[Fate/FAE] What's not to grok?

Noclue

Registered User
Validated User
F furashg The GM can use the Bronze Rule and treat the fire as a character to make attacks against the characters that cause stress if the GM desires. That's not the same thing as saying fire causes 1d6 damage per round for 1d4 rounds until extinguished.
 

Noclue

Registered User
Validated User
There may also be environmental damage rules in earlier Fate versions, but I'd need to have my books handy.
 

My Hero Zero

Registered User
Validated User
F furashg The GM can use the Bronze Rule and treat the fire as a character to make attacks against the characters that cause stress if the GM desires. That's not the same thing as saying fire causes 1d6 damage per round for 1d4 rounds until extinguished.
I think this is oversimplified. Ryan Macklin has some great points about just how to interpret the Bronze Rule and its limitations.

If a fire, all by itself, was created, then sure it could be a "character" doing damage on its own. But if you set a character "on fire" with CaA, I'd argue that you wouldn't go this route. First, it's far too powerful for one player to be able to just create that from whole cloth. Because by itself, it's just an aspect, and needs invocations and possibly Fate points to be able to get mechanical bonuses.

Certainly if the fire were to be ruled to have gotten out of hand, and now the Whole Damn Place is On Fire, then that might add something to the story. But a regular ol' You're On Fire, Dude, shouldn't be elevated to a Bronze Rule Character.
 

furashg

Registered User
Validated User
Well I know you think this is a basic question, but why is it that at least 2 players (one here and one on Reddit) have it wrong? If this was basic and obvious why do you have Fate GMs getting it wrong. I'm not dumb, I like Fate, and I'm pretty well educated .
 

My Hero Zero

Registered User
Validated User
Well I know you think this is a basic question, but why is it that at least 2 players (one here and one on Reddit) have it wrong? If this was basic and obvious why do you have Fate GMs getting it wrong. I'm not dumb, I like Fate, and I'm pretty well educated .
Again, point to the source material. I wasn't in on the original question or answer. But you can use the link above to go to the actions and read it for yourself. You create an aspect with CaA, not stress. The aspect by itself is just that. So if I create On Fire, it shouldn't be any different (mechanically) than Sand in the Eyes, etc. And what I mean is that you can't just create an aspect that has more power than another aspect, e.g. Dead, Leg Amputated, etc.

They bypass the Stress/Consequences track. The whole point to combat is taking someone out, or having them concede (when they don't want to take on long term Consequences).

If you were allowed to just say, boom, I cut off your leg (using CaA), then people will start getting stupid with the whole "aspects are true" and therefore you should be massively hemorrhaging and you die. All from one Create an Advantage.

Nope.
 

Noclue

Registered User
Validated User
Also, I'm not sure that Fate is really a game based on making a TV show or Movie - I think that's just an analogy for aspects as spotlight.
It's a game that emulates the kind of fiction found in television and movies.

If it really was a game for making a TV show or movie (1) you wouldn't need to give people Fate points for compels (they'd just do it because it's good for the scene and they're writers in a writing room) and (2) no one would have characters, they'd just share a pool of characters and write their stories.
This is not true in Primetime Adventures,which is a game where you play characters in a television show. You have characters. You push for those character's agendas in conflicts to succeed in contests in the fiction. You roleplay your characters and contest other players, but you also know that its a show. There is a fan mail mechanic that improves your dice. There's "next time on X" voice overs. There's a spotlight character for each "episode" and a spotlight mechanic.
 

GrahamWills

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
You create an aspect with CaA, not stress. The aspect by itself is just that. So if I create On Fire, it shouldn't be any different (mechanically) than Sand in the Eyes, etc. And what I mean is that you can't just create an aspect that has more power than another aspect
While this is one way to play, to me it is boring and the statement that all aspects are equally powerful is too constraining. I like to play with a variety of aspects, and they all establish truth and have in-game consequences. Let's take the example of setting someone on fire. I'm going to stress that this is how I play it. Like any game, people stress different things and play styles vary a lot; Fate is exceptionally good at allowing these variances. So one GM might decide that he's going to make aspects relatively banal, and focus on skills and stunts as the way to inject cool stuff. For me, I rarely bother with stunts but I focus on the permission view of aspects. I strongly believe neither is wrong. It's like a D&D group who doesn't like combat and role-plays their way through "combat encounters". It's just a different way to play. Anyway, here's some examples of setting people on fire, my style:

