ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: fantazero on December 04, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
-
Okay
As a GM my Wizard PC is driving his car away from the scene of a battle when *Tag High Concept of Wizard* his car dies.
In all the panic his emotions caused the car to get hexed.
Cool, fine.
NOW ONTO THE PROBLEM!
Now. I have a PC who is just a Regular joe, he is using a Fancy Gun against a Wizard NPC, the Wizard under duress causes an unintended Hexing of Regular Joe's Fancy Gun.
Should Regular Joe get a Fate Point?
I'd argue, yes
The Wizard is basically putting a unintended temporary aspect of "Gun Not working" on that character. I also say he should be compelled because he should be able to pay it off if he wanted to.
-
Not only should Regular Joe receive a FP (if the compel is accepted), but WizardNPC should spend one.
-
Agreed with Tedronai. If the Wizard's aspect is helping him out, that's an Invoke.
-
The wizard doesn't need to wait for an unintentional hex. He can immediately call as much power as his conviction, without needing to roll or spend stress, and unload it on the gun. A typical Dresdenverse wizard that was born in the last thirty years or so can automatically destroy any technology more complex that pre-WWII guns with 5 shifts of power. And you don't get a fate point because intentional hexing is part of the rules of mortal magic, not anyone's high concept. If the wizard was 200 years old OTOH, a power 6 intentional hex could disable everything up to steam engines and old West revolvers in 2-3 entire zones as the basic hexing begins to scale from the type of technology the wizard had back in his day...
-
The wizard doesn't need to wait for an unintentional hex. He can immediately call as much power as his conviction, without needing to roll or spend stress, and unload it on the gun. A typical Dresdenverse wizard that was born in the last thirty years or so can automatically destroy any technology more complex that pre-WWII guns with 5 shifts of power. And you don't get a fate point because intentional hexing is part of the rules of mortal magic, not anyone's high concept. If the wizard was 200 years old OTOH, a power 6 intentional hex could disable everything up to steam engines and old West revolvers in 2-3 entire zones as the basic hexing begins to scale from the type of technology the wizard had back in his day...
Yeah, the intentional hexing rules are hella broken. I insist on charging stress for those kind of shenanigans at my table.
A wizard having his own toys fail = compel on the wizard.
A wizard trying to destroy something offensively = a spell as normal. (When this occurs, I may also compel a bunch of other stuff/people nearby for other, unintentional hexes, but I consider it like compelling a scene aspect at that point.)
-
Intentional Hexing still takes up a turn and power beyond your conviction still has to be payed for as usual.
-
Yeah, the intentional hexing rules are hella broken. I insist on charging stress for those kind of shenanigans at my table.
A wizard having his own toys fail = compel on the wizard.
A wizard trying to destroy something offensively = a spell as normal. (When this occurs, I may also compel a bunch of other stuff/people nearby for other, unintentional hexes, but I consider it like compelling a scene aspect at that point.)
Me too, if it's during a conflict at any rate. Intentional by RAW is basically a stress free magical maneuver that you don't have to roll for.
Outside of combat I don't really see a reason to do so though.
-
I haven't had much trouble with the power of hexing. It's a full action to use against a supplemental action to draw another gun, after all. And most of the characters I use don't even use guns.
-
I insist on charging stress for those kind of shenanigans at my table.
Then why would a wizard with Conviction 5 but Power 10 would ever use intentional hexing if it costs stress? They could cast an offensive spell with that stress cost and blast the enemy to bits - or still use the energy for hexing, just a much bigger hexing.
Intentional hexing is not a drawback of human magic - its a legitimate use of it, much like one can do minor effects like opening doors, moving around objects, throwing some wind - also without paying stress.
-
Hexing an ipod, no Stress. Hexing a Semi-Automatic Handgun, Stress
Lighting a Candle, No Stress. Super Fireball, Stress.
We've kinda gone off topic.
So, I'm happy with NPC Wizard controlled by GM having to spend a fate point to accidentally hex Regular Joe's Item.
And having Regular Joe receive the Fate point, or being able to pay it off.
