Situational Modifiers and Fate Points

[Haru]

But something still bothers me:
What happens when the PC run out of Fate Points? Can't they get any advantages anymore through any "situational modifiers"?
Lets say there is a PC with no Fate Points in a gunfight. He pushes over some furniture to act as cover for him. He gets the temporary aspect "Behind Cover".
Sooo...The next time someone shots him he can tag that for a +2 on his dodge.
But what happens after? He's still behind cover but won't get anything for it?
Should i justify that by saying the NPCs run around the cover?

There's another way to do this:
The player declares "large wooden table" as an aspect in the room. He then uses his free tag on this aspect to make a block. Of course, once he moves away from it, the block is lost, but until then, he can use it.

On the whole, I think the way it is, it encourages the players to mix it up instead of relying on the same thing over and over. I believe it is part of the whole "monster vs. free will" thing, monsters act predictable, according to their nature, while human beings (or half-somethings... anyone with positive refresh in this game) are free to act as they please.

I can see this come up alot, like in a sneaky scenario where there are definitely Aspects that help with sneaking, like "Really Dark Place", and the PC wouldn't get anything out of it because he's out of Fate?

Am i missing something? Am i worrying to much and stuff will just work somehow?

There is a suggestion somewhere, that any scene aspects might be tagged once by whoever comes up with an idea to use them first. Also, you can give a scene only very few aspects yourself and let the players declare them, so they have their free tag from there.

The beauty of the game, I think, is that you don't have to succeed on every roll or spend fate points on every roll to do so. For example, instead of saying "well, this place is 'Really Dark", you could say, that your character is "Really Clumsy". That way, you won't get what you wanted, but will get a fate point. I believe it is somewhere in YS, too, where they talk about scene questions and the "yes", "yes, but...", "no" and "no, and..." situation. This, I believe, would be one of those "no, and..." situations, not only did your character not achieve his goal, but he made things worse. Keeps the story and therefore the game interesting. I can't seem to find the page at the moment, though.

[sinker]

Something that I'm beginning to grasp is that FATE is all about creating a fiction, not about creating reality. Consider one of the aspects that everyone hates: the burning building. Not having been in a burning building I can only imagine, but I would guess it would be important all of the time. The smoke, the heat, would be a near constant influence on everything. However consider the burning buildings in Jim Butcher's novels. There are many times where Harry is trying to do something in a burning building. Sometimes it is a factor in how things happen, but other times it seems to fade into the background. It's not dramatically appropriate for the burning building to influence the action, and so it doesn't. We pretend that at that moment the fire lets up, or Harry finds some measure of safety.

This is the goal we are looking for with FATE. When someone invokes/compels an aspect it becomes a part of the story, important to what's going on. When no one interacts with that aspect it fades into the background, and is simply less important.

Another thing to think about is that in FATE, even when an attack has overcome a defense roll, that attack has not necessarily "hit". FATE is very abstract in that sense, and allows for injury that is related to the attack. So for example if I'm "behind cover" and someone shoots at me, dealing enough stress that I have to take a mild consequence, I could take the consequence of "Face full of splinters" to represent the fact that my cover prevented the bullet from hitting me, however it resulted in an injury when the bullet scattered the cover as it struck.

[Masurao]

Okay, this just came to my mind, so shoot it down if I am terribly, terribly wrong (as I am wont to do), but let's take that Really, Really Dark Alley, let's say I want to stay hidden, but not sneak up on someone. Could I use this situation as a sort of veil-like Block? It would mean I'd stay as still as possible, of course.

[TheMouse]

On hiding in the dark: Take a look at Hiding under Stealth on page 142. You modify your roll based on the suggestions on pages 311 and 312, then use that as a basis for rolls to contest your sneakiness.

Under these circumstances, I'd compare Shifts on the rolls rather than the rolls themselves. Otherwise you get this really strange circumstances where, because the difficulty is really low, it's actually easier to spot you on a barely successful roll than if the difficulty were higher and you rolled fewer Shifts.

