Entropy curse gone wrong, as an aspect or power?

[YPU]

One of my players had the pretty cool idea of playing the son of a big crime lord, who by accident has something of a Entropy curse gone wrong on him. Gone wrong how? It gives him weird mixed luck. The idea came from the "killed by a car, while water-skying." story.

A good example of what he wants this to do would be a break in gone wrong, after getting cornered in a waterfront building he escapes trough the hole made by a runaway speedboat. Only downside would be that it was his own getaway boat that made the hole. (The idea could work with a car all the same of course but our city has a lot of channels.)

Anyhow I am not entirely sure how to handle his character. The easiest way would be to make it an aspect, but should that be a high aspect or trouble? It also seems like a rather big effect for invoking an aspect, a pretty big supernatural effect. So should he still be a pure mortal? Or would this be better as a minor talent power plus a linked aspect?

I love the idea, it gives me ample opportunity for murphy's law, which aught to be rampant in Dresden. However I am slightly miffed how to implement it best. I get that this is FATE, and I can do it either or any way, but I would like some opinions on it all the same.

[CottbusFiles]

Well you can compell it really easy which will give him the fatepoints to have a lot of luck. Also easy to selfcompell.

[YPU]

Well you can compell it really easy which will give him the fatepoints to have a lot of luck. Also easy to selfcompell.

This is true, but I am wondering if its not creating to much effect for an aspect. I mean I could take "I can grow back an arm" as an aspect but unless I actually take a power to do so I probably should not be allowed to actually grow back an arm.
By the same logic I fear this would be to big a power to allow only from a aspect. Basically using the aspect for such an event would be a declaration, and the aforementioned example seems a bit to powerful for declarations.

[CottbusFiles]

I think it's okay. More than a +2 or a bit of declaration isn't going to come from it. Where are you fearing does this become a problem?

[YPU]

I think it's okay. More than a +2 or a bit of declaration isn't going to come from it. Where are you fearing does this become a problem?

Well the way everyone is visualizing the effects are pretty big and spectacular. Boats trough walls, gas explosions, the kind of thing you would not be able to see in a B movie as its above budget really. Rather hen having something useful now, problem later happen often it would rather be something that happens once per session. (we play 12 hours straight most of the time)
The thing that would be happening would be pretty hard to do with evocation at times, so it would seem they are really powerful for just a aspect. The reaction of somebody haning out with him for some time would not be that he is very lucky all the time, rather after a while it would be blatantly apparent there is something deeply wrong with the karma around this dude. It feels like it should be something supernatural in that way as well. It could even be a marked by power thing as well, with supernatural forces acknowledging something is very wrong with him.

[sinker]

Ok, this is a bit of a inflammatory question on the boards here. We recently had a fairly heated discussion on the matter. You can find the whole thing here.

During the course of the discussion one of us asked Fred Hicks (our major conduit of communication with Evil Hat here) what he thought. Here's the whole bit.

I sent Fred an email, saying:

I know that you don't like being asked for "official rules calls", but this has more to do with the reason behind a small part of the game.  The why behind the Pure Mortal refresh bonus and how much it can be stretched.  With the ultimate rules authority (the table) unable to reach a consensus I thought I'd ask you about the reasoning behind its design.
1) Does the Pure Mortal refresh bonus represent a sort of "negative lawbreaker" bit? I.E. does someone with no supernatural powers have more freewill than a character with any supernatural elements?
1a) If not, is it just a game balance thing without any underlying philosophy?

2) Can a Pure Mortal have a High Concept that mentions supernatural ability?
EG 1: "Untrained Wizard with White Council Potential" - to be tagged when the character's innate powers might save him?
EG 2: "Distant Descendant of the Luck God" - to be tagged when luck is needed.

3) Could a Pure Mortal have a non-High Concept Aspect that references the supernatural?
EG: A Background Aspect: "Distant Descendant of the Luck God"

When he wrote back the individual points weren't addressed, but the gist of the question was.