-
The wizard already paid refresh for being able to hex as part of his powers and gets the significant drawback of not being able to use technology, which no other character type gets in the world. Intentional hexing without both being mortal and having a lot of refresh on magic costs 1 refresh as a stand-alone power, similar cost to possessing some of the rarer catches like "Holy".
Essentially, it is not that the wizard is hexing technology. It is that technology has the "catch" of mortal magic. Just like everyone in this world has a significant weakness, so does technology have the weakness of hexing. By removing that factor, you change the balance of power significantly.
-
It's not a significant drawback for a wizard to be unable to use technology. That restriction is enforced wholly through compels. Compels are not a bad thing.
-
A mortal having his tech hexed by a wizard would also be a compel and, as you say, compels are not a bad thing.
Unless the plane you're flying in gets hexed.
-
A mortal having his tech hexed by a wizard would also be a compel and, as you say, compels are not a bad thing.
So long as the mortal gets paid for it.
Unless the plane you're flying in gets hexed.
I suggest either buying out of that compel or demanding escalation.
If you meant that to amount to 'you die', then that's another issue, and such a compel should be refused entirely (not bought off).
-
The wizard already paid refresh for being able to hex as part of his powers and gets the significant drawback of not being able to use technology, which no other character type gets in the world. Intentional hexing without both being mortal and having a lot of refresh on magic costs 1 refresh as a stand-alone power, similar cost to possessing some of the rarer catches like "Holy".
You don't need to spend a lot of Refresh on magic to be able to Hex. Any practitioner can do it, so all you need is Channelling or Ritual to do it, and they only cost 2 refresh.
-
So long as the mortal gets paid for it.
I suggest either buying out of that compel or demanding escalation.
If you meant that to amount to 'you die', then that's another issue, and such a compel should be refused entirely (not bought off).
If the caster spends their action intentionally hexing its not a compel it closer to an attack on an item. If the caster says that the ambient magic of all of his casting should hex the gun mans gun (without an action) then its a compel. If a caster tries to intentionally hex a plane whilst on it (unless its a heroic sacrifice moment) well unless the party can fly or cast a gate to the never never we are talk tpk or gm mandate.
-
My .02.
Hexing should not cause stress, however, it should cause in-game consequences.
For instance, in a game I ran, a practitioner put the whammy on a bad guy's gun, but he has a mild mental consequence of "frazzled". I compelled this aspect, and while he was able to hex the bad guy's gun, he also hexed all the electrical doo-dads in the building behind him, starting a huge fire and attracting the authorities.
Almost anything can be handled via story.
-
You may also want to consider which aspects of the gun were hexed
The basic mechanism of a gun, even a fancy modern one, are pretty simple and have been around for a while - unless the wizard predates world war II, or the gun is some super high tech thing, chances are the hexing won't do much (though your laser sight may be screwed)
-
If the caster says that the ambient magic of all of his casting should hex the gun mans gun (without an action) then its a compel.
The OP's situation clearly fits into this category. It was a case where the ambient magic was causing hexing as a side-effect. The trouble was that it felt like it should be a compel, but you can't compel someone without an aspect to compel. Because it was not deliberate hexing, there had been no mechanic (such as a maneuver) to establish an appropriate aspect on the gunman to compel.
The solution that I feel provides the most appealing fit of mechanics to purpose (for both PCs and NPCs) is for the caster spending a Fate Point to make a Declaration to apply an appropriate aspect (e.g. "Buzzing with ambient magic!") on the scene/zone and then the players in that scene/zone can be compelled using that aspect -- if the caster pays a Fate Point for each player being compelled (see "Scene Compels", page 107). What is especially tasty about this approach is that the new aspect provides further invoke/compel possibilities that may not have been initially anticipated (and can plausibly backfire, if the caster has friends who are also using technology!).
-
The OP's situation clearly fits into this category. It was a case where the ambient magic was causing hexing as a side-effect. The trouble was that it felt like it should be a compel, but you can't compel someone without an aspect to compel. Because it was not deliberate hexing, there had been no mechanic (such as a maneuver) to establish an appropriate aspect on the gunman to compel.
The NPC's "Wizard" aspect is plenty to compel. A Compel doesn't have to be an aspect on the person being compelled.
