Using Aspects Against Players

[TheMouse]

I suppose, however I don't see the point of supplanting the system that's already there and works perfectly fine with something else.

There is more than one way to do things. This is good. The, "Just let Aspects do everything," crowd leads to a great deal of confusion among new players. Allow people to do things differently, and it will allow for more variety and more people enjoying it.

In this case we have one person rolling against another, and true they could be rolling against an arbitrary number instead, but it's removing the potential for interesting developments and struggle.

Um... no it doesn't. "You subtract 1 from what you rolled because it's bright in here," isn't removing the potential for interesting developments and struggle. It's a -1 penalty.

Consider if a player rolls against your set difficulty what do you do if he invokes an aspect or two to simply bypass it?

1. It's not a set difficulty. It's a contested roll. You're just treating the other person's roll like a difficulty. Which the rules do, by the way.

2. I tell him that he succeeds in sneaking by the guards.

What if he does that every time?

I ask him where he's getting all those fate points from.

A guard that he is rolling against can do the same, can get creative and actively work against them. A wall cannot.

A wall with an Aspect and fate points doesn't need to be creative. It just needs an Aspect and fate points.

[Drachasor]

You could do that, but it's just adding the whole concept of modifiers that the aspect system is trying to replace. Of course the issue of constantly on aspects is something that trips a lot of people up. Fred once explained it though. FATE is a very story based game. When no one spends a fate point to use an aspect it's just not important to the story at that moment. It's still there, it just doesn't effect the outcome. So in the "brightly lit" hallway, if no one spends a Fate point the hallway isn't dark, it just doesn't matter that it's "brightly lit." The player was clever enough to distract the guard, or the guard was briefly (or not so briefly) inattentive. If someone does spend a fate point then it becomes important. The guard is paying attention. The player is trying something that is less then effective under those specific circumstances (I.E. in a "brightly lit" space), etc.

I do not think aspects out of the book handle everything in a perfect manner.  However, what I proposed could work well for some groups and it doesn't mean you can't distract the guard.  A maneuver that cancels out the effect of that aspect/fractal should logically then prevent it from helping anyone out.  So if you distract the guard, then he doesn't gain the bonus of a well-lit room.

This isn't the best way to handle everything, but aspects DO have problems in some more extreme scenarios.  Hiding behind cover from someone shooting 100 yards away.  That cover only being there when powered by fate points is danged peculiar.  Some thing with guards who just have to look down a narrow hallway that has good lighting.  The latter is especially true if the guards are not human and don't get distracted -- though honestly, getting distracted a bit is handled fairly well by dice rolls and maneuvers.  Similarly, if you are standing in the middle of a burning fire, then "the zone is on fire" as an aspect IS a bit lacking.

These things can overly stretch or even break the willing suspension of disbelief for some people, and so some groups might want to look at ways to modify the game to handle it.  I think going with a bunch of situational modifiers for lighting, fog, etc, etc, etc like D&D and other games have is not the right way to go.  However, some aspects with a little mechanics tacked on can fill in here in these particular extremes if the group finds it more satisfying and fun.  Fractals are useful in this manner.

[Aubri]

This isn't the best way to handle everything, but aspects DO have problems in some more extreme scenarios.  Hiding behind cover from someone shooting 100 yards away.  That cover only being there when powered by fate points is danged peculiar.  Some thing with guards who just have to look down a narrow hallway that has good lighting.  The latter is especially true if the guards are not human and don't get distracted -- though honestly, getting distracted a bit is handled fairly well by dice rolls and maneuvers.  Similarly, if you are standing in the middle of a burning fire, then "the zone is on fire" as an aspect IS a bit lacking.

Well, I definitely don't want to get into the D&D simulation mindset here. The cover doesn't do anything if it's not powered by a fate point because it's then not relevant to the story. I'm just looking for ways for the cover to become story-relevant when the PCs aren't the ones using it. I could certainly see the guys who are taking cover needing to perform a maneuver to create it, but they still only get one free tag.

[UmbraLux]

This isn't the best way to handle everything, but aspects DO have problems in some more extreme scenarios.  Hiding behind cover from someone shooting 100 yards away.  That cover only being there when powered by fate points is danged peculiar.  Some thing with guards who just have to look down a narrow hallway that has good lighting.  The latter is especially true if the guards are not human and don't get distracted -- though honestly, getting distracted a bit is handled fairly well by dice rolls and maneuvers.  Similarly, if you are standing in the middle of a burning fire, then "the zone is on fire" as an aspect IS a bit lacking.

