For "Standard" Gamers, Why Aren't Aspects Stunts?

[Sanctaphrax]

It would be easy enough to make a mortal with seven stunts, each named after an aspect.

[noclue]

So, what would be wrong (what is wrong) with having people build aspects like the former rather than the latter. They seem less silly and Risus-like and less conflictual - it's more likely that everyone agrees what the aspect can/can't do, etc.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Don't we have enough games with stats and a feats list? Without Aspects there's really no reason to play Fate.

Edit: Houses of the Blooded pulls it off, but Wick has a whole narrative wagering mechanic in there to bring a different brand of awesome to the table.

Who cares if the guy with the aspect "best gunslinger in the west" is actually the best gunslinger in the west? Maybe he just thinks he is. Maybe he pretends to be. Maybe that's what everyone calls him. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would matter, but if it does the GM just asks the player to rework it until everyone's happy.

[furashgf]

That's a great point. Agreed.

[Set Abominae]

Don't we have enough games with stats and a feats list? Without Aspects there's really no reason to play Fate.

Edit: Houses of the Blooded pulls it off, but Wick has a whole narrative wagering mechanic in there to bring a different brand of awesome to the table.

Who cares if the guy with the aspect "best gunslinger in the west" is actually the best gunslinger in the west? Maybe he just thinks he is. Maybe he pretends to be. Maybe that's what everyone calls him. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would matter, but if it does the GM just asks the player to rework it until everyone's happy.

Well that aspect could come up in several ways. He could try to invoke it in social situations with a presence roll to impress the yokels in the local bar towards whatever ends. He could try to intimidate opponents in conflict, perhaps invoking with an Intimidation roll to make his opponent nervous and slip up (like making giving him an advantage in a quick draw because the opponent is all nerves). The GM could compel him with it when he hears news that someone else claims to be the best gunslinger. A compel could put him at a disadvantage when he meets the real best gunslinger. So on.

But yeah, you're right. FATE wouldn't be FATE without the aspect system.

[noclue]

Well that aspect could come up in several ways.

agreed.

The GM could compel him with it when he hears news that someone else claims to be the best gunslinger. A compel could put him at a disadvantage when he meets the real best gunslinger. So on.

No. Being matched up against someone better than you puts you at a disadvantage. The compel just gets you there.

[Dreamslinger]

Thank you all for your comments, except for the person with the very scary mouth icon picture.

Let me try this a different way. Imagine a player selects "best gunfighter in the west," and selects a poor gunfighting skill. So, they can spend a fate point to shoot (slightly) better, and I can compell them by having them take all challengers. However, coming from outside FATE, this sounds silly - he/she isn't the "best gunfighter in the west." I'm a fan of the idea that constraints encourage creativity, but since aspects like this can be completely fake or overly broad, you can get people doing silly things with them just to get their 2+ bonus.

Your example basically summed up the movie "Rango".

[Veet]

Another thing aspects can do is tell the GM what the player expects from the game. Bringing in the "Will Do Anything For My Sister" aspect for example again, that tells the GM that there is a sister and she needs stuff.