(So if the difficulty is 0 and you roll +2 [2 Shifts], it's actually easier to spot you than if you'd rolled a +3 against a +2 difficulty [1 Shift]. This means that if you compare actual rolls instead of Shifts, lower difficulties to hide just mean lower difficulties to find you, not a better overall chance to hide.)

[noclue]

While it's true that Fate isn't a map tactical game generally there are still some significant situations where the way this mechanic works as you describe takes the players completely out of the narrative.  Say for example that the characters have found themselves in what seems to be an old west town (via time travel, fey trickery or what have you) and in the middle of a classic shoot out.  Several characters (and some of the opposition) do what people are want to do in these stories and take cover behind barrels, fallen horses, and wagons.  No no-one is running back and forth getting behind cover, it's not likely that any amount of shooting will negate the usefulness of a wagon or horse as cover, and yet with that limited view of the mechanic after the first round everyone may as well just stand in the middle of the street and unload.  Also note that this scenario doesn't require some convoluted old west shoot out, I just like the imagery.

Brings to mind two thoughts:

1) Your dude is behind the wagon, but you the player know that there's no more mechanical benefit from invoking that aspect. You can either pay a FP to have the benefit in the next exchange, or do something else. If you're out of FP, you're going to have massive incentive to react to the "Shit, I don't have cover" complication that just came your way. No camping! Spend resource or do something. That's an awesome result in my book.

2) The character is behind the wagon, but he has no mechanical benefit next turn. If he sits there and isn't spending Fate, the GM has temendous freedom to narrate how you shoot at him behind the wagon. Actually, you as GM have the same obligation to bring it back to the fiction and justify your actions that the players do. If there's no way to hit the dude behind that wagon, that's not an aspect. He's invulnerable. If he's got partial cover behind a wagon, I'll bet dollars to donuts someone can figure out a way to narrate why his cover is blown this round. Things like "I can just see part of him between the wheels" or "The bad guy jogs to the right and is able to get a better angle." Again, if the GM can't find a way to narrate how your cover isn't protecting you, you're likely not in any danger whatsoever of being shot. That's not an aspect. That's safety. You're safe. You don't need a +2.  So, the GM is incentivized to react to the mechanics as well and DO SOMETHING to show everyone why that wagon is no longer relevant for you.

One last thought. In a game where I can improve my probability of shooting you behind that wagon by invoking my "angry ex-boyfriend" aspect. Why does everyone get so hung up on physics?

[Haru]

One other thought, that just occurred to me: by flipping over the furniture, the scene might change enough to justify adding zones or splitting zones in two. That way, the barrier the furniture provides would fade into the scenery (no longer providing an aspect), but it would still become a way to get behind cover .

And one thing about fate points, that I think sums it up pretty well:

If you have FATE points, you write the story.
If you don't have FATE points, the story writes you.

[Falar]

If you have FATE points, you write the story.
If you don't have FATE points, the story writes you.

This. This is what the whole concept of refresh is all about and why it's a feature of the Dresden Files RPG.

It's also probably why I'd rarely take it to any other kind of Fate hack.

[noclue]

Okay, this just came to my mind, so shoot it down if I am terribly, terribly wrong (as I am wont to do), but let's take that Really, Really Dark Alley, let's say I want to stay hidden, but not sneak up on someone. Could I use this situation as a sort of veil-like Block? It would mean I'd stay as still as possible, of course.

So, it's always hard to answer Fate questions in a fictional vacuum. The answer is...it all depends. If I'm the GM and I've got a bunch of thugs searching for the players and you want to stay hidden in your dark alley. I might say "Sure. Pay a Fate Point and invoke that darkness for effect. You're hidden. They go right by you. No problem...but, that means they're going to shoot at your best friend down the street instead." Cuz right there I'm much more interested in what you choose than in shooting you.

But, if they're hunting for you and I want a conflict, I might say "Well, sure. A block. How about you're rolling your Stealth to stay hidden. Go ahead and invoke that Dark Alley for a +2 to your block. You've got a Block up on being spotted when my dudes come down the street." Cuz now I'm interested in a contest between them and you, where you're the prey.