These things can overly stretch or even break the willing suspension of disbelief for some people, and so some groups might want to look at ways to modify the game to handle it.  I think going with a bunch of situational modifiers for lighting, fog, etc, etc, etc like D&D and other games have is not the right way to go.  However, some aspects with a little mechanics tacked on can fill in here in these particular extremes if the group finds it more satisfying and fun.  Fractals are useful in this manner.

Don't forget you can do more than just invoke an aspect for a one time bonus.  Take the long range cover situation you mention - I'd invoke Behind a Wall for effect and leave the shooter unable to Target me at all until he maneuvers to void the aspect...or until I do something which ends it. 

Fate supports standard tactical tropes, it just does so by modifying the narrative instead of the action.

[TheMouse]

Fate supports bog standard modification of rolls do to the environment and tools. This is why you don't need a fate point to make your machine gun cause more damage than your fists. It's also why trying to do things more quickly or while you're moving is harder.

[Drachasor]

Don't forget you can do more than just invoke an aspect for a one time bonus.  Take the long range cover situation you mention - I'd invoke Behind a Wall for effect and leave the shooter unable to Target me at all until he maneuvers to void the aspect...or until I do something which ends it. 

Fate supports standard tactical tropes, it just does so by modifying the narrative instead of the action.

I think you are getting Aspects On The Brain disease (happens to us all).  You don't need an aspect to stop someone who can't see you from shooting at you, and you certainly don't need an invocation.  The other guy is the person who needs to justify shooting at something that he can't see, especially if they are behind a bullet-proof object.  Anyhow, I meant cover as something that you still exposed yourself a bit from to fire/attack...if you are just hiding behind it out of site, there's no need to use anything for that (unless the enemy has the firepower to destroy the cover, in which case a Fractal works best since it would have stress boxes).

I proposed using fractals just because that's something that has already been brought up as an idea for some things.  It would work fairly well, I think, and there are lots of ways to handle them.  Note that aspects are NOT used for a large number of things in the game, because aspects don't handle lots of things well.  You don't use Aspects to represent Zone Borders, for instance.  They also aren't very granular.  An Aspect for a Zone Border wouldn't make much of a difference between a 4' fence and a 10' fence; using something with a raw number does, and this sort of gross distinction does matter for the story.

There's another way one could have that fractal work for a light as well.  It could have a stunt that says "Stealth Roles at a Result equal or below the skill level of the Light fail" That's probably a better way to go, kind of like a reverse Veil.  I think using Fractals like this makes a lot of sense; obviously players should be informed how any Fractal works if it is stuff they should know (such as with a light).

Again, I am not saying all groups should do it this way.  I am just saying that some groups are going to have much bigger willing suspension of disbelief (WSoD) problems if you handle everything without a unique mechanic using aspects.  WSoD problems, when they crop up, can easily damage the game by undermining the narrative impact.

[sinker]

I think you are getting Aspects On The Brain disease (happens to us all).  You don't need an aspect to stop someone who can't see you from shooting at you, and you certainly don't need an invocation.

I think we're actually trying to answer the question posed. The question was "how do I use aspects for NPCs?" How do you do that Drachasor and Mouse?

[UmbraLux]

You don't need an aspect to stop someone who can't see you from shooting at you, and you certainly don't need an invocation. 

I prefer to abstract fate combat rather than map it out.  So yes, opponents in the same zones or in zones with no barriers to sight do need to maneuver in order to be unseen.

The other guy is the person who needs to justify shooting at something that he can't see, especially if they are behind a bullet-proof object.  Anyhow, I meant cover as something that you still exposed yourself a bit from to fire/attack...if you are just hiding behind it out of site, there's no need to use anything for that (unless the enemy has the firepower to destroy the cover, in which case a Fractal works best since it would have stress boxes).

Again, using an abstracted combat model, movement within a zone is free.  So that partial cover you had isn't likely to last...

Regarding the fractal concept as applied to gaming - it's a concept which several have applied to scaling aspects.  How are you suggesting its use?  I'm not understanding how your suggestion and the concept of fractals align. 

[Drachasor]

I think we're actually trying to answer the question posed. The question was "how do I use aspects for NPCs?" How do you do that Drachasor and Mouse?

