Is there anything elements CAN'T do?

[The Dread Polack]

Page 254 of Your Story explains the nature of the various elements and what sorts of Aspects you can create with them. I am wondering if there are any effects a GM would be reasonable in not allowing from certain elements, or perhaps raising the difficulty of.

For instance, you might say Air is great for battering things around, but not for doing direct damage. Or, an Earth effect might not reach (or reach with great difficulty) someone cruising at 30,000 feet. I want the Elements in my game to be more than the color of the blast being fired at the monster. I am, of course, willing to accept reasonable justifications from players who describe what they are doing, and I think all the actions are possible with all the elements, but I think someone with Earth magic, for instance could probably create blocks in places they just couldn't with Air.

I am tempted to raise or lower the difficulty of maneuvers for appropriate or inappropriate elements, but I'm wary of modifying attacks or blocks, since I don't want to unbalance the elements, especially since having a +1 from a specialty or focus item starts to be less relevant.

How are you guys handling this?

[MijRai]

Just run the spell in power and such the way it would go, and work the flavor to it. Earth does more then earthquakes. Lightning, gravity, and more are controlled by earth, so it has a lot of flexiblity. That plane way up there could be hit with heavy gravity and stall. Air controls lightning as well, and I'd say a fist of air hurts just as much as any other fist does. It should fit with the element, but not be hampered or given a bonus due to the flavor behind it.

[Captain Indigo]

For instance, you might say Air is great for battering things around, but not for doing direct damage.

This is simply not true. You can use Air to create a highly focused lance of steam, which can slice through nearly anything. Especially squishy monsters.

Basically the only limits on a given element is how creative you or your players are.

[MijRai]

This is simply not true. You can use Air to create a highly focused lance of steam, which can slice through nearly anything. Especially squishy monsters.

Basically the only limits on a given element is how creative you or your players are.

Exactly.

[sinker]

I know fire has a hard time doing anything other than damage, but I guess Harry comes up with a creative use for it in Proven Guilty.

[The Dread Polack]

Well, I understand what you're all saying here. I have yet to play more than a single short session, so it might be best to play it as you describe, but humor me just a bit longer here...

Like I said, I'm willing to allow anything a player can reasonably justify, but do you think it might be fair to introduce some kinds of modifiers to the evocation difficulties when one element might be more or less appropriate in a given circumstance? I agree that you should be able to wham someone pretty hard with a fist of air, but what if someone wants to block an asbestos golem with fire? Should I disallow it? Allow it with a modfier? or insist on a REALLY good explanation for how this is supposed to work?

[Ranma1558]

It strikes me that the asbestos golem would have immunity=fire. That would mean a pure fire block (a wall of fire) could NOT stop it (think loup garou and bullet example in YS) but, if the player was smart and, say, slagged/melted the concrete in front of it so the golem couldn't move to the party, then I'd allow a fire block.
As for the strengths and weaknesses of each element I usually play around a bit with element modifiers and the like so long as the player A) makes a nice declaration about it B) It makes some sense. I had an escape scene with 2 focused practitioners leaping from one roof to the another, both wanted to use their powers to make the jump. One was a kinet-o-mancer the other was a pryo-mancer. The first pushes his jump with more force then he'd normally have, I put the challenge at +4, he makes it but still over shots the jump hitting a smoke stack (1 stress). The second uses fire to propel himself across the way, for this I made the a +5 challenge (making a rocket pack is harder then a spring board) he makes it but sets the first roof on fire.
So in short, an attack is an attack unless its a catch or if you make a declaration that you can use to increase the damage from that element (Snow turning to steam to cook a gruff after being burned in small favors for example).

[mostlyawake]

It strikes me that the asbestos golem would have immunity=fire. That would mean a pure fire block (a wall of fire) could NOT stop it (think loup garou and bullet example in YS) but, if the player was smart and, say, slagged/melted the concrete in front of it so the golem couldn't move to the party, then I'd allow a fire block.
As for the strengths and weaknesses of each element I usually play around a bit with element modifiers and the like so long as the player A) makes a nice declaration about it B) It makes some sense. I had an escape scene with 2 focused practitioners leaping from one roof to the another, both wanted to use their powers to make the jump. One was a kinet-o-mancer the other was a pryo-mancer. The first pushes his jump with more force then he'd normally have, I put the challenge at +4, he makes it but still over shots the jump hitting a smoke stack (1 stress). The second uses fire to propel himself across the way, for this I made the a +5 challenge (making a rocket pack is harder then a spring board) he makes it but sets the first roof on fire.
So in short, an attack is an attack unless its a catch or if you make a declaration that you can use to increase the damage from that element (Snow turning to steam to cook a gruff after being burned in small favors for example).