-
The wizard already paid refresh for being able to hex as part of his powers and gets the significant drawback of not being able to use technology, which no other character type gets in the world. Intentional hexing without both being mortal and having a lot of refresh on magic costs 1 refresh as a stand-alone power, similar cost to possessing some of the rarer catches like "Holy".
Essentially, it is not that the wizard is hexing technology. It is that technology has the "catch" of mortal magic. Just like everyone in this world has a significant weakness, so does technology have the weakness of hexing. By removing that factor, you change the balance of power significantly.
Saying it works like a catch is flawed. You still need to land a "to hit" roll in most cases to take advantage of a catch. You can swing an iron sword at a Sidhe all day, the catch is moot if you can't land a swing.
Hexing has no such stipulation. Heck, it has virtually no stipulation other than the broad "technology" requirement.
-
The NPC's "Wizard" aspect is plenty to compel. A Compel doesn't have to be an aspect on the person being compelled.
I'm pretty sure that this is not true. Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line). I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.
-
I'm pretty sure that this is not true. Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line). I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.
They can, it's just not particularly common. A character, PC or otherwise, can invoke or be compelled by any aspect they are interacting with. The source of the aspect doesn't matter, as long as it makes sense that the aspect would affect the action being taken.
-
I'm pretty sure that this is not true. Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line). I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.
You're mistaken, then. Compelling a scene aspect against someone isn't "blurring this line," it's clearly not the person's personal aspect being compelled.
If someone's person aspect is creating a complication, then the person who's having their life complicated is compelled. If a Wizard can't throw a fireball because the room has an aspect of "Filled with gasoline vapors," then it's not compelling the wizard's aspect, it's compelling the room's aspect against the Wizard.
-
If someone's person aspect is creating a complication, then the person who's having their life complicated is compelled. If a Wizard can't throw a fireball because the room has an aspect of "Filled with gasoline vapors," then it's not compelling the wizard's aspect, it's compelling the room's aspect against the Wizard.
The room that the wizard is IN. With aspects describing its contents. Some of those contents being the wizard. Who himself has aspects describing him.
That's quite a bit different than the tech-wiz in the next room over being compelled by the wizard's flaring frustration (at the infeasability of his usual method of problem-solving in his current predicament) to have his tablet explode in his face.
-
The room that the wizard is IN. With aspects describing its contents. Some of those contents being the wizard. Who himself has aspects describing him.
The room's aspects are not the wizard's aspects. The aspect is describing the room, not the wizard. Yet the wizard is the one who is getting the fate point, because the room aspect is being compelled against him.
That's quite a bit different than the tech-wiz in the next room over being compelled by the wizard's flaring frustration (at the infeasability of his usual method of problem-solving in his current predicament) to have his tablet explode in his face.
Well, no. Because it's not the tech-wiz's aspect that's causing the complication--it's the wizard's. The Wizard's aspect is compelling the tech-wiz.
-
The entire purpose of there being a scene 'entity' able to possess aspects is to have those aspects be able to affect whatever characters might at whatever point be present in that scene (directly, as would aspects of the individual characters themselves). This is not true of characters. Thus, the two scenarios presented are definitively distinct.
-
The entire purpose of there being a scene 'entity' able to possess aspects is to have those aspects be able to affect whatever characters might at whatever point be present in that scene (directly, as would aspects of the individual characters themselves). This is not true of characters. Thus, the two scenarios presented are definitively distinct.
Except in the relevant sense that they are able to be compelled against a character who does not possess those aspects.
Otherwise, the average NPC's aspects will almost never negatively affect PCs, because the average NPC isn't going to have fate points to invoke their own aspects.
-
Except in the relevant sense that they are able to be compelled against a character who does not possess those aspects.
Except in so far as scene aspects are placed on the whole of the scene, which includes those characters which are a part of that scene.
Otherwise, the average NPC's aspects will almost never negatively affect PCs, because the average NPC isn't going to have fate points to invoke their own aspects.
Characters without FP pools of their own don't typically matter enough to have such substantial impacts on the story. When otherwise minor NPCs do require such interaction, they may make use of shared FP pools, debt, or be compelled themselves.
-
It may simply be confusion in the terminology - differentiating between tags, invokes, compels, and invokes for effect shouldn't be necessary. So avoiding the terms...
