Yesterday I mucked up talking about defining a character. I got off on weird tangents and totally whiffed my actual point... much less advanced it.
To revist the idea: When I talk about 'defining a character' I mean specifically from the game design/play aspect. I'm not into namby pamby hand holding over 'it's me in game' or 'interface mechanisms'. I know, I know, I used a few of those terms. But we ain't about that here. This here is where we define the character in terms of mechanics.
Aside from lacking set 'attributes' that we commonly expect, I imagine that I don't deviate too far from the norm here.
Power, comparatively, is rated in Fu, however that is only one aspect of the character. We rate in Fu because Fu is the central dominant aspect of combat, and it makes a convienent yardstick to measure bad guys. We can also translate a lot of other things into 'Fu Equivilents'. Weapons, say. Note that we still have two types of weapons: Color weapons which are a part of the Fu that uses them, and Equipment Weapons, which have their own stats, typically being a single Fu point item.
But lets start at the beginning: Advantages. Advantages are both more, and less, powerful than Fu. Advantages always work, regardless, they are not damaged or burnt under normal circumstances. On the other hand, they also can't absorb damage for you or grant techniques. Having a 'combat' advantage is pretty weak if you can't back it up with a Fu.
On the other hand, outside of Combat, most Fu would be next to worthless. This is where Advantages come into their own: Non-combat gaming. Advantages are where we start to get into meaningful questions like "How rich am I?' or 'Who do I know?' and things along those lines. It also opens up lines of behavior for the character.
Corresponding with the advantages is the Heroic Flaw, the disadvantage. While I intend for these to be largely self defined, I will have specific examples for the lazy to steal from. Every hero has his flaw, though the option to not take one (at the cost of one Advantage...) is available.
The Flaw is still an 'in the works' concept. Obviously it gives no 'benefit', that is it provides no 'point' for the player to use elsewhere, it simply exists. there is the idea of rewarding players for bringing their flaw to the table, though I'm not sure I want to use that.
Some Flaws will be very much 'inverse' advantages. Fragile, for example, means the character is easily hurt, the opposite of Tough, and provides a penalty to Resistance rolls to avoid being hurt by an attack, or conversely a bonus to the enemy's roll to damage you. Others are more 'soft', things like being a 'Fool for Love'... where the disadvantage is primarily roleplaying.
We haven't talked skills in this thread very much, and for good reason. Compared to the sexy sexy Fu, Skills seem superfluous. Yes and no. Skills, as conceived, do not directly influence combat. Certainly they can be tested in combat situations, but by themselves they are not meant for it. Their purpose is all the other stuff. We've established before, in other threads, the basic concept behind skills, but let's revisit for a second. Heroic characters are assumed to be reasonably competent with anything they could be even remotely expected to be competent in. That is: You always get a roll without penalty if there is a chance you could do it. No, you can't know the language and culture of that new alien speices that just appeared in game and is currently eating your head. Certain advantages change this in various ways. A space listening post xenophile just might get that damn roll if he has an advantage that reflects that.
now, lets look at using a skill in combat. Let's say the character has been fighting this futuristic combat robot. he's exhausting his Fu, but he can't get through the Robot's rediculously powerful Resistance checks from it's armor.
But the character happens to have Engineering at 3. So he says "I use my engineering to find a weakspot in the Robot's armor". now he rolls his engineering against the Robot's Armor defence rating, not resistance. He has +3 to the roll from his skill, the Armor isn't nearly as defensive as it is resistant, so