It’s actually easier to just port the combat aspects of Fate Core to DFRPG than the whole Powers-System to Core. Take a look at the Veteran’s Guide in Fate Core and update DFRPG like that. I actually wrote the changes needed down, in DFRPG’s vocabulary:

# The Dresden Files RPG — Fate Core Update

## Aspects and Tagging

• Tagging now stacks with an invocation or together with other tags on the same aspect. Further, an aspect can hold more than one tag at a time. It’s still not possible to use more than one fate point per aspect.
• When using a maneuver, assessment or declaration to create/reveal an aspect and the result is a significant success (3+ shifts), you create two tags on that aspect (instead of just one).
• A maneuver can now be used to create a tag on a sticky aspect. A significant success creates two tags on that aspect.

## Actions

• The optional Spin rule (p. 214) should be used.

## The GM and Fate Points

• As GM you start each scene with a pool of one fate point per PC that’s in the scene. Spend fate points from this pool to invoke aspects (and consequences) against the PCs. When it’s empty, you can only use tags to invoke aspects against them.
• When a player uses a fate point to invoke one of the NPC’s aspect, this fate point does not go into the GM’s pool.
• When a player compels one of an NPC’s aspects, add the fate point to your pool. If that compel ends the scene, or when an NPC concedes, instead add those fate points to your pool at the start of the next scene.
• Fate points you award for compels do not come from this pool. You never have to worry about running out of fate points to award for compels.

I just found a blog post by Ryan Macklin, in which he describes how the Fate Core rules are supposed to work and how he mistakenly thought they work. In there he links to a discussion on G+, in which he then confirms that the rules of Fate Core and Dresden actually are supposed to work the same.*

For those who don’t know, “hostile invocation” is the post-publication term a bunch of us at Fate HQ use to describe when you’re invoking an aspect that someone else owns or is in control off against that owner. That’s the gist of “Having Your Aspects Invoked Against You” on p. 81, but considers situational aspects you’ve created and currently control, not just your character aspects. Making On Fire isn’t generally something you control after you make it, so it generally doesn’t count as a hostile invocation.

That's still about aspect ownership. "An aspect on another PC or on a NPC" means that person's aspect—it's the same as the Core line.

He does talk about ownership and control of the aspects. You get a FP when someone uses an aspect you own or control against you. Assuming I understood him correctly, for my examples this would mean this:

1) Works as I described.

2) Works only if Alice does in fact control the aspect.

3) No, Bert would not get a FP because Alice does control the aspect.

4) Yes, Alice would get a FP because she controls the aspect.

5) Nobody would get any FPs because nobody owns or controls that aspect.

This would also mean that the example of the Shadowman on p. 106-7 is correct. He gets a FP because the Shadowman controls the aspect Harry uses against him.


* The difference being that in FC, only players get FPs due to invocations against their characters, not the GM. That has something to do with the GM having a FP Pool in FC.

I’m a bit unclear on when Fate Points change hands after invoking other aspects. I’m specifically not talking about tagging, since there are no FPs involved. I’m also not talking about compelling. Some situations seem to be pretty clear, let’s assume Alice and Bert are the characters:

1) If Alice invokes a character aspect of Bert to his disadvantage, Bert gets the FP Alice has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106, under “Invoking Other Aspects”.

2) If Alice creates a scene aspect on the scene (and not on Bert) and Bert invokes this scene aspect to Alice’s disadvantage, Alice gets the FP Bert has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106-7, under “Tagging”.

These examples are easy, because in both cases, the aspects in question are owned by the ones that are disadvantaged. In the first case, it’s Bert’s aspect and Bert gets a FP, in the second case, it’s Alice’s aspect and Alice gets a FP.


What about other scene aspects? Another example:

3) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Alice invokes that aspect to Bert’s detriment, does Bert get the FP?

4) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Bert invokes that aspect to Alices detriment, does Alice get the FP?

These examples aren’t as clear, since Alice might be the owner of that aspect, but the aspect is on Bert.


What about scene aspects, that are neither? Let’s say Clive enters the scene:

5) Clive creates the aspect *The Room is on Fire on the scene. Alice invokes that aspects to Bert’s detriment. Does Bert get the FP?


I tried the forum search, but it’s rubbish. I haven’t found anything about that. Sorry if this has been discussed before.

One last thing: I know how this is handled in Fate Core and I know that I could handle it just the same in DFRPG, but I’m interested in how the DFRPG is supposed to work. The example on p. 106-7 seems to contradict the way FC handles this.

Thanks a lot!

Thanks a lot for your input.

    c) targeting doesn't count for maneuvers.  The discipline roll is only for controlling the spell.

Well, the book does mention it for for redirecting spells (YS260). And I think it’s implied for rotes. Part of my confusion stems from this.

Also, 2b doesn’t really makes sense without a targeting roll. If you only compare shifts of power vs. defending skill, why would the actual skill value be important?

That's probably because most of Harry's new toys got thrown in the side block on pg 321. I think the only thing left was the Slow Fall potion, so not a lot to stick there.

Thanks, that might be. Still a bit misleading, though.

I didn’t necessarily meant literally 1000. Just a really big modifier that is more likely a plot device than anything else.

Also, explosives usually hit one to three or four zones. So the direct damage would be in these zones. So even a nuke with an attack roll bonus of 1000 would only destroy so much of a town with ten or so zones.

And let Fred know directly as well. This is the kind of thing he needs to know.

I was under the impression that he’s an active reader in this forum.

But you’re right. I guess I’ll write him an e-mail.

Some days ago, I received my fourth copy from my local retailer, and it fell apart on the same day. I now had four copies from different batches (is this the right word?) on my hand and all of them fell apart within days. This can’t be just bad luck.

Anyway, I gave it back and I’ll bring my original copy to a bookbinder and see if he can fix it.