Fate 3.0 Rules Questions (not setting, mechanical questions on the system)

[The Codex]

OK then here is my follow up question, and thank you for the previous answer papa gruff

Situational modifiers.

Lets just say that my group is fighting a group of black Templars that are in full plate armour. How would you work the fact that the suit of armour is slow and clumbersome.

Is it an Aspect of the Armour do players make a decleration that the helmet restricts vision. How does that work as a reaccuring fact. eg one player declares that said knights helmet restricts his vision to help his sneak past the knight. Another player wants to do the same. Can they both declare the same aspect? or does the second player have to tag (which seems a little unfair) and spend a fate point. Is there such a thing as a continous situational, or free taggable aspect.

Does that make sense?

[Papa Gruff]

Lets just say that my group is fighting a group of black Templars that are in full plate armour. How would you work the fact that the suit of armour is slow and clumbersome.

As a GM you basically don't. As a player you can declare or assess that the Templars are hindered by their heavy armor to gain a free tag for +2 on them and consequential invokes though the spending of fate points.

Is it an Aspect of the Armour do players make a decleration that the helmet restricts vision. How does that work as a reaccuring fact. eg one player declares that said knights helmet restricts his vision to help his sneak past the knight. Another player wants to do the same. Can they both declare the same aspect? or does the second player have to tag (which seems a little unfair) and spend a fate point. Is there such a thing as a continous situational, or free taggable aspect.

Does that make sense?

As far as I understand it, the knight might defend against the declare/assessment roll with an appropriate skill like alertness, athletics, might or the like. If the player fails the assessment, he doesn't know of the hindrance the armor provides and don't get an aspect to tag. If he fails at a declare, he might think that the armor provides hindrance when it actually does not and get slammed in the face by angry knight that is quicker then anticipated.

In your sneak situation I'd handle it as a team effort. There are rules for teamwork. If you want to make it simpler, you could just let anybody declare and tag on their own or allow everybody a free tag. Don't over think this stuff. Most times guards are meant to be overcome by the players. And think about this: if anybody fails their declaration, their PC might think they outwitted the guards, when they actually might not have and bang! The alarm is raised. Fun!

[SoulCatcher78]

As far as armor being slow and cumbersome, you can just build that into the description of the NPC (no real need for reasonable statistics).  As a PC I would want to make a declaration that the armor makes them "Move like a turtle" if I was trying to outrun them.

As far as the field of vision goes, I see your point about the second player.  There's no sense rolling dice if it doesn't add to the fun so I would have the group make a single roll to get past the guards as long as they're together.

[Papa Gruff]

As a GM you basically don't. As a player you can declare or assess that the Templars are hindered by their heavy armor to gain a free tag for +2 on them and consequential invokes though the spending of fate points. Until then they are not hindered what so ever. This is a game of strong narrative. Why should you as a GM do all the work on your own?

As far as I understand it, the knight might defend against the declare/assessment roll with an appropriate skill like alertness, athletics, might or the like. If the player fails the assessment, he doesn't know of the hindrance the armor provides and don't get an aspect to tag. If he fails at a declare, he might think that the armor provides hindrance when it actually does not and get slammed in the face by angry knight that is quicker then anticipated.

In your sneak situation I'd handle it as a team effort. There are rules for teamwork. If you want to make it simpler, you could just let anybody declare and tag on their own or allow everybody a free tag. Don't over think this stuff. Most times guards are meant to be overcome by the players. And think about this: if anybody fails their declaration, their PC might think they outwitted the guards, when they actually might not have and bang! The alarm is raised. Fun!

Dang! I did something wrong again. Sorry. I hate it when this happens. Meant to modify my earlier post. Could somebody with admin power please fix that =(

[SoulCatcher78]

Papa Gruff is a Ninja mind reader, watch out.   

[The Codex]

What would I do without you wonderful people 

excellent, can someone point me to the team work roles, I appear to have missed that in my reading d'oh 

[SoulCatcher78]

Not sure about where the rules would be for team effort (other than groups building aspects that compliment each other for a big KABOOM kind of finish).  Mostly the use of things like this are inferred by the "only roll when you think it would be good for the story" language used throughout the game.  Show some latitude to your players and you will see all sorts of experimentation throughout the game.

