor* and get everyone to simply jump down.

So say for example, you expect such a fall to result in a 4 stress injury, and you want to make sure to reduce it to cover even the most fragile of team-mates, you could spend 6 shifts: 4 shifts for a 2 armor shield, and 2 shifts to cover everyone.

So if they jump down and muck up their Athletics roll, the worst that you'll get is someone suffering from 2 stress of damage, consequence free.

Obviously, I recommend using an appropriate element (Earth, Air) unless you want to try and explain to the GM how enshrouding everyone in flames would soften their fall

[devonapple]

I don't really think that's how Aspects are supposed to work though.  It's like having a magic sword that is just an aspect...it doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you think about it.  An aspect-only bridge isn't REALLY there.  I like this more as kind of countering a zone barrier.

Aspects can reflect real things, and if you need a Fate Point to use them, that simply means that taking advantage of them is a non-trivial plot point. This point right here that you bring up is a focal point of Narrative-versus-Simulationist games, and in FATE, it could tip either way. Either approach is right, and sometimes the Fate Point method is a much simpler way to handle it.

[infusco]

I don't really think that's how Aspects are supposed to work though.  It's like having a magic sword that is just an aspect...it doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you think about it.  An aspect-only bridge isn't REALLY there.  I like this more as kind of countering a zone barrier.

Sure it does. An Aspect is an extraordinarily flexible thing that can mean anything ranging from emotions, to behavior, to environmental conditions, to an actual physical something or other (for example, a box of crates in the middle of a firefight).

For example, even putting magic aside, you could toss a net on someone as a combat maneuver and hit him with the aspect of Tangled Up which you could invoke or compel. Using magic, you could cast a spell that, well, Tangles Up an enemy and also invoke or compel something.

The danger to using maneuvers in this way, as someone pointed at above, is that it's a Fate point drain - very powerful if you have lots of them, useless if you don't.

[Drachasor]

Sure it does. An Aspect is an extraordinarily flexible thing that can mean anything ranging from emotions, to behavior, to environmental conditions, to an actual physical something or other (for example, a box of crates in the middle of a firefight).

For example, even putting magic aside, you could toss a net on someone as a combat maneuver and hit him with the aspect of Tangled Up which you could invoke or compel. Using magic, you could cast a spell that, well, Tangles Up an enemy and also invoke or compel something.

The danger to using maneuvers in this way, as someone pointed at above, is that it's a Fate point drain - very powerful if you have lots of them, useless if you don't.

Even one of the designers said some uses of aspects don't make a lot of sense (like a magic sword or the like).  I think something like a bridge is like that, but floating rocks as stepping stones would be about right for an aspect.  Tossing acid at someone or on the ground could be an aspect, but someone getting immersed in a pool of acid would not be.  Imho, aspects are stuff that can influence things, that CAN change things, but the stuff that definitely changes things...the things that are nearly 100% consistent and stable, should be modeled another way.  There's a reason why there are weapons, zone borders, and other things in the game that are not modeled by aspects.

[infusco]

Even one of the designers said some uses of aspects don't make a lot of sense (like a magic sword or the like).  I think something like a bridge is like that, but floating rocks as stepping stones would be about right for an aspect.  Tossing acid at someone or on the ground could be an aspect, but someone getting immersed in a pool of acid would not be.  Imho, aspects are stuff that can influence things, that CAN change things, but the stuff that definitely changes things...the things that are nearly 100% consistent and stable, should be modeled another way.  There's a reason why there are weapons, zone borders, and other things in the game that are not modeled by aspects.

Well, like any other Evocation spell, the aforementioned bridge is purely temporary. In fact, describing it as floating rocks makes perfect sense. I don't think anyone meant it to last more than an exchange or two unless someone wishes to take the time to cook up some Thaumaturgy.

And by the way, a flaming sword absolutely makes sense as a maneuver based spell. It's basically adding a new element aspect (Red Hot Flames) to an existing object (Sword), so that as long as that Aspect remains, it can be tagged or invoked by the wielder of the sword in Weapons based melee combat.

And for something more permanent, you could indeed make a magic sword as an enchanted item that casts a maneuver based evocation on itself 1 or more times per session. Would take up an enchanted item slot like normal.