I don't desire to have some meaningless argument over this.  I said one could go your way on it.  I have also said the problems I found there, because there are some situations where aspects are not great.  Frankly, I've already answered your question.

I'll elaborate slightly further, however.  Aspects generally work best on things that are kinda iffy in whether they help or not, especially things they might help one moment, and won't do anything the next.  A numb arm is pretty much like that; some attacks/blocks are going to work just fine.  Dust in one's eyes can be like that; intermittent blinking.  A slippery floor could be like that; quite possible to not slip at all, and since we only worry about entire zones for movement, a lot of the slipperiness is flavor.  Light level, especially down a narrow corridor, doesn't really seem like it fits into that terribly well.  This is going to be something with a very, very constant effect.  Now, you might say "well, just use a compel!", but that also has problems, imho, because it isn't impossible to sneak by, just very difficult and if anything it could stifle creativity by the players.

Overall, I think fractals are a better fit for something like that.  I think it would lead to more interesting play.  I think fractals can see use in a number of areas as being quite useful.  I'm not alone here, the game designers obviously agree given that...you know...they invented the idea.  I don't see why you seem to want to argue this point so much.  I have repeatedly emphasized fractals aren't for every group, and yet you seem completely unwilling to let go of the idea that only aspects should be used.  What's the big deal?

I prefer to abstract fate combat rather than map it out.  So yes, opponents in the same zones or in zones with no barriers to sight do need to maneuver in order to be unseen.
Again, using an abstracted combat model, movement within a zone is free.  So that partial cover you had isn't likely to last...

And my particular example was one that involved attackers not being in the same zone as the defenders.  Just being in two different zones means a lot of cover is going to be completely solid unless the attacker moves to your zone.

Regarding the fractal concept as applied to gaming - it's a concept which several have applied to scaling aspects.  How are you suggesting its use?  I'm not understanding how your suggestion and the concept of fractals align. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the bolded part.  Regarding the OP I suggested one way to use fractals (a bonus on alertness against stealth by people via a stunt the aspect fractal has).  Hmm, I thought I had an even better idea than what I posted, but I can't recall it at the moment.  If you wanted me to elaborate on cover, that's pretty straightforward -- the big question is whether you want the cover to provide a block, armor, or just an increase to defense against ranged attacks from another zone, but it would be pretty easy to make a cover fractal that works well, is potentially destroyable, and overall makes cover feel more like cover.

[UmbraLux]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the bolded part.  

Fractals are geometric shapes where you can cut out subsections which have the same basic shape as the whole.  Applied to gaming mechanics in FATE, there are two obvious uses - aspects and characterization.  

Aspects are applied to individuals, zones, and cities.  They can be applied to actions, scenes, story arcs, and even campaigns.  They're used for a variety of differing actions and concepts.  Yet they're mechanically the same no matter what scale, action, item, area, or other use.  That's the most obvious of the fractal concepts used in FATE.

A second conceptual fractal is how characterization is used.  It's applied to cities as well as characters.  Within the city, it's applied to locations.  Several have also applied it to organizations.  Fred's article (I think you and I both provided a link above) suggests using characterization on aspects themselves - specifically on consequences.  At each level, the characterization is substantially similar - each entity has a set of aspects describing it.

Each mechanic remains substantially similar no matter what entity / scale it's applied - a "conceptual" fractal.  Hopefully that clarifies what I was attempting to state earlier.  

[Drachasor]

Ah, I was proposing the "turn an aspect into a character".  Their example also indicates you should give it unique stunts (that don't have to be balanced with book stunts) to represent what it does.  Of course, the vast majority of the time the players should know how it works mechanically -- this is especially true with something like a bright light.

So, to specify further, with regards to the light, it would look something like this:

Bright Light  (An aspect)
Skill 2  (This is used for defense, offense, and whatever else it actively does)
Stunts

• No Shadows: Anyone making a check to see an something the light illuminates, gains a +2 bonus on the roll.
• Tiny:  +1 Defense again non-area attacks
• Device:  Hexing can be used to make attacks on this aspect.

Stress Boxes: 2

That would be the general idea, though perhaps you'd lower the skill level to 1 or modify the "No Shadows" stunt.  Destroying the Aspect would represent breaking the light (hence the "device" stunt).

