ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: furashgf on July 15, 2011, 05:30:57 PM
-
So, stunts seem pretty straightforward - e.g., many people can fight, but you're a "Brillaint Boxer" or something, which gives you a bonus in certain situations. This fits with fairly traditional games like Ron Edwards Sorcerer, oWoD specialties, etc.
However, aspects come off to people like me, at least, as kind of silly and potentially involving all sorts of wierd arguments about how/whether it applies. e.g., "I'll Always Be There for my Sister" - is a perfectly fine aspect, but seems kind of silly/wierd.
So, what would be wrong (what is wrong) with having people build aspects like the former rather than the latter. They seem less silly and Risus-like and less conflictual - it's more likely that everyone agrees what the aspect can/can't do, etc.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
-
Because Aspects are intended to not only be meta-skills, but also plot hooks. There's a whole section on Aspects in the book that explains this. A "cool all the time" Aspect is good for Invoking to gain a bonus, but it is difficult to Compel to give Fate Points and plot complications.
Even a "cool all the time" Aspect can be Compelled with some work by the GM - i.e., you were so cool that you underestimated a risk and now you must make your way out of the mess (but when you do, you do it cool).
-
I'm pretty sure the POINT is that it's ambiguous and wide-encompassing, your aspects define the core being of your character, and can be used in anything where who or what they are (or things about them, depending on the aspect) could affect a given situation. And don't forget, those core parts of the character can work AGAINST them in compels, and that's how they earn fate points. It's a lot harder to work in compels for "Brilliant Boxer" than "Burning Desire To Punch Things". Basically, aspects aren't the same as powers, powers are what you can do, and aspects are who you are and why, and if who you are and why are relevant to a situation, you can get a mechanical bonus or detriment for being that person.
-
This is exactly why the book suggests that for every aspect your character has, you come up with three situations in which that aspect would apply. Generally, at least one of those should be a positive invoke situation and at least one should be a compel situation. By sharing these with your GM and the other players, you establish an understanding of what the aspect means and what kinds of situations it applies to.
Figuring out ways to apply your aspects to a situation is part of the fun of the game, too. A good GM will help you find justifications for invoking or compelling your aspects, but will also reject explanations that are too much of a stretch. This back-and-forth between players and GM helps keep the story rolling and entertaining.
-
This is exactly why the book suggests that for every aspect your character has, you come up with three situations in which that aspect would apply. Generally, at least one of those should be a positive invoke situation and at least one should be a compel situation. By sharing these with your GM and the other players, you establish an understanding of what the aspect means and what kinds of situations it applies to.
Figuring out ways to apply your aspects to a situation is part of the fun of the game, too. A good GM will help you find justifications for invoking or compelling your aspects, but will also reject explanations that are too much of a stretch. This back-and-forth between players and GM helps keep the story rolling and entertaining.
And by presenting a mechanical benefit to using aspects, it allows the role-playing to pay off in "tangible" ways. Thus encouraging further use of the role-playing element. Thus improving the story. The RPG equivalent of the carrot and the stick. Only some times you give the player the carrot...and sometimes hit them with the stick...
-
Thank you all for your comments, except for the person with the very scary mouth icon picture.
Let me try this a different way. Imagine a player selects "best gunfighter in the west," and selects a poor gunfighting skill. So, they can spend a fate point to shoot (slightly) better, and I can compell them by having them take all challengers. However, coming from outside FATE, this sounds silly - he/she isn't the "best gunfighter in the west." I'm a fan of the idea that constraints encourage creativity, but since aspects like this can be completely fake or overly broad, you can get people doing silly things with them just to get their 2+ bonus.
-
That's why the GM's there, to shut it down if things get too wacky.
-
K, that's the part I was missing ;-)
-
Actually I can think of a situation where that could work really well. Think of all the situations where someone's reputation is much greater than their actual skill. Happens a lot, and I'm sure it happened all the time in the old west when communication was sporadic and a lot of things were word of mouth.
Aspects can also represent past things. Perhaps they were the "Best gunslinger in the west" before age and arthritis set in.