...a character may spend a fate point to gain from any relevant aspect. Relevant aspects may include personal, zone, scene, city, and current action's target or attacker as long as they are in the associated role. A bystander's aspects are probably not relevant. If the result directly and negatively impacts a victim they usually gain the fate point.
...a character can't use their own aspect to directly affect an opponent. It's not tied to the opponent and isn't directly relevant. They can use it indirectly - i.e. gain a bonus or change the situation to help themselves. So Bill might use his I Love a Smackdown aspect to add a bonus to his own attack roll against Fred but he can't use it to see someone else beat Fred down or to weaken Fred directly.
-
Except in so far as scene aspects are placed on the whole of the scene, which includes those characters which are a part of that scene.
I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. A scene aspect describes the area, not the people.
If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?
If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.
If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.
Characters without FP pools of their own don't typically matter enough to have such substantial impacts on the story. When otherwise minor NPCs do require such interaction, they may make use of shared FP pools, debt, or be compelled themselves.
Doesn't the book suggest that NPCs and antagonists with fate point pools be something of a rarity, rather than the norm?
-
If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?
It might, if he stumbles into the middle of a shootout between the Crips and Bloods.
If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.
Well, if he's in the burning building, it certainly would.
If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.
Sure it does! He's just stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, after all! ;)
-
I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. A scene aspect describes the area, not the people.
If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?
If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.
If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.
Doesn't the book suggest that NPCs and antagonists with fate point pools be something of a rarity, rather than the norm?
I'm not sure what the RAW are, but in my games all NPCs have one pool of fate points that get drawn from as needed.
-
It might, if he stumbles into the middle of a shootout between the Crips and Bloods.
Well, if he's in the burning building, it certainly would.
Sure it does! He's just stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, after all! ;)
No, you're missing the point. The middle aged white guy isn't part of the gang warfare--it's something unrelated to him, that doesn't describe him, but is affecting him.
The wizard isn't on fire, but it's affecting him.
The mortal isn't part of the Faerie court--but it's affecting him.
None of those aspects describe the person being affected--but they still affect said person.
-
Seems like some people have a bit of a misunderstanting of what aspects are. They are not just character or location descriptions, they are anything and everything that could affect the outcome of any given situation.
I've kinda lost what the mechanical arguement even is anymore. I can't cite the page, but I know YS gives a very explicit example of one PC invoking an aspect on a different PC's character sheet for a +2 roll bonus. If that right there doesn't say you can invoke/compel any aspect in play that makes narrative sense then I don't know what does.
-
I'm confused here too. There's a wizard, a gunman, and a room full of magic. Somebody wants the gunman's gun to be hexed.
If the GM wants the gun hexed, it's easy. GM throws the gunman a FP and says "there's a lot of ambient magic here. Your gun goes click...fizz...nothing. Guess something's wrong" (revealing and compelling a scene aspect)."
If the wizard wants an "unintentional" hexing of the gun, she invokes her High concept and pays a FP. And then the GM hands the FP to the gunman and says "ah, gun no worky."
If the gunman, for some reason wants their own gun hexed, it's a pretty easy self compel on the magic every one knows is in the room. Gunman gets paid.
Things change up a smidge if the wizard or the gunman is an NPC, but not very much.
-
(revealing and compelling a scene aspect)
Essentially, this little tidbit here is the point of contention.
Some of us believe there should be such an aspect. Some of us apparently believe that the wizard's own aspect reflecting their heightened emotional state is sufficient in itself.
-
It seems like a "counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" argument, but okay.
As GM, I would focus on the thing that makes the wizard's aspect relevant to the compel on the gunman, which enables the compel to make sense in the fiction. It such a simple matter to just compel and invoke that thing as a scene aspect, why am I bothering with indirect compels and invokes at all?
It's an interesting philosophical discussion, I guess.
-
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum doesn't hex nearby technology.
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum causes him to 'leak' now-ambient magic.
Ambient magic hexes nearby technology.
-
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum doesn't hex nearby technology.
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum causes him to 'leak' now-ambient magic.
Ambient magic hexes nearby technology.