[Drachasor]

Well, like any other Evocation spell, the aforementioned bridge is purely temporary. In fact, describing it as floating rocks makes perfect sense. I don't think anyone meant it to last more than an exchange or two unless someone wishes to take the time to cook up some Thaumaturgy.

And by the way, a flaming sword absolutely makes sense as a maneuver based spell. It's basically adding a new element aspect (Red Hot Flames) to an existing object (Sword), so that as long as that Aspect remains, it can be tagged or invoked by the wielder of the sword in Weapons based melee combat.

And for something more permanent, you could indeed make a magic sword as an enchanted item that casts a maneuver based evocation on itself 1 or more times per session. Would take up an enchanted item slot like normal.

That's not what I was saying about a magic sword.  I meant having a magic sword that exists solely as an aspect, not as a weapon at all.  That sort of thing doesn't work well, which is why there are non-aspect things.  A weak kind of bridge could potentially be modeled as an aspect, but a full, decently wide bridge would not.

Here's another way to look at it.  If you have gusting winds on a scene, you can compel someone to get knocked over by them.  If you have "complete, stable bridge"...there's nothing to compel there; the bridge is just a noun, a fact, a static object.  (Enchanting an existing sword so it is on fire with a maneuver, could be compelled to light things on fire and the like, so that makes sense, btw).  Aspects are great for a lot of things, but they aren't a great way to handle everything.  A think a solid bridge that lasts for a few exchanges is not well-handled by an aspect, anymore than a solid defense is well-handled by one.  Things that are more iffy and circumstantial are good for aspects.

Likewise, I'd say a net that really grapples a person is not handled well by an aspect.  That's best handled as a block.  A net that only gets on the guy partially and might not bother them at times is great for an aspect though.  A full wall of fire that complete covers a line is not best handled by an aspect either.  A wall of fire that has parts of it come in go and is a bit chaotic though, that works really well as an aspect.

Or, to put it another way, aspects are great for things that could hinder or help, but other things are better for things that always hinder or help (at least as long as they are around).

[infusco]

I agree to most of your points. Anything permanent and easy to use can't be based on a maneuver.

That being said, I'd tend to be very liberal in the usage and applications of those for the simple reason that they depend on Fate points. Given Fate points are the only thing that weaker characters have over supernatural hard hitters, I'd very comfortable making Aspect usage powerful and malleable.

[noretoc]

If you really wanted to use a maneuver and aspect maybe something like this.  Use the spell to create a maneuver to give the zone the Aspect "Filled with rocks".  Then use your free tag to make a declaration.  "The rocks are stable enough to cross over on."  Then anyone can cross them i think?

[devonapple]

Then use your free tag to make a declaration. 

Free tags can't be Declarations, I'm afraid.

[noretoc]

I think I may have missed this? I checked the rule for tagging, and it says the only restriction is that it should be done immediately.  I didn't see where it said you could not invoke for effect.  Can you point me to it.  (If so we have been playing wrong).

[infusco]

Anything *invoked* can be free tagged, including Invoked for Effect. Compels cannot.

[devonapple]

I think I may have missed this? I checked the rule for tagging, and it says the only restriction is that it should be done immediately.  I didn't see where it said you could not invoke for effect.  Can you point me to it.  (If so we have been playing wrong).

"Invoking for effect" is something you do with one of your own personal Aspects, and it costs a Fate Point.
When you "Invoke" another Aspect that is not one of your personal Aspects (NPC, Environment, Scene, etc.), it is only to get a +2 or a reroll.

YS 106: "Invoking Other Aspects - The procedure to invoke an aspect that isn’t on your character is precisely the same as a regular invocation: just declare how that aspect is relevant, spend a fate point, and take a +2 or a reroll. The only thing to keep in mind is that, if you’re invoking an aspect on another PC or on a NPC to gain an advantage over them, that character will receive the fate point you spent, either at the end of the exchange (in conflict, see page 197) or at the end of the scene (outside of conflict).

Anything *invoked* can be free tagged, including Invoked for Effect. Compels cannot.

Ah, thank you - I just found this on YS 99, under "Invoking for Effect," it says: "As with regular invocations, you can also spend fate points to invoke aspects on the scene or on other characters for effect."

So yes, you can "Invoke for Effect" on an external Aspect, but it is not a free tag - it costs a Fate Point. My apologies for the confusion.