[Tallyrand]

One last thought. In a game where I can improve my probability of shooting you behind that wagon by invoking my "angry ex-boyfriend" aspect. Why does everyone get so hung up on physics?

As I said in my first post here my problem isn't physics it's fiction, my limiting tactical choices solely to the availability of fate chips you negate the sometimes very interesting story of the tense stand-off where neither party in a conflict can overcome the obstacles between them.  You're disincentivising the brilliant tactician or the experienced combatant from having an interesting story roll.  Finally, and most importantly I think you're pulling the players out of the story by saying that while logically that wagon between you and the other guy would still be relevant here, you're out of this game resource so you're SOL.  Personally I'm in favor of any ruling that allows players for at least a couple of rounds forget that their playing a game but not requiring them to constantly try to work around the resource system.

[UmbraLux]

As I said in my first post here my problem isn't physics it's fiction, my limiting tactical choices solely to the availability of fate chips you negate the sometimes very interesting story of the tense stand-off where neither party in a conflict can overcome the obstacles between them.  You're disincentivising the brilliant tactician or the experienced combatant from having an interesting story roll.  Finally, and most importantly I think you're pulling the players out of the story by saying that while logically that wagon between you and the other guy would still be relevant here, you're out of this game resource so you're SOL.  Personally I'm in favor of any ruling that allows players for at least a couple of rounds forget that their playing a game but not requiring them to constantly try to work around the resource system.

Declarations are your best tactical resource.  It's free and, if successful, gets you an instant free tag. 

Personally I try to encourage creativity and disincentive repetitive declarations but, if it works for your group, you could simply declare the Wagon is in the Way every exchange.  The truly brilliant tactician will move from The Wagon is in the Way to Ducking Behind the Rock Wall to Prone Behind a Tree as he Circles Around his Opponent.  My opinion of course.  But it makes for a more dynamic story. 

[Tallyrand]

Declarations are your best tactical resource.  It's free and, if successful, gets you an instant free tag. 

Personally I try to encourage creativity and disincentive repetitive declarations but, if it works for your group, you could simply declare the Wagon is in the Way every exchange.  The truly brilliant tactician will move from The Wagon is in the Way to Ducking Behind the Rock Wall to Prone Behind a Tree as he Circles Around his Opponent.  My opinion of course.  But it makes for a more dynamic story.

This is another situation though that just screams GAME when I want story, forcing my players to come up with a new way to say "I Should Get +2 to Defense this Turn" every turn doesn't help anybody, especially when I can avoid it by simply saying that Fate chips aren't the only way to make use of cover.  Dynamic physically is not always what you want out of a story, sometime you want things tense and locked down, sometimes you want your heroes or villains to be able to take a breath and make a witticism while at a stale mate, sometimes you want the hero to have a moment to count his ammo and realize he has a hard choice to make.  I think that requiring the Fate Chip mechanic to come into play with every tactical choice forces your players to interact with the story as a game when I think that most of us would agree that it's better to encourage them to interact with the game as a story.

[UmbraLux]

This is another situation though that just screams GAME when I want story,

Not sure I get this, can you elaborate?

forcing my players to come up with a new way to say "I Should Get +2 to Defense this Turn" every turn doesn't help anybody, especially when I can avoid it by simply saying that Fate chips aren't the only way to make use of cover.  Dynamic physically is not always what you want out of a story, sometime you want things tense and locked down, sometimes you want your heroes or villains to be able to take a breath and make a witticism while at a stale mate, sometimes you want the hero to have a moment to count his ammo and realize he has a hard choice to make. 

So allow repetitive declarations!  As I said previously, avoiding repetition is a personal choice I make.

I think that requiring the Fate Chip mechanic to come into play with every tactical choice forces your players to interact with the story as a game when I think that most of us would agree that it's better to encourage them to interact with the game as a story.

Declarations can be done with an appropriate skill roll, they don't need a fate chip. 

I'm not really sure where you're drawing the line between game and story.  My personal view is "playing the game creates the story". 

[Tallyrand]

Not sure I get this, can you elaborate?

