Body armor

[TheMouse]

Armour is armour. If you wear it, you have its protection. It's as simple as that. You don't have to spend anything.

However, armour is generally pretty obvious. If you wear military quality armour, you're not going to be able to conceal it very well, unless you're wearing a huge coat all the time, which is conspicuous. Then, if you have to take it off, everyone is going to see that you have armour on, and they're going to assume that you're looking for trouble.

Aspects needn't come into this. Spending fate points doesn't grant you armour, for example. You don't need an Aspect, "Heavy suit of armour," for it to make trouble. If a cop sees that you're walking around armoured up like you're part of a SWAT team, they're going to stop you and maybe call in backup if you look like trouble. People aren't going to let you into clubs looking like trouble. Etc.

[BumblingBear]

Armour is armour. If you wear it, you have its protection. It's as simple as that. You don't have to spend anything.

However, armour is generally pretty obvious. If you wear military quality armour, you're not going to be able to conceal it very well, unless you're wearing a huge coat all the time, which is conspicuous. Then, if you have to take it off, everyone is going to see that you have armour on, and they're going to assume that you're looking for trouble.

Aspects needn't come into this. Spending fate points doesn't grant you armour, for example. You don't need an Aspect, "Heavy suit of armour," for it to make trouble. If a cop sees that you're walking around armoured up like you're part of a SWAT team, they're going to stop you and maybe call in backup if you look like trouble. People aren't going to let you into clubs looking like trouble. Etc.

The point of the Aspects is to give the character choice.

If there is an aspect I can compel, the player gets a chance to use a fate point to say "Oh, well that cop was looking the other direction when I went by.  He didn't notice my armor."

The whole point of the FATE system is that the gm is not in total control.

For games where the GM wants to be in total control, other systems work better. Just imo.

[Tsunami]

I'd like to point to YS:202 for clarification on what is an appropriate level for personal armor.

[sinker]

Something I'd point out is that while a vest or similar may not have an aspect already attached to it per se, it does serve as great justification for declarations. So if you're looking to bypass someone's kevlar vest you could always target his "Unprotected Legs." Creating that aspect through a simple alertness declaration and then invoking the aspect for additional damage (which would likely be enough to offset the armor) or invoking for effect to bypass it completely.

Since it's still the GM's world they would of course be capable of making the same aspects without the need for a declaration.

[ARedthorn]

This is, in fact, exactly what we do, 90% of the time.

The other 10% is actually represented by an item of power one of my characters use that provides inhuman toughness and recovery. The item is a jacket that belonged to any one of several people very famous for having survived what they had no right to have (investigating it's origin is a planned adventure of it's own, and on the off chance one of them visits this board....). So, the item has the very obvious catch of "doesn't protect head or legs," (as well as one more difficult one they don't know about that ended up being a problem for the original owner).

[Discipol]

Weapon X ... countered by ... Armor X

Its up to the GM what is the max value of X. While a sniper would be, say 5, one really can't have an armor 5 to counter it, unless he/she can lift and hold a tank or something.

However, armor is a loose term. You shouldn't just think Kevlar vest. How about a lucky charm? Since armor stacks, having a lucky charm of +1, a rabbit's paw key-chain for another +1, say a riot vest of +2 and maybe a horse shoe necklace for another +1 and there you go, +3 of that +5 armor has to do with plain simple luck (and lets leave it abstract), and the +2 is when the bullet actually hits you.

Ofc, a DM might say the items would go to attack, not armor, or at least nix you having any but one or two but its a plausible example.

And what I enumerated are NON MAGICAL items, lets keep the pure mortal pure now Its the fact that humans believe superstitions are real give those objects power. Ofc not all superstitions work, but the most common should.

On another matter, having dark sunglasses should give you an aspect, to tag once free per scene, against accidentally soulgazing with someone. Declaring you have steel bullets with a Guns or Resources is also very much acceptable, you just have to put some effort in thinking it and keep thinking out of the ol' box.

[Blackblade]

Since armor stacks, having a lucky charm of +1, a rabbit's paw key-chain for another +1, say a riot vest of +2 and maybe a horse shoe necklace for another +1 and there you go, +3 of that +5 armor has to do with plain simple luck (and lets leave it abstract), and the +2 is when the bullet actually hits you.

Armor does not stack.

[Tsunami]

Armor does not stack.

^ This.

YS:202 the Marginalia at the bottom.

[Discipol]

It should stack, its how Kevlar works in the first place.
And I sustain me original point that armor 5 would look like either a 10 power block halved to 5 armor(which is a silly thing to do), or a tank.

[Watson]

What I mean is that, as the system does not have hit locations, it feels strange that having armor that only covers a part of the body still provides 100% protection (i.e. always works, the hit always strikes were the armor is). A kevlar vest is one thing, but what if a character only has a helmet? It feels even more weird that it always provides protection when attacked. If the armor [that is only covering part of the body] is an aspect instead, the player can choose when the attack strikes the armored part of the body by spending a Fate point.

If the armor covers most of the body I fully agree that it shall have a ‘permanent’ protection value such as 1 or 2.

[Radijs]

It should stack, its how Kevlar works in the first place.
And I sustain me original point that armor 5 would look like either a 10 power block halved to 5 armor(which is a silly thing to do), or a tank.

[sinker]

@Watson: Meh, I'd give the defender the benefit of the doubt on vests and assume that most people target center mass. If someone wants to bypass the vest the burden to do so would be on them (by creating/invoking an aspect). I'd agree with you on the helmet though. If that's all they're wearing then I would assume the helmet does not protect them unless they declare something to the effect of "Good thing it hit my helmet!"

[BumblingBear]

What I mean is that, as the system does not have hit locations, it feels strange that having armor that only covers a part of the body still provides 100% protection (i.e. always works, the hit always strikes were the armor is). A kevlar vest is one thing, but what if a character only has a helmet? It feels even more weird that it always provides protection when attacked. If the armor [that is only covering part of the body] is an aspect instead, the player can choose when the attack strikes the armored part of the body by spending a Fate point.

If the armor covers most of the body I fully agree that it shall have a ‘permanent’ protection value such as 1 or 2.

Fate is not a crunchy system.

Think of it this way.

A large pistol or small rifle is a Weapon:2.  IIIA body armor is Armor:2 in the dresden files.

If someone shoots rolling a 0, and the defender dodges rolling a 0, the armor nullifies the bullet like it would in real life.

Now in the game, the better someone's defense roll is, the better they hid behind cover or got in the prone.

The better the attack roll is, the better aim the shooter has.

So after two stacked aspects used on an attack roll (one of which being "Aiming), and a fate point spent on the attack, this results in a MUCH higher attack rolls, symbolizing the attacker hitting something other than the armor.

Does that make more sense?

And for the poster saying armor stacks...

No, it doesn't.  And an Armor:5 is utterly ridiculous for a PC.  I would allow someone to have it /if/ they were willing to spend refresh on it.

Armor:5 is definitely tank grade.

[Tsunami]

This makes me want to bring up physics more often... 

[Masurao]

If we bring up real physics, wouldn't that mean that we deny the existence of God? Xp