Again, I'm not saying this is for everyone.  But for some people/groups the normal aspect approach here could break their willing suspension of disbelief and/or they could find a compel an annoying way to handle the situation (the above fractal provides options a compel wouldn't, imho).

[TheMouse]

I think we're actually trying to answer the question posed. The question was "how do I use aspects for NPCs?" How do you do that Drachasor and Mouse?

It's obvious how you do things with Aspects: You spend a fate point to get +2, a reroll, or to invoke for effect. That's the beginning and end of that. So characters without fate points don't interact with Aspects unless someone else is spending fate points.

Does this mean no situational modifiers outside of Aspects and fate points? Nope. Says so in the book. If you want a dark hallway to be easier to sneak down or a brightly lit hallway to be harder to sneak down, you get to apply modifiers that have nothing to do with Aspects.

This whole conversation is part of a greater communication problem in the Fate community. People seem to think that everything should be and can be done with Aspects, but this is not the case.

The most common example of this is someone wants a structure to be on fire. They go online and ask how to use Aspects for this. They get the answer, which is that people can spend fate points to do the usual stuff, and they're disappointed. They start to ask questions about how to invoke Aspects to cause damage to someone in the structure.

To answer this correctly, you have to reject the premise of the question. You don't use Aspects to cause environmental damage. You use the environmental damage rules. These more or less stat up the fire in the burning structure as a character that attacks everyone within its bounds. Sure, there might be an Aspect or two on top of this, but that's incidental to the fire causing damage to characters.

Likewise, you don't need to use Aspects to make a bright hallway harder to sneak down, or a rough wall easier to climb. You just need to give bonuses and penalties as necessary. If there are Aspects there, people are free to interact with them in addition to this.

In short, if there's a guard with no fate points watching a brightly lit hallway with the Aspect "Brightly Lit," you're free and clear to give him a +1 or +2 bonus to catch someone sneaking down the hallway. Or you can rely purely on Aspects. If you do rely purely on Aspects, you are making the choice to suspend your disbelief that a brightly lit hallway is just as easy to sneak down as a pitch dark one. Because if that type of thing bothers you, you should have been using situational modifiers.

[sinker]

I apologize to everyone. I was getting a bit snippy, it happens occasionally. I actually like your idea of fractals Drachasor, but this being a new GM I thought it might be a little too complex or that they might run with it and get "Fractals on the brain" as you put it. Then you get fractals within fractals, etc. It is a really cool idea though, and something I will have to play with.

The most common example of this is someone wants a structure to be on fire. They go online and ask how to use Aspects for this. They get the answer, which is that people can spend fate points to do the usual stuff, and they're disappointed. They start to ask questions about how to invoke Aspects to cause damage to someone in the structure.

To answer this correctly, you have to reject the premise of the question. You don't use Aspects to cause environmental damage. You use the environmental damage rules. These more or less stat up the fire in the burning structure as a character that attacks everyone within its bounds. Sure, there might be an Aspect or two on top of this, but that's incidental to the fire causing damage to characters.

It's actually funny you should mention this particular example because this has been asked of Fred. His response was that yes, you can use ongoing/environmental damage to represent that, but it's boring and not remotely the way he would do it. It has a mechanical effect (which only serves to put a time limit on an encounter) but no relevance to the narrative at all. However if you use an aspect it's dynamic, capable of many many things (falling debris, heat, damage, forced movement, tactical considerations, etc) but most importantly it's relevant to the narrative. The story changes because someone has to react to the fire, or the fire narrows (or creates) options. Additionally it's not all encompassing. Sometimes the hero's not on fire. When we read and write stories how often is someone in a burning building and then doesn't burn to death (or even get burned). Regularly. Having an aspect means that it can effect the outcome, however sometimes it also doesn't, and you can't say that of ongoing/environmental damage (well, I suppose you can, but it's not as intrinsic to the concept).

I suppose mostly I just hate situational modifiers when compared to aspects. What is a situational modifier? It's a small bonus or penalty because of some random situation that effects the outcome. What is an aspect? It is the random situation. It gives a small bonus (or penalty if used defensively). But only when it would effect the outcome and no other time. Additionally aspects tell a story and I simply prefer that.