So semantics to argue that we need to take a couple extra, meaningless steps to get the same result we could get by just compelling the first aspect, which is entirely allowable anyway?
Let's say it's not magic. You have a couple goons on your side, one of whom has the aspect along the lines of, "Wild, uncontrolled bursts." The aspect means that his gunfire goes wild, and you have to dodge. Do you say that he is leaking "now ambient bullets"? Or can we, you know, just do the simple thing of compelling the already existing aspect without having to jump through hoops to do something that's entirely allowable in the rules as written anyway?
-
Sounds to me like a compel against whatever aspect represents the relationship with that unstable/unreliable goon.
-
Sounds to me like a compel against whatever aspect represents the relationship with that unstable/unreliable goon.
There's no relationship. He's a hired goon that you've never seen before, and who has no opinion of you personally. He's just a really crappy shot--the only factor applying to you having to dodge is his own personal aspect.
So the options are, either A. you can just directly compel his aspect against the person being inconvenienced, or B. you jump through some hoops to get the same exact result, only with two or three extra steps, when to my knowledge, there's no RAW reason you should have to.
Speaking of Scene Compels in particular:
Scene aspects may imply some circumstances
that will befall any (or many) of the characters
in the scene—Everything Is Burning! is
a classic example and a frequent aspect in any
scene involving Harry Dresden. In such a case,
it’s entirely apropos to act as if that aspect is on
each character’s sheet and compel (see page 100)
the aspect for each of them, dishing fate points
all around and nicely covering the effects the
aspect has on the characters in the scene.
-
I think compelling scene aspects is the easy part of the question.
Like, if one character is shooting and has the aspect "wild uncontrollable bursts" I can definitely compel him to have his shots go all over the place, and then I can turn to the wizard and say "there are shots all over the place, give me a dodge roll at a difficulty of 4." I don't have t compel the wizard at all in that case. I can alternatively compel the shooter and place a scene aspect "errant gunfire!" Now, as long as the shooting is still going on, I can compel folks. What I don't like is short cutting the fiction to just say "hey wizard. That guy over there, he's got an aspect for shooting wildly, here's a FP because of his aspect which I haven't really established as relevant yet, this is especially so, if the shooter is a PC, but even with an NPC, I'd follow a show don't tell philosophy and establish the wild gunfire in the fiction, then have its impact felt. I think the experience is actually enhanced by doing it that way.
More on this later.
-
Essentially, this little tidbit here is the point of contention.
Some of us believe there should be such an aspect. Some of us apparently believe that the wizard's own aspect reflecting their heightened emotional state is sufficient in itself.
Is there a difference?
If you don't want to use the wizard's high concept you can simply declare A Wizard is Near by spending a fate and immediately tag it for the same effect. Declarations don't take an action and fate points get transferred the same as in noclue's description. I don't see a meaningful difference.
As long as the aspect is relevant it can be used. If you really want to do so, you can go through the mechanics of making a related declaration first...but I don't really see a need. The real test is whether or not it's relevant.
-
Like, if one character is shooting and has the aspect "wild uncontrollable bursts" I can definitely compel him to have his shots go all over the place, and then I can turn to the wizard and say "there are shots all over the place, give me a dodge roll at a difficulty of 4." I don't have t compel the wizard at all in that case. I can alternatively compel the shooter and place a scene aspect "errant gunfire!" Now, as long as the shooting is still going on, I can compel folks. What I don't like is short cutting the fiction to just say "hey wizard. That guy over there, he's got an aspect for shooting wildly, here's a FP because of his aspect which I haven't really established as relevant yet, this is especially so, if the shooter is a PC, but even with an NPC, I'd follow a show don't tell philosophy and establish the wild gunfire in the fiction, then have its impact felt. I think the experience is actually enhanced by doing it that way.
More on this later.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I'm talking about. It seems to be just an outline of a particularly lazy GM not bothering to describe things, which isn't what I'm talking about.
-
Is there a difference?
If you don't want to use the wizard's high concept you can simply declare A Wizard is Near by spending a fate and immediately tag it for the same effect. Declarations don't take an action and fate points get transferred the same as in noclue's description. I don't see a meaningful difference.