We tried to build unity between the mechanical incentive (game balance, if you want to call it that) and the world philosophy, that pure mortals are potent because they have the benefit of so much free will. Mortals who get entangled in the affairs of the supernatural can turn into food, yes, but they can also screw it all up right proper (hello, Murphy).

It's also a representation that they have a lot of open potential in there, which locks down fast once they start heading a particular supernatural direction.

But, from a mechanical standpoint, the pure mortal bonus makes sense up until you start buying supernatural powers. Once you do, it goes away, full stop. Before then, you are, mechanically, a pure mortal without any supernatural powers, so I'd stick with keeping it.

Fred

So from a philosophical point, the "negative lawbreaker" thing fits.  Up until I got to the "But, from a mechanical standpoint,..." I thought the Aspect thing fit in as well.  Maybe it's a conflict between the design philosophy and resulting mechanics.

Having given you all of the roots of the discussion, I'll tell you what I think. Personally I don't have a problem with it. Invoking aspects can be powerful, and in my experience it generally doesn't matter whether it's a supernatural aspect or a mundane aspect. He could have the aspect "Weird Luck" or "Action Hero" and it would have similar results. At least this aspect will also give you very powerful compels. Also keep in mind that you (The GM) are the arbiter of how the invokes work mechanically. You can choose which zones are affected, how they are affected, etc. You can even decide that it's a weak invoke/compel. This makes it hard for the player to really exploit this kind of thing.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yes, it works as an Aspect.

Mechanically, Aspects can do anything the GM feels is appropriate. Kill God and replace him with a bottle of ketchup, retroactively? Sure! Just spend a Fate Point for the Invoke.

Narratively, Aspects aren't a thing.

So what's the problem?

PS: The Entropy Curse on page 296 of YS has no effect beyond putting an Aspect on someone. It's not very well-written, unfortunately, but it's pretty good evidence for what I'm saying here.
PPS: Said spell is badly written because it tries to meddle with the Compel mechanics, making Compels into bad things. Which doesn't really work. Among other problems, it means that the Entropy Curse will never do anything interesting to a PC; it'll just drain their FP.

[YPU]

Thanks for the replies guys. (and the warning, sinker, 28 pages, damn)

I think the main concern the player and me by extend had was that it would seem to be very powerful effect in respect to some other aspects the book has. Something one of my players came up with was that it could be like a -1 power to create fallout, a bit like mana static that allows hexing.

For a more story based view. A power is something you can do. Its a ability you have, personally. Sometimes you are only conducting the power (sponsored magic) or it was given to you unwillingly, but using it in game is always the characters choice to employ it. The character decides to cast the spell or use his claws or whatever. Sometimes its the player accepting a compel but in game its still the characters choice rather then being forced (tough he might be acting according to nature rather then free will) This curse however is not a ability in that manner. There is no choice from the character to make it happen. The player could offer a fate point and ask if something wacky could happen but the character could do nothing more then pray for it to do so, he himself has no control whatsoever over it. I think that is an important distinction here, tough I can imagine somebody coming up with a list of powers that cross that line as well, I cant think of any.

As mentioned it also allows me to screw the players over royally and I could encourage the entire table to participate in coming up with the weirdest thing that could happen, so in the end if it makes the game more fun for everybody what's the problem? 

I do think that with such a explosive effect I would want it to be part of his high concept tough. But that's a minor detail.

[Sanctaphrax]

Story-wise, Aspects and Powers don't exist. A monster can be stronger than a man, sure, but that doesn't mean the monster has Inhuman Strength or an INHUMANLY STRONG aspect. It could be either or neither or both.

So don't worry about the story implications of making something a Power or an Aspect. There aren't any.

There are significant mechanical differences though. So the choice does matter.

Judging by your comments, an Aspect sounds more appropriate.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, I'd say any effect of a lingering entropy curse would be best represented with an aspect--it's not something the character is generating or is part of the character, and it's not a "power" that he's borrowing from someone else. It's a spell effect lingering on him, just like getting an Extreme Consequence inflicted after getting on a pyromancer's bad side would be.

[sinker]

Sooo tempted to troll Death....