But the essence of the Fate Core rules-as-written is that it IS a tool kit, and the basic rules are about some basic principles that can be applied in many different ways to achieve what any particular table desires. I would posit that "grokking the game" is impossible without understanding that Fate Core isn't a game, it is a toolkit to create a game. It is almost impossible to understand how aspects or create advantage actions or overcome obstacle actions function without discussing the different ways that they can be applied. This is what the rules-as-written are trying to get across.I think we can all find ways to riff off of the Fate rule set and there’s even toolkits that help you do that, but I’m not sure how helpful it is to bring those ideas into a discussion about simply grokking the game.
"We've already seen some examples of this earlier in the book; you give your game its own aspects during creation, you place situation aspects on the environment as well as on characters, and the GM can let environmental hazards attack as if they had skills."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.
Environmental hazards (as aspects) are not the same as aspects placed by a character through CaA. All players have to have equal agency. Just because you can come up with a particular concept for your aspect, doesn't mean it should be treated with more or less effect by its nature."We've already seen some examples of this earlier in the book; you give your game its own aspects during creation, you place situation aspects on the environment as well as on characters, and the GM can let environmental hazards attack as if they had skills."
To me that's just roleplaying. You're On Fire. You don't just shrug that off and carry on. What I'm saying is that while fire, in general, could be elevated to character status, I wouldn't for any CaA aspect because that would be granting special status to it.Except you're forgetting that aspects (created by CaA) can still be Overcome. So if you put someone on fire, and the fire is treated as that significant, then a highly concerted effort will be made to put out the fire.
Once you embrace the freedom of an action with no inherent limits on scope creating aspects with no inherent function but instead whatever someone interprets, the rest of the game becomes nonsense.Except you're forgetting that aspects (created by CaA) can still be Overcome. So if you put someone on fire, and the fire is treated as that significant, then a highly concerted effort will be made to put out the fire.
And that's the cool thing about CaA. It's a feature, not a bug. Once you embrace the truth of aspects, then the game (especially Conflicts) becomes a lot about manipulating the environment and trying to create a situation that favors you, and becomes less about hacking through Stress tracks. And that is AWESOME.
All aspects have the base function of later being invoked to help an Attack, Defense, or Overcome.creating aspects with no inherent function