Yeah, so here's what I've been thinking about. The examples with unintentional hexing and wild gunfire aren't great for digging into this from a design issue. The situation is easy to fix. It's a scene aspect. Done. Or, save a step and just compel the aspect from one character's sheet on another character and done even faster.
So, it looks like its fine either way. It looks like if you don't have a relevant aspect on one character's sheet, just look at another character's sheet and compel that. But, I think there's something elegant hidden beneath the question that makes me want to look it in a different light.
So, let's say we have two characters, Alvin and Sheila. Alvin is your stereotypical nerd accountant type. He can best be summed up with the aspect "Bookish accountant with a head only for numbers." For Sheila, we'll go with a cliche as well, like "Fresh-faced beauty." Sheila's been selling breadcrumbs at tuppence a bag but she doesn't seem to be making a profit and she's come to ask Alvin for help.
So, in she walks and I think it would be really cool to spark off a romance between these two characters with a compel. I look at Alvin's sheet, and I got nothing. If Alvin had "Accountant with the heart of a poet," I'd have him. I'd compel that poet heart as he looks up while she steps into his room. But, he doesn't and I can't. Similarly, I look at Sheila's sheet and I got nothing there. If she had "Looking for love in all the wrong places" or "No more bad boys for this good girl," or something I'd be good. But, nope.
Of course, if they were in some kind of conflict, Sheila could invoke her "Fresh-faced beauty" aspect for a bonus and Alvin could use his single mindedness to help him ignore her by invoking his own "...mind only for numbers" aspect. But as the GM, the players haven't given me relevant Aspects to push things where I want them to go. Even if we all think a relationship between Alvin and Sheila would be cool, I don't have anywhere to spend my fate points yet. I don't really get a say.
And that's a good thing. This is a good problem to have. Because, who the fuck am I really. The player created Alvin and he crafted all those aspects to represent the character. The game is going to advocate for Alvin to be the best Alvin he can be. If he's built to be blind to Sheila, then where do I get off trying mess with that? I haven't earned the right to push him there. Same with Sheila, she's not built to be interested in Alvin. That's not something I can poke at.
And if one of them were created with Aspects that drove towards romantic sparks in this situation, that's where I should push. That's the character I should be looking at with my FP in hand. That's the one I should be prompting into action, based on their aspects that they built. If Alvin has the heart of a poet, I poke there. If Sheila's looking for a sensitive guy who's good at math, I push there.
So, let's say everyone's on board with this romance idea, but no one has Aspects built for it. That's cool. Because the characters can roleplay their little hearts out and create a romance and the game rewards that. Now, I can look at the situation and say "Hey, I like this thing we've built in play. I think I'll just compel this "Budding Romance" that we all know is there now." I can turn to Alvin's player and say "you know getting involved with Sheila is going to piss off Frank, but...." And now we're cooking gas. It may have taken longer to get to where the Aspects were relevant, but now everything makes sense. I don't have to impose on Alvin or Sheila. I can just use the Aspects that are organic to the situation and push there.
And that's what I really want out of aspects. Not the fastest way to get to a +2, or even the most expedient way to push the fiction where I want it to go, but a currency that builds a cool experience based on the things we each bring to the table.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I'm talking about. It seems to be just an outline of a particularly lazy GM not bothering to describe things, which isn't what I'm talking about.
Assume equal description in both examples.
-
I think Umber and Mr.D are saying the most elegant way to do it is by using the most direct method that doesn't force the player to make needless Declairations, possibly requiring them to make an entire extra roll, because most players are going to want to roll on the possibility to save a FP.
It just bogs down the scene, when the simpler (and more elegant IMO) method is to just let them invoke the aspect right off the character sheet for the exact same effect.
-
Assuming thats true, I'm not sure I see the value in reducing declarations. I like declarations. I don't find them useless and I'd actually like to see more of them rather than fewer.
-
Assuming thats true, I'm not sure I see the value in reducing declarations. I like declarations. I don't find them useless and I'd actually like to see more of them rather than fewer.
for the most part I would agree. I know my players still have kind of a hard time grasping the full power declairations have, so they tend to only use them for the +2 or reroll. When the declairations become redundant and don't cover anything that aspects that are already in play do is where I just "trim the fat" so to speak.
-
Fair point.