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.
Why would a GM exploit the fiction to win? They have the ability to set difficulties, the number of opponents, their skills, their extras, plus setting up any home court advantages. If the GM wants to win badly enough to invoke the Bronze Rule to hose you they shouldn't be allowed to GM. They've got all sorts of ways to GM badly.
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.
No it's treating like every other aspect. Exempting it from the Bronze Rule would be giving it special status, right? It's a CAA aspect so it can't be elevated. No, it's just an aspect. It's subject to the Bronze Rule like any other aspect. It has nothing to do with whether it's fire or incredible sadness, it's an aspect. The GM can use it. You roleplay it in the same way that you don't shrug off debilitating sadness, meaning if it's fictionally possible to narrate what you're narrating, you're good to go.
It has inherent limits. It creates an aspect granting its maker +2 or a reroll. It's also an aspect, and subject to the mechanics that all aspects follow, including the Bronze Rule. The Bronze Rule allows the GM to turn any aspect into a character, and control it. If it bothers you that the GM has the ability to turn any aspect into a character, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's right there in the book.
I don't know what you mean by aspects without inherent function. All aspects have a function, it just may or may not be relevant at that moment.
Yeah, being set on fire in particular almost never happens as humans are basically bags of wet meat and water.
An actual session is basically "I cast firebolt!" and then there's an opposing roll when the Orc Assassin tries to dodge then you record stress, then the Barbarian lets out an enraged roar to create the Intimidating Presence aspect and then some fool attacks the barbarian and the player calls a free boost to defense because angry barbarians are scary.
Is the environment interesting? If it's just a dungeon corridor it's fine. No aspects. Are there hallucinogenic spores in the air? It's an aspect. Is the environment trying to kill you? Then it's the Cliff of Doom and you can stat it as a character and the players beat it with climbing rolls and supporting each other.
Mechanically, it's not THAT far from something like DnD feats or spending willpower point in Storyteller games. It's just a tabletop game, not a theological debate.
And, yet, strangely, none of my games have "become nonsense". Strange, that.
So, we can discuss how that is, and how things have actually played out, and what the implications are, or you can continue to tell me how my games are "nonsense". Either you're missing something that allows such games to not be "nonsense", or I am so utterly insane that I cannot tell I'm playing in a nonsense game.
Find in the SRD where Stress comes out of a pure Create an Advantage roll. It's not there. Stress only comes out of an Attack roll. You could invoke the aspect you create for a mechanical bonus, but that would happen on the next turn.
Start with the source material and not opinion. Someone might have it wrong.
Here’s the bit in the SRD (page 132 of the Fate Core rulebook) discussing the difference between minor cost and serious cost. It specifically mentions having a PC take stress as the result of a failed overcome roll.
Here’s the bit in the SRD (pages 185–186 of the Fate Core rulebook) covering the Silver Rule: “Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense.” There’s an example (someone putting his fist through a glass-top table as an act of intimidation) of someone taking a mild consequence from failing an overcome roll, and another one (Cynere trying to grab an idol while dodging fire-bolts) of the GM treating a failed overcome like a failed defense roll and inflicting stress.
So it’s established in the rules that attack rolls are not the only source of stress and consequences, and that it’s up to the GM to figure out how to break fictional situations down into specific rolls.
And it's perfectly fine if the GM does it because, hopefully, they have the best interest of all players at heart. OTOH, my problem--as I said above--is with players doing it, insisting on it, being disruptive over it, because they want to win.
Specifically as to paying the "Cost" it would make sense for the GM to ask for Stress or Consequences, but again, that's not what I was talking about above. I was saying that a player inflicts an aspect on an NPC and--because of how they've defined it--expects extra effect. The NPC is On Fire, so that--independent of success or failure--there's an expectation of the character taking damage.
As to the Silver Rule, my comment is the same as to the notion that an aspect is "true"--if it's in service to the plot and players are coming to the table in good faith.
My specific complaint is basically about abusive players who try to do an end run around the stress/consequence economy, to those players who try to win rather than roleplay. That someone came up with the notion of inflicting Beheaded on someone was not an idle example. That player, in a PbP I ran, argued and became disruptive over how they got to do that. They kept harping and rules lawyering on the notion that aspects are true, they guy was beheaded, and therefore he was dead.
That someone came up with the notion of inflicting Beheaded on someone was not an idle example. That player, in a PbP I ran, argued and became disruptive over how they got to do that. They kept harping and rules lawyering on the notion that aspects are true, they guy was beheaded, and therefore he was dead.