Aiden: "I'm going to douse him in oil and set him on fire"
GM: "Are you just trying to distract him, or cause real damage"
Aiden: "I want him to be a blazing mound of firey pain"
GM: "OK, that's going to be pretty hard. You'll need a 7 at least to create that much of an effect"
Aiden: "Hmmm. Suppose I just wanted to distract him"
GM: "That wouldn't be too hard, maybe a 3"
Sandra: "If you like, I could throw some oil on him first to make it easier"
Jamal: "I'll hold him down while you douse him"
GM: "OK, you guys can try and create advantages to make it easier for Aiden. Go for it"
...
GM: "So, he has the aspect 'a blazing mound of firey pain'. Everything he does is two steps harder and I'll roll a check for him every round until he expires"

Like many experienced GMs, I have found the biggest problems arise (regardless of system) when there is a mismatch between what the player thought they would achieve and what the GM thought. So whenever someone wants to CaA, unless it's pretty clear, I'll try and clarify how powerful they expect it to be and make a call on the difficulty based on that. I like to use the Fate mantra: "Because ASPECT, it makes sense that EFFECT", so for this situation:

"Because he is a blazing mound of firey pain, it makes sense that he will find it hard to act and will die soon"

So that seems quite a serious aspect to place on someone, and therefore will be hard, so I judge as such. If the player had asked why it seemed so hard, I'd say what I expected the aspect to do, and the player might let me know that they wanted something less. In my hypothetical example above the players got on board with the nastier version immediately, so yay, go team fire-murder.
 

My Hero Zero

Registered User
Validated User
While this is one way to play, to me it is boring and the statement that all aspects are equally powerful is too constraining. I like to play with a variety of aspects, and they all establish truth and have in-game consequences.
You're able to play the game you like. As a GM, hopefully you'd call it out as being different from the RAW so I'd know going in you were using the houserule and it wouldn't come as a surprise.

I only argue rules from a RAW point of view because that way--at a minimum--everyone has a chance to start on the same page.

I find players who come to the game trying to "win" with the notion that aspects are true and therefore they can create this super-powering aspect with a few well chosen words that often borders on Save-Or-Die.

Also note, that super-power attacks are quite often aimed at Red Shirts and the bar is quite low. So if they want a Vorpal sword, they can, with one swipe, take off the head of a generic mook. Heroes and equally-ranked villains shouldn't be dispatched so easily.
 

kyoryu

Registered User
Validated User
I see no problem with an "On Fire" aspect being fractalized and dealing Stress.

The reason for this is that any aspect can be Overcome. A strong aspect like that (and it is strong!) is highly likely to be quickly Overcome and not changing the landscape of the Conflict for very long, while a weaker one players might decide to allow to hang around rather than waste the action to Overcome it. So On Fire will be dealt with immediately, but will be potent while it hangs around, while Slightly Numbed Arm is nowhere near as potent, but might last the entire scene.

I completely agree with the idea that CA can't be a Save-Or-Die effect. And if you're so On Fire that you can't do anything and can't become Not On Fire, then that qualifies - that is clearly being taken out of the conflict, and so you need to be Taken Out. But so long as you can still remove the fire and have some agency, I don't really see the issue with it.

I'm pretty much on board with GrahamWills version, with only a few minor quibbles (mostly that I'd use passive opposition rather than increasing difficulty on opposed rolls, and I'd have it be an Attack vs a "check or die").

I don't think aspects are all the same effectiveness, and I do think "Aspects are true" is useful. The important thing, to me, is to remember that Fate constrains results, it doesn't give them.

So a successful CaA action has the constraints:
  • Should be removable within the scene
  • Can impede actions by the target (if any)
  • Cannot prevent the target from being active in the scene
Beheaded fails the last test (in 99% of the cases). On Fire does not, even fractalized.

The various Amputated Leg aspects fail the first test, and so are more appropriately handled as Consequences (likely Extreme, as the constraints of the other three types would prohibit a severed leg in most cases).
 
Top Bottom