What I mean by that is that it's a situation where I have to stop, at least for a moment, thinking about the story, scene and what my character would do and rather think about the game system and what I have to do to gain some mechanical advantage.

So allow repetitive declarations!  As I said previously, avoiding repetition is a personal choice I make.
Declarations can be done with an appropriate skill roll, they don't need a fate chip. 

Declarations are still part of the Fate Chip mechanic tagging it is free but you're still having to functionally game the system to use it.  Beyond that however you're requiring an extra skill roll every round which slows down combat, generates a chance for failure when that may not be appropriate, and penalizes certain character types in ways that don't make sense in the fiction.  Say for example going back to our old west shoot out you have a saloon girl, not combat skills, athletics, or other appropriate diving for cover skills to speak of, should she not be capable of taking cover in a gun fight?

I'm not really sure where you're drawing the line between game and story.  My personal view is "playing the game creates the story".

The line is mechanics and meta choices are game, events and narrative are story.  The game should serve the story, not the other way around, so any time I'm calling on my player to make the narrative "I'm a guy pinned down behind a wagon at the OK Corral" take second fiddle to the mechanic "You failed a die roll so the wagon isn't relevant" I feel like I'm doing a bad job.

[UmbraLux]

The line is mechanics and meta choices are game, events and narrative are story.  The game should serve the story, not the other way around, so any time I'm calling on my player to make the narrative "I'm a guy pinned down behind a wagon at the OK Corral" take second fiddle to the mechanic "You failed a die roll so the wagon isn't relevant" I feel like I'm doing a bad job.

Perhaps its a difference in approach but I try to avoid preconceived ideas of what the story "should" be.  When he fails the roll, the wagon isn't relevant because the story changes.  An opponent may have moved to get a better shot around the wagon, that section of the wagon may simply be too shot up to work as cover, or the character misjudged his movement in trying to keep the wagon between him and his opponent.  Or something else - whatever fits the situation. 

From my perspective, the game creates the events which become the narrative.  I'm not going to try and fit the game mechanics into a preconceived narrative. 

The option does exist for you to create static difficulties if that's what you prefer.  I tend to like giving players more narrative control - it keeps me engaged.  But you can simply state "all difficulties for shooting someone behind the wagon are increased by two" (or whatever you decide is appropriate).  See YS311-312 for the book's advice on modifying difficulties.

[Tallyrand]

Perhaps its a difference in approach but I try to avoid preconceived ideas of what the story "should" be.  When he fails the roll, the wagon isn't relevant because the story changes. 

That's not true at all, you have the preconceived idea that the story should be dynamic, that situations should change every round, and that a character should not be able to be defensively protected while acting offensively (as only one declaration can be made per round).  You seem to be taking this discussion personally (in the way that you're adding exclamation points, quotes and italicized emphases to your responses), understand that I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game.  This conversation, from my perspective, only exists to inform the OP (any anyone else interested) of the relative merits of our styles.

An opponent may have moved to get a better shot around the wagon, that section of the wagon may simply be too shot up to work as cover, or the character misjudged his movement in trying to keep the wagon between him and his opponent.  Or something else - whatever fits the situation.

Except that as was laid out in the senario none of those options are appropriate to this situation.  Your at opposite ends of a street so maneuvering was off the table and a wagon is a nice big solid object that pistol shot isn't going to take apart, hence my suggestion for a more reliable mechanic.

The option does exist for you to create static difficulties if that's what you prefer.  I tend to like giving players more narrative control - it keeps me engaged.  But you can simply state "all difficulties for shooting someone behind the wagon are increased by two" (or whatever you decide is appropriate).  See YS311-312 for the book's advice on modifying difficulties.

I disagree with your assessment that your way of ruling gives the players more narrative control.  You say that your players have to narrate something new every round, that's not giving them control but is rather making a narrative demand on them, and one that I feel is not always appropriate.  I would contend that my method provides a greater degree of narrative control because I allow for the players to choose to say "I am safer for the time being because I have hidden behind this wagon" without making demands of that character's resources in later rounds to keep that true absent of other factors.