I tend to disagree with such situational modifiers to magic; in the above escape example I'd just give them the same difficulty (whatever I thought the athletics rating of the jump would be) and leave it up to them to tell me how it differs.  Nor would I set the building on fire unless a discipline roll was failed.  The only time I care about the element used is if it relates to an existing aspect.  As such, if I was going to rule that said Golem was fire-proof, it would have a Fire-Proof aspect.  If using fire in the room was bad due to explosive gas, then there would be an aspect of Someone Left the Stove On... ect, ect, ect.   


My reasoning is two-fold:  First, laziness: I don't want to complicate the game mechanics; I chose fate because the rules are simple.  Second, I don't want the players to feel like they got cheated by picking fire instead of wind, or something, just because I tend to not realize that I'm ruling one way consistently.  The only real exception is that my group only makes mental attacks with spirit... but that's really the nature of the bad guys they've faced (one tried to control them with spirit magic, another was using spirit magic to do things without a physical trace... I guess I need to try to give them a Scared aspect with Fire soon).

So my advice is to handle it, like all things, with Aspects.  If you want one element to be "better" in a scene, tie it to an aspect. 

[Haru]

Like I said, I'm willing to allow anything a player can reasonably justify, but do you think it might be fair to introduce some kinds of modifiers to the evocation difficulties when one element might be more or less appropriate in a given circumstance?

That is basically the idea of aspects as others have stated before me. If you want fire to be more effective against a target, declare something like "flammable clothes" aspect on them and tag it as you cast your spell. Want to give an air evocation an extra oomph? There might be "small debris" between yourself and your enemy that can be tagged to inflict additional damage when it is blown at your enemy's face.
It helps to think of the elements not only as those specific elements but mostly as the concepts behind them as described in YS.

You might not be able to declare anything earthy on a plane, but you sure as hell would be able to raise gravity around it with an earth evocation. It would be easier to do with an air evocation though, because you could declare a few aspects beforehand (there is after all a lot of air up there).

or insist on a REALLY good explanation for how this is supposed to work?

This is the idea behind the whole FATE system, I think. It does not try so much to detail realism as it creates a frame for really cool stories. As a matter of fact, the more unusual the application of an element is, the more fun it will probably be. Like using fire to create a sheet of ice to escape on, the kind of thing that will most likely only be usable once, because it depends entirely on the circumstances of the scene.

If you think there is a good reason that one element should be in an advantage over another, put an aspect on the scene to reflect that. In a damp environment, a pure fire block might not hold for long, so you can compel that aspect if anyone tries to do that. On the other hand, if the same wizard puts up a fire block invoking the "damp" aspect, he might argue, that the fire of his block might not last very long, but all that water will produce a whole lot of steam, making it impossible to follow them, and it might even block sight in addition. The same aspect used in totally different ways can get you totally different outcomes. The only difference is how creative anyone can get in using them to their advantage.

[babel2uk]

Aspects really are the way to go on this. I'm fairly certain that at some point in the rules it explicitly states that Aspects replace the mechanic that in other games would be Situational Modifiers. It seems a bit pointless and over complicated to bring back in the very thing that Aspects are supposed to replace.

[The Dread Polack]

This makes a lot of sense. I'm still getting used to a system that doesn't have tables full of situational modifiers. While the GM has the freedom to set difficulties for maneuvers, I was looking for a fair way to handle this in other situations as well. Aspects seem to be the way to do this, since the player can get Fate points for the inconvenience.

If a caster was on a plane, for instance (ignoring the chances of him frying the damn thing's electronics and sending it into a dive), I could compel a scene aspect to say that certain earth effects will be difficult or unusable. Also, characters could invoke them for defense or offense in appropriate situations.

Thanks a lot for the help!

[Drashna]

YS207 for the "situational modifiers" bit.

Basically, no need for sit mods, consider using "identical" aspects instead. It boils down to about the same bonus, but without a list of stuff to worry about.

[Becq]

It might help to think of it in terms of Declarations -- in this case, Declarations that the game itself makes against the element.

Player: I am going to use Air to blow sand in circles around this pot, thus using the friction to heat up the contents.
GM: Are you sure that it wouldn't make more sense to use Fire, instead of Air?
Player, with an affronted look: But ... but ... but ... I'm an Air mage!
GM, sighing: Well, ok ... but "That's Gonna Take a Boatload of Sand", and "Lots of Friction is Not a Clay Pot's Friend".

Note that the first would be tagged for a +2 difficulty, and the second would be more of a Compel, causing the pot to break unless the mage spent a Fate to prevent it.

Generally, I think that this sort of thing should be used very sparingly, and only for ideas that are really pushing the boundaries of common sense.  So if a player wanted to use Air to attack, and they came up with a good description of the attack (compressed air; think in terms of the concussion wave of an explosion, which has the tendency to do very naughty things to creatures whose organs are incased in mere flesh), then I'd just let them do it.  But in this case, there might be a bit of environmental side effects to deal with.