So it seems like my PCs are about to head off into the open plains during a massive snowstorm. I'm wondering, how best to RP the effects of cold and such? I'm thinking of treating it as sort of a physical attack on the characters every few rounds, with warm clothes functioning as armor. Does that sound right?

My thoughts on how to stat a big daddy:
(And this is my first time statting anything beyond basic soldiers, so beware, novice at play:)

Bouncer:
(These are the big guys with drills)

Physical: OOOOOO(OOOO)
Social: OO
Mental: OO

Powers:

Hulking Size [-2]
Aquatic [-1]
Claws [-2] (The drill)


Stunts:

Drill Dash [-1] : You can initiate grapples up to two zones away. Furthermore, pay a fate point and, if attacking during the grapple, the attack is made at +3.
Supernatural Toughness [-4]: Catch is magic/hexing (+1).
No mind to control [-1]: You've been fused to the suit and brainwashed, which has some sizable disadvantages, but on the other hand, there's not much of you left to charm. Rolls to resist enchantment or enthrallment are made at +2.
Compelling nature

• : Because of the above brainwashing, you may only pay off at most two compels per session.

Welder [-1]: Your duties include making sure that Rapture stays watertight. Craftsmanship rolls are made at an additional +2 when building or working on actual buildings (fixing support beams, etc.).

Rosie:
(Big guys with grenade launchers)

Physical: OOOOOO(OOOO)
Social: OO
Mental: OO

Powers:

Hulking Size [-2]
Aquatic [-1]
Breath weapon [-2] (The grenade launcher)


Stunts:

Canon-ical attacks [-2]: You obtain +2 when using cannons or other large-projectile type weapons.
Supernatural Toughness [-4]: Catch is magic/hexing (+1).
No mind to control [-1]: You've been fused to the suit and brainwashed, which has some sizable disadvantages, but on the other hand, there's not much of you left to charm. Rolls to resist enchantment or enthrallment are made at +2.
Compelling nature

• : Because of the above brainwashing, you may only pay off at most two compels per session.

Alpha series:
(Human-sized, can use plasmids)

Physical: OOOO(OO)
Social: OO
Mental: OO
Hunger: OOO

Powers:

Aquatic [-1]


Stunts:
Inhuman Toughness [-2]: Catch is magic/hexing (+1).
Plasmid power-ups [-4]: You can use plasmids, unlike your kin. Choose two of the following:
   Incinerate (weapon: 2, fire element)
   Telekinesis (+2 athletics when dodging projectiles larger than a bullet and smaller than a large human body. If you make the athletics roll, you are 'holding' the projectile and may toss it back at the enemy or use it in some other way).
   Electrobolt(weapon: 2, electric element)
   Winter blast (Roll weapons at +2 to use; does no damage but a successful attack paralyzes enemies for one round)
Rage mode [-4]: You are bonded to one person. When that person is in danger, you may invoke the following powers:
   Inhuman Speed
   Inhuman Strength
   When the scene is over, roll Hunger based on the costs of the powers you invoked.
Rage out [-1]: If that person you are bonded to dies, take an Extreme Consequence to avoid dying or falling into a coma. This consequence cannot be removed until you are bonded to another person, a long and painful process.

As a GM, sometimes I want my NPCs to invoke certain aspects that the players haven't assessed yet. Examples might include if an NPC has a Demonic Co-Pilot that the PCs haven't figured out yet, or if one of them is secretly a psychopath, or something. Normally, invoking implies that you declare which aspect you're using. Is it okay in some circumstances to say "My NPC is invoking his Trouble aspect" without saying what it is?

Hey all:

I'm GMing a game on the board right now (Forced to Fight), and recently a disagreement arose between me and the players. The issue is whether you get a free tag on aspects that you put on yourself (naval-gazing aspects), like you would if you put the aspect on somebody else.

I'm against this, for three reasons:

1. When the book mentions tags, it does so specifically in reference to tags on other people/scenes (YS106). The book doesn't mention placing aspects on yourself at all until page 207, and even then, it doesn't mention tags. By contrast, when discussing tags, the context is on using aspects of other PCs, NPCs, and the scene.

2. Disallowing tags on your own aspects increases player interaction, since they can tag each other's aspects but not their own. Rather than a wizard giving him 'fireproof' and then tagging it to run into a burning building, for instance, maybe he gives it to another party member and then tags that so they can run through the building. Or the other player tags it, perhaps as part of a social attack ("Look, my friend's freaking fireproof, here. We can take anything you dish out.") Allowing the tags would let the wizard just do this all himself, which isn't as interesting.

3. Naval-gazing manuevers are almost always unopposed and thus very easy to place (YS207). It seems unbalanced to give people a free +2 bonus for a roll that is usually against a difficulty of 0. (I'd already said that I'd be willing to allow tags in cases where the aspect-placing rolls are opposed).

The player objected, saying that this defeats the point of placing manuevers on oneself in the first place, since they can't be tagged. He added that maneuvers on oneself also take up a round, and since tags usually have to be used soon after the aspects are assessed or created, this is a significant cost (so point 3 wouldn't apply). Finally, he said that the sections on YS 105 and 106, when thy refer to tagging other aspects, only exclude tagging the character's 7 major aspects (HC, Trouble, etc). I'd argue, though, that because the sections explicitly refer to the aspects of the scene, NPCs, and other PCs, and don't mention oneself, that those pages do not refer to any aspects that one has on oneself.

Does the forum have any wisdom on this issue?