I guess making full use of aspects requires a lot from a GM. It requires that the GM compel often, keeping the currency flowing. It requires that the GM know when to spend fate points to make a better story (even if it's for some random mook that shouldn't normally have fate points). And it requires a lot of trust at the table that everything the GM does is for the story and the players. But in the end the rewards are a better story. I like those challenges, I enjoy that trust, and I prefer that story. This is the GM I want to be and the GM I encourage others to be. Thus this is the advice I will pass on to others. Take it or don't.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I apologize to everyone. I was getting a bit snippy, it happens occasionally. I actually like your idea of fractals Drachasor, but this being a new GM I thought it might be a little too complex or that they might run with it and get "Fractals on the brain" as you put it. Then you get fractals within fractals, etc. It is a really cool idea though, and something I will have to play with.

It's actually funny you should mention this particular example because this has been asked of Fred. His response was that yes, you can use ongoing/environmental damage to represent that, but it's boring and not remotely the way he would do it. It has a mechanical effect (which only serves to put a time limit on an encounter) but no relevance to the narrative at all. However if you use an aspect it's dynamic, capable of many many things (falling debris, heat, damage, forced movement, tactical considerations, etc) but most importantly it's relevant to the narrative. The story changes because someone has to react to the fire, or the fire narrows (or creates) options. Additionally it's not all encompassing. Sometimes the hero's not on fire. When we read and write stories how often is someone in a burning building and then doesn't burn to death (or even get burned). Regularly. Having an aspect means that it can effect the outcome, however sometimes it also doesn't, and you can't say that of ongoing/environmental damage (well, I suppose you can, but it's not as intrinsic to the concept).

I suppose mostly I just hate situational modifiers when compared to aspects. What is a situational modifier? It's a small bonus or penalty because of some random situation that effects the outcome. What is an aspect? It is the random situation. It gives a small bonus (or penalty if used defensively). But only when it would effect the outcome and no other time. Additionally aspects tell a story and I simply prefer that.

I guess making full use of aspects requires a lot from a GM. It requires that the GM compel often, keeping the currency flowing. It requires that the GM know when to spend fate points to make a better story (even if it's for some random mook that shouldn't normally have fate points). And it requires a lot of trust at the table that everything the GM does is for the story and the players. But in the end the rewards are a better story. I like those challenges, I enjoy that trust, and I prefer that story. This is the GM I want to be and the GM I encourage others to be. Thus this is the advice I will pass on to others. Take it or don't.

This.  If you're a new GM, or even if you're not, this.

[noclue]

It's actually funny you should mention this particular example because this has been asked of Fred. His response was that yes, you can use ongoing/environmental damage to represent that, but it's boring and not remotely the way he would do it. It has a mechanical effect (which only serves to put a time limit on an encounter) but no relevance to the narrative at all. However if you use an aspect it's dynamic, capable of many many things (falling debris, heat, damage, forced movement, tactical considerations, etc) but most importantly it's relevant to the narrative.

This is my default. Why use a boring situational modifier when you can use an aspect!

If you do rely purely on Aspects, you are making the choice to suspend your disbelief that a brightly lit hallway is just as easy to sneak down as a pitch dark one. Because if that type of thing bothers you, you should have been using situational modifiers.

Yes, I agree with that last part. If it bothers someone, they should be using a situational modifier. But, I disagree that you're making a choice to suspend disbelief that a brightly lit hallway is just as easy to sneak down. The GM is using a currency to say that "you can't get the drop on the guard, because I see you in the brightly lit hallway +2." But, the guard hasn't seen anything until after the roll. And the aspect is just providing a bonus to that roll. It's not a question of easier or not. Aspects are not creating a model of the world, they're influencing a dice roll. The results of which will determine the direction of a narrative. Until the contest is determined and a winner decided, we can't say if this particular guard was snuck up upon or not, and the fiction will inform us as to how hard or easy it was. All we know is he is in a brightly lit hallway and we know that brightly lit hallways tend to make sneaking hard. If the guard wins, than dammit that brightly lit hallway really fucked up the PC. But, if the PC wins, they managed to get the drop on the guard despite all those lights and you can narrate how damn hard it was to sneak up on the guard.

I suppose mostly I just hate situational modifiers when compared to aspects. What is a situational modifier? It's a small bonus or penalty because of some random situation that effects the outcome.

My thoughts exactly. But, it's just a preference, and one I share.

I guess making full use of aspects requires a lot from a GM. It requires that the GM compel often, keeping the currency flowing. It requires that the GM know when to spend fate points to make a better story (even if it's for some random mook that shouldn't normally have fate points).

It also requires this from the players.