Re: Upcoming Fate Changes?
- To the extent that it exists, this incentive already exists. Consider what would happen if
each character had two boxes of his given aspect. Aspects that can be compelled are still
[I think "lucky" is a boring aspect anyway.]
--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Mead" <najmead@l...> wrote:
> > Eh. The fact that all aspects now spend from the FP pool is the great
> > equalizer in that regard. Any way you slice it, you've got ten
> > invocations sitting there. How you justify them is up to you -
> > mechanically, the issue of "balancing" aspects based on their scope of
> > coverage becomes pretty much irrelevant at that point. You could use
> > Lucky for ten rolls in a row and establish that your character is the
> > luckiest dude in creation, or you could seek to use a different aspect
> > each time. Once you've used up your pool, though, that's it until you
> > start copping to some compels.
> This is my interpretation of the query over the "balance" in the
> proposed new system;
> Under the current rules:
> All other things being equal, two characters, one with the aspect
> Strong, one with the aspect Lucky. The first one swings a punch and
> declares he will use his aspect to increase damage... afterall, he's
> strong. The second swings a punch and declares that it was a lucky
> blow and that he too will use his aspect. Everything is fair.
> A few minutes later our two heroes stumble upon a pit trap. The
> strong hero fall into the pit. The lucky hero goes to invoke his
> lucky aspect to avoid the trap, but he has run out of invocations and
> also falls.
> Under the proposed rules:
> Our two heroes stumble upon a pit trap and the strong hero plumets...
> there is very little he can do even though he has plenty of Fate
> Points. But the lucky hero declares that is lucky enough to see the
> trap just in time and pays his Fate Point.
> There is an incentive for players to select at least one aspect that
> has almost universal applicability so they always have an outlet to
> burn Fate Points. It wouldn't take too long to figure out how to
> "game" the system, based on the style of the campaign and the genre.
> Of course, you could argue that it really doesn't matter all that
> much, because Fate Points are where it's all at. And once a player
> has chosen to burn a Fate Point it doesn't really matter how they got
> to that position. But then you have to ask yourself, mechanically
> speaking, what value do aspects serve?
- I also think this (below) is a good way to go. Because otherwise, why
bother having different Aspects at all if they're all just equally
applicable point sinks? Giving a smaller number of them helps define
the character more sharply I think. Just a thought from a bystander.
"Thankfully, that also points to the tweak. The real problem here
(for the purposes we're talking about) is not the fate points, but
the larger number of aspects. Imagine if you kept the pool of FP the
same, but played with only 3-5 aspects. The net result would be
making each aspect significantly _more_ important simply because
they're less frequently applicable.
And, honestly, I'd be all for someone playing it that way. For
Spirit of the Century, we want lots of aspects because it fits the
wild and wooly theme and feel of the game, but that is definitely not
the only way to use the new system.
On 11/7/05, Robert Donoghue <rdonoghue@...> wrote:
> Ok, little peek into the inner working of the brain.
> There has been, almost from the get-go, two directions for aspects to
> go. In the very first fate game, Aspects had a great deal of weight,
> so much so that in a given phase of chargen, you could take 3 skill
> points or 1 aspect. A single aspect was an absolute, defining
> element of the character, so they were few, and potent.
> The written rules moved away from that, and as peopel have played,
> Aspects have become more descriptive, in that many people consider it
> desirable to have many more aspects, to cover things like culture,
> society and all the things used to paint a complete picture of the
> The problem is that both of these approaches rock, but they're not
> terribly compatible. I've got some ideas and one-offs which I've
> used to address the gap from time to time, but in general, things go
> one way or the other, and more often than not, they go to more aspects.
> Now, aspects as FP lenses is sort of an expression of this, and while
> I can see the concern that it waters things down, it also
> specifically addresses a few key points:
> * It makes players more willing to take "bad" aspects. Now, people
> who've played the game become used to the fact that aspects that make
> trouble for you are actually very valuable, but that's not an idea
> people are always willing to embrace. If a player has more aspects,
> they're usually more willing to take risks.
> * One of the most long-standing and persistent complaints we get
> about aspects is the limited number of uses. Now, I'm ok with that,
> and I didn't think it was something that _needed_ fixing, but we're
> willing to at least listen when something comes up this often.
> Allowing repeated use but with a limited total set tends to result
> in things skewing towards the elements the player likes best and has
> had an interesting effect of making breadth vs. depth a trade off.
> Characters who take multiple aspects within a given "theme" get more
> potent use out of them when that theme comes up, while characters
> with broader themes get to use aspect more often, but to less
> effect. This is, I admit, quite satisfying in play.
> The bottom line, in my mind, is that yes, aspects distinguish between
> characters (and they also emphasize similarities), and this
> continues to do so, in my experience. The thing of it is that what a
> character can do is absolutely important, but so is how, and so is
> why, and the real goal of aspects is to touch upon all of those.
> Now, absolutely, one or another is going to be more important to any
> given player, but there's not necessarily a given metric.
> Part of the issue is one of abstraction. Depending upon what level
> you abstract actions to, they mean very different things. On some
> level, kung-fu guy and Gun guy are doing the same thing (winning a
> fight) and while we can focus on the technical differences (like,
> say, range) that's mostly going to come out in skill choice anyway.
> The differences between these characters run much deeper than that -
> specifically, they run deeper than the fact that one does kung fu and
> one shoots guns. A broader palette of aspects acknowledges the gun/
> kung fu split, but also allows for all the other differences the
> characters may have to get some play.
> Now, don't get me wrong, you can also have an awesome game where the
> difference is a simple and stark as gun guy vs. kung fu guy. If that
> was the sole thing you had to work with it's still easy to paint a
> compelling picture of how these characters  and that brings us
> back to that core conflict of few and potent vs. many and descriptive.
> Thankfully, that also points to the tweak. The real problem here
> (for the purposes we're talking about) is not the fate points, but
> the larger number of aspects. Imagine if you kept the pool of FP the
> same, but played with only 3-5 aspects. The net result would be
> making each aspect significantly _more_ important simply because
> they're less frequently applicable.
> And, honestly, I'd be all for someone playing it that way. For
> Spirit of the Century, we want lots of aspects because it fits the
> wild and wooly theme and feel of the game, but that is definitely not
> the only way to use the new system.
> -Rob D.
>  In fact, the original draft of this model was simply an
> aggregated pool of aspect boxes, so you had 10 aspects and 10 boxes,
> and each box could be used for any aspect.
>  This part of things often gets overlooked or actively ignored in
> RPGs because of the traditional need for niche protection, and while
> there is absolutely a need to make sure every character shines, as a
> game moves away form purely tactical play, the options for that open
> up in a couple different dimensions.
>  The rub is that the clear distinction doesn't hold out over
> time. For anything more than a short adventure, there needs to be
> more depth in the backfield.
> Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
> If you enjoy Fate and are willing to lend your financial support, please take a look at http://www.faterpg.com/donate.php
> Yahoo! Groups Links