If you don't tell them there's a box to think outside of, they wont realize that they're doing it naturally.

[Papa Gruff]

Papa Gruff is a Ninja mind reader, watch out.  

Muhahahaha

What would I do without you wonderful people  

excellent, can someone point me to the team work roles, I appear to have missed that in my reading d'oh  

There is something about using other aspects on YW 106 that might be converted to cover this sneaky situation. Teamwork it self is dealt with on YW 208:

Teamwork
You can also use maneuvers (even outside of
conflict) to coordinate on an action with several
people. To do this, one main character is chosen
to make the final action roll (usually the one
with the highest skill), and everyone else makes a
maneuver roll with a skill that could potentially
be used to assist. The difficulty for the assisting
roll should be one or two less than the difficulty
for the main action. Each helper who makes the
maneuver roll places an aspect on the main char-
acter, something like Assistance from X. The
main character can then tag all of those aspects
when he actually makes his action roll (so he can
take advantage of the help without spending a
bucket load of fate points). Enough people coor-
dinating can often lead to herculean success—
many hands, after all, make light work.

I don't see why that shouldn't be applicable in a sneak situation as well.

[The Codex]

My god you people know your stuff... If only my GM brain worked a little faster, curse the fact it has been pickled by beer......

Ok one more and I am pretty sure that I understand this.

A character decides to hurrle himself in front of a small girl to save her from evil villians and opens up with gunfire to creat a blocking action.....he also needs to reach her one zone over.

Would this count as a guns manuever with a -1 for supplemental moving 1 zone, and the little girl could then use the block action to increase her chances of defense from being grappled by the villian.

I think I am begining to get this....

[Papa Gruff]

My god you people know your stuff... If only my GM brain worked a little faster, curse the fact it has been pickled by beer......

Ok one more and I am pretty sure that I understand this.

A character decides to hurrle himself in front of a small girl to save her from evil villians and opens up with gunfire to creat a blocking action.....he also needs to reach her one zone over.

Would this count as a guns manuever with a -1 for supplemental moving 1 zone, and the little girl could then use the block action to increase her chances of defense from being grappled by the villian.

I think I am begining to get this....

Yes. The guns action would be -1 due to the supplemental movement.

You have to decide whether it is a maneuver or a block though. If you state that it is a total block, then the girl would not have to do anything to defend herself, as long as the block is held up. You see, it blocks the opponent from doing anything, including attacking the girl. To attack the girl the baddie first has to break the block that is held in place against him. If he fails, then that was it for his action that exchange. In the next exchange the gunman might decide to precede with this block, pinning the opponent further down, using his own action and retreat with the girl until she is save.

It could be done with a maneuver too, but it would be more complicated. I'd go block here.

PS: Gruffs like beer too

[The Codex]

Ahhh someone else who worships at the temple of beer (hummm i wonder is a beeromancer possible )

Ok sorry just thought of something else, is an aspect sticky/fragile which ever, compellable.

For example if you sticky and aspect of on fire onto oil drums could you compel to explode?

[Papa Gruff]

Ahhh someone else who worships at the temple of beer (hummm i wonder is a beeromancer possible )

Ok sorry just thought of something else, is an aspect sticky/fragile which ever, compellable.

For example if you sticky and aspect of on fire onto oil drums could you compel to explode?

I'd say yes. It is an invoke for effect. YW 99.

A fragile aspect is always only free for tag, as it goes away in the sub consequent exchange. Only a sticky aspect may be compelled after the tag.

[Ophidimancer]

You see, it blocks the opponent from doing anything, including attacking the girl.

That's a Grapple, right?  Because a regular block might only block one type of action, but a Grapple blocks everything a target tries.

[Ophidimancer]

I mean, a Grapple is also a Block, just a specific type of Block.

[Papa Gruff]

I mean, a Grapple is also a Block, just a specific type of Block.

Yeah you are right with both. Got confused a bit myself there. The example stays valid though. If the one guy blocks the baddie from attacking the girl through a cover fire or something, then he can't attack the girl, can he?

There is the optional rule box for expanding the grapple into other skills. It could be used for a guns action that way. I probably wouldn't allow it in my game though. A block against movement or attack should resolve the example situation in any case.