Assessments & Declarations: Minor,Move, or Standard? ;-)

[zerogain]

@MyNinjaH8sU, Interesting... I'd missed that trapping.  Here was my source

YS p195:

Assessments
Assessments are a special kind of simple (emphasis added) action used for determining a target’s aspects.

YS p196:

Declarations
Declarations are a special kind of assessment.

YS p192:
Simple Actions: Your character tries to do something basic, but challenging. Roll against a fixed difficulty.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

That's weird, really, considering the whole rest of declarations. I suppose the notion is that they are similar in that both uncover/name an aspect for use.

For the purpose of assessing an opponent, I would allow a defense roll, since it is against a sentient target, seeing as how you could also use an assessment on a wall to look for structural imperfections. Something like that would make more sense as a simple action I think.

[Papa Gruff]

@zerogain: In my opinion you are sticking to much to the letter. How else is the book supposed to describe the mechanic in a way that doesn't exceed the reasonable space of a single volume?

Your quotes are still true, even if what the other users said is taken into account.

Assessments are a kind of simple action but that doesn't change that - in the context of conflict - they may be treated as supplemental actions.
Declarations are a special kind of assessment. The book uses these phrases to put things into context not to establish a chain of logic causality.

[WillH]

@MyNinjaH8sU, Interesting... I'd missed that trapping.  Here was my source

YS p195:

Assessments
Assessments are a special kind of simple (emphasis added) action used for determining a target’s aspects.

YS p196:

Declarations
Declarations are a special kind of assessment.


YS p192:
Simple Actions: Your character tries to do something basic, but challenging. Roll against a fixed difficulty.

YS 116
Unlike assessment, declaration doesn’t take any
actual in-game time at all—just successful use of
a knowledge skill at the right moment.

YS 192
Assessments: You want to reveal a target’s
aspects. Roll against a fixed difficulty or roll
against the opponent’s player and the high roll
wins.

You need to read and learn all the rules, nut just fixate on a couple lines without context.

[WillH]

So how many declarations do you allow a player to make.  I had a case where the player wanted a large object to hurl at an opponent, first she tried for a window washing scaffold when that failed, she tried for a trash can, then a newspaper stand.

Does anyone limit the number declarations a player can attempt. I can understand that these are not PC actions and thus should not take time, but if you allow infinite attempts why roll at all? Just give it to the player.

JesterOC

The player was trying to declare there was something large to throw. They should roll for that and then say what it was they found, not make a laundry list of possible large things and roll for each one. However, it's stupid to make a player roll for this sort of thing. This is a clear example of where "Say Yes" should apply.

[devonapple]

The player was trying to declare there was something large to throw. They should roll for that and then say what it was they found, not make a laundry list of possible large things and roll for each one. However, it's stupid to make a player roll for this sort of thing. This is a clear example of where "Say Yes" should apply.

Indeed, the GM is allowed to just handwave say Yes to a given Declaration if it makes sense, looks cool, and would help with the situation.

[WillH]

Indeed, the GM is allowed to just handwave a given Declaration if it makes sense, looks cool, and would help with the situation.

Just to clarify, it's not hand-waving. Saying Yes, is part of the rules.

[devonapple]

Just to clarify, it's not hand-waving. Saying Yes, is part of the rules.

I'm not certain that actually required such stringent correction, but your point is valid and I have amended my note.

[zerogain]

You need to read and learn all the rules, nut just fixate on a couple lines without context.

Ouch, man.  Hey, I was just listing where I found that stuff, not challenging the assertion that the action could be contested.  I realize it looks like I'm fixating on the lines, but those were the most relevant, and I am trying to learn the rules, that's why I'm asking questions here.  I do thank you for jumping down my throat though, it really helps. [/sarc]

I apologize to anyone whom I've offended by the tone of my earlier statements, I'm not trying to be a rules lawyering, confrontational nitpicker.  When my players ask me how the game works and I don't have a cogent answer it doesn't come across well, so I want to get this kind of thing nailed down hard.  That sounds odd for a supposedly free form narativist game, but there's a fair bit of hard rules in these books, and not all of them are explained clearly (at least that I notice right away).

Now, obviously with the previously shown write up on the Empathy trapping I need to go back and familiarize myself with what trappings allow what assessments and how long they take.

[devonapple]

When my players ask me how the game works and I don't have a cogent answer it doesn't come across well, so I want to get this kind of thing nailed down hard.  That sounds odd for a supposedly free form narativist game, but there's a fair bit of hard rules in these books, and not all of them are explained clearly (at least that I notice right away).

I'm having to go through the rules page by page with a Mind Mapping document to make sure I collect all of the relevant nuances of each rule and assemble them in a more easily referenced manner. I'm currently plowing through the Skills section.

Sometimes things are split up between different sections, and I have to reassamble them to make sense of the bigger picture. Not to say that the rules are in any way disorganized, but people have different ways of accreting this information.

[zerogain]

Since I've been hammering on this, I have an example I'd like to throw into the mix.

We're in mid-exchange, and the black-hearted warlock is throwing a blast of psychic brain buggery at the intrepid warden trying to bring him to justice.  The warlock rolls his spell, nails his control and winds up hitting our warden with a seriously decent effort.  For the warden's defensive effort he comes up short by 1, and there's no fate points left for him to use to bring to bear any of his aspects.  He can't maneuver, basically he's bent over the mental table.

Can he declare that, due to his extensive training and experience fighting these foes, that his mind is hardened against such intrusion, and create a temporary aspect of, say, IRON MIND? And then tag it for his defense?  That would give him that +2 he needs to defeat the attack.

Now lets assume that you can't declare aspects on yourself, what's to stop one of the warden's allies from making that declaration?  After all, they take no time, aren't actions by the characters, etc.  I'm disinclined to allow it, myself, but I see a potential here and I'm curious, indulge me, please.

[sinker]

Seems to me that declarations are A. External influences, or parts of the world around the character, as opposed to components of the character themselves, and B. Actions taken in advance of one's action as opposed to reactionary things thrown in at the last minute. That's the two problems I have with the above example, but that's just my gut and I've got no rules to back me up.

[Tbora]

I'm having to go through the rules page by page with a Mind Mapping document to make sure I collect all of the relevant nuances of each rule and assemble them in a more easily referenced manner. I'm currently plowing through the Skills section.

Sometimes things are split up between different sections, and I have to reassamble them to make sense of the bigger picture. Not to say that the rules are in any way disorganized, but people have different ways of accreting this information.

Could you post that mind map when you are done with it, that would be a really useful tool for people to have, imo?

[devonapple]

Can he declare that, due to his extensive training and experience fighting these foes, that his mind is hardened against such intrusion, and create a temporary aspect of, say, IRON MIND? And then tag it for his defense?  That would give him that +2 he needs to defeat the attack.

They have a section on Navel-Gazing Maneuvers which would do just this thing, but those maneuvers have to be performed as a full action on one's own turn.

That said, a GM might be willing to reward creative storytelling by letting the PC Declare a flashback scene when something like this happened, and allowing such an Aspect to be the result, But this would come down to play style.

[devonapple]

Could you post that mind map when you are done with it, that would be a really useful tool for people to have, imo?

It's in a particular program (XMind, which is admittedly a free program), and exporting the sheer breadth of content I'd have would not be particularly reader-friendly. Which is not to say "no," but that it'd be a challenge. I may edit it down as a Word document -- I'll see what I can do.