Additionally stunts have a very narrow focus. They give a moderate bonus to one thing or a slight bonus to two things. Aspects can be broad, representing whole swaths of a life, and interacting with the game in many different ways. Take an aspect like "Military Background" (I know it's not a great aspect, but whatever). It would take many stunts to adequately represent what that aspect can do. Bonus to survival skills, bonus to guns, bonus to para-military contacts, bonus to athletics, bonus to discipline, and I'm sure there are many others.
Secondly they actually fill different roles thematically (and that sort-of reflects in the mechanics). A stunt represents a way in which I am extraordinary. An aspect represents normal day-to-day circumstances that might come in handy. Taking the above example, if I have a Para-military contacts stunt then I always get a +2 to contacts rolls involving military. I have clearly spent a lot of effort developing this huge web of contacts that are always useful. If I have the "Military Background" aspect I also get a +2 to contacts rolls involving military, but only when it so happens that this guy in my squad was an expert in so-and-so (I.E. when I spend a fate point to make it relevant to the story). Aspects represent lucky happenstance, Stunts represent time and effort made to make something continuously better.
-
I think the main difference between aspects and stunts is, that stunts represent WHAT you can do, while aspects explain WHY you do something. The latter is, from a story point of view, the more interesting.
In you examples above, the stunt "Brilliant Boxer" would give you a bonus any time you are boxing, plain and simple. If you are having a fight to free you sister, or even if your sister is just cheering you on, you canuse a fate point to invoke "I'll Always Be There for my Sister" to turn a fight around, if need be. You are activating every last bit of strength you have left, only because your sister is involved. But this would not only work on boxing, of course.
On the other hand, you are a "Brilliant Boxer", nothing is going to change that. But if your sister is held hostage and the bad guys tell you to throw the fight, you are going to throw the fight (and receive a fate point for the compell), because although you are one of the best, you wouldn't dare win this fight out of fear for your sister.
Mechanically, the main difference is, that stunts do not cost fate to activate, but they can't be compelled to gain fate points either like aspects can.
And lastly, aspects are telling something about your character. In this case, "I'll Always Be There for my Sister" is telling me your character has a sister that is very important to him. No mention of parents could indicate, that she is the only family left. What happened? Great Aspect to cover the characters entire past and what he learned from that, what makes him tick.
If another PC has the matching aspect "I'll Always Be There for my Brother", this would essentially become a fate point perpetuum mobile.
You should give the other players, especially the GM, an idea of what your aspects mean, what they should mostly be compelled for and where you most likely will invoke them. That way, there is going to be a lot less fuss about them.
-
Let me try this a different way. Imagine a player selects "best gunfighter in the west," and selects a poor gunfighting skill. So, they can spend a fate point to shoot (slightly) better, and I can compell them by having them take all challengers. However, coming from outside FATE, this sounds silly - he/she isn't the "best gunfighter in the west." I'm a fan of the idea that constraints encourage creativity, but since aspects like this can be completely fake or overly broad, you can get people doing silly things with them just to get their 2+ bonus.
It is up to the players and GM to make sure the aspects on the sheet match up to the way the character is actually built and played. For example, I've got a character with the aspect "All Brains, No Brawn", and I back that up mechanically by not taking any physical skills above +1. This is also why many powers have the restriction "Must have an aspect that justifies this power".
Now, it's true there are no specific rules that enforce the connection between aspects and the rest of your build. However, I think as a matter of common sense and group consensus, it shouldn't be too hard to weed out the abusive, absurd, or merely inappropriate examples.
-
Thank you all for your comments, except for the person with the very scary mouth icon picture.
Let me try this a different way. Imagine a player selects "best gunfighter in the west," and selects a poor gunfighting skill. So, they can spend a fate point to shoot (slightly) better, and I can compell them by having them take all challengers. However, coming from outside FATE, this sounds silly - he/she isn't the "best gunfighter in the west." I'm a fan of the idea that constraints encourage creativity, but since aspects like this can be completely fake or overly broad, you can get people doing silly things with them just to get their 2+ bonus.
Awwww :'(
I'm a sensitive eyeless mouth...
-
Something else to consider is that it's not like picking an aspect for a specific bonus is bad. If my character sucks at gunplay and I want an aspect to boost it occaisionally, that's not a bad motive to pick up an aspect. But "Best gunslinger in the west" probably isn't that aspect, and there are others that would probably do the same thing without conflicting with my concept (Like "Daddy was a gunslinger" or "The gang taught me how to shoot").
-
Something else to consider is that it's not like picking an aspect for a specific bonus is bad. If my character sucks at gunplay and I want an aspect to boost it occaisionally, that's not a bad motive to pick up an aspect. But "Best gunslinger in the west" probably isn't that aspect, and there are others that would probably do the same thing without conflicting with my concept (Like "Daddy was a gunslinger" or "The gang taught me how to shoot").
That's a very good point, Sinker. I often build my characters (and recommend this to others) with at least 1-2 aspects that can clearly be tagged for combat bonuses, and another 1-2 for social conflict. If done well, these usually say something about how that character approaches those kinds of conflicts as well, which adds to character and plot.
-
Something else to consider is that it's not like picking an aspect for a specific bonus is bad. If my character sucks at gunplay and I want an aspect to boost it occaisionally, that's not a bad motive to pick up an aspect. But "Best gunslinger in the west" probably isn't that aspect, and there are others that would probably do the same thing without conflicting with my concept (Like "Daddy was a gunslinger" or "The gang taught me how to shoot").
Or "All Thumbs--Except When The Heat Is Down"; character's only really good at something when they're riding the adrenaline.
-
It would be easy enough to make a mortal with seven stunts, each named after an aspect.
-
So, what would be wrong (what is wrong) with having people build aspects like the former rather than the latter. They seem less silly and Risus-like and less conflictual - it's more likely that everyone agrees what the aspect can/can't do, etc.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Don't we have enough games with stats and a feats list? Without Aspects there's really no reason to play Fate.
Edit: Houses of the Blooded pulls it off, but Wick has a whole narrative wagering mechanic in there to bring a different brand of awesome to the table.
Who cares if the guy with the aspect "best gunslinger in the west" is actually the best gunslinger in the west? Maybe he just thinks he is. Maybe he pretends to be. Maybe that's what everyone calls him. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would matter, but if it does the GM just asks the player to rework it until everyone's happy.
-
That's a great point. Agreed.
-
Don't we have enough games with stats and a feats list? Without Aspects there's really no reason to play Fate.
Edit: Houses of the Blooded pulls it off, but Wick has a whole narrative wagering mechanic in there to bring a different brand of awesome to the table.
Who cares if the guy with the aspect "best gunslinger in the west" is actually the best gunslinger in the west? Maybe he just thinks he is. Maybe he pretends to be. Maybe that's what everyone calls him. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would matter, but if it does the GM just asks the player to rework it until everyone's happy.
Well that aspect could come up in several ways. He could try to invoke it in social situations with a presence roll to impress the yokels in the local bar towards whatever ends. He could try to intimidate opponents in conflict, perhaps invoking with an Intimidation roll to make his opponent nervous and slip up (like making giving him an advantage in a quick draw because the opponent is all nerves). The GM could compel him with it when he hears news that someone else claims to be the best gunslinger. A compel could put him at a disadvantage when he meets the real best gunslinger. So on.
But yeah, you're right. FATE wouldn't be FATE without the aspect system.
-
Well that aspect could come up in several ways.
agreed.
The GM could compel him with it when he hears news that someone else claims to be the best gunslinger. A compel could put him at a disadvantage when he meets the real best gunslinger. So on.
No. Being matched up against someone better than you puts you at a disadvantage. The compel just gets you there.
-
Thank you all for your comments, except for the person with the very scary mouth icon picture.
Let me try this a different way. Imagine a player selects "best gunfighter in the west," and selects a poor gunfighting skill. So, they can spend a fate point to shoot (slightly) better, and I can compell them by having them take all challengers. However, coming from outside FATE, this sounds silly - he/she isn't the "best gunfighter in the west." I'm a fan of the idea that constraints encourage creativity, but since aspects like this can be completely fake or overly broad, you can get people doing silly things with them just to get their 2+ bonus.
Your example basically summed up the movie "Rango".
-
Another thing aspects can do is tell the GM what the player expects from the game. Bringing in the "Will Do Anything For My Sister" aspect for example again, that tells the GM that there is a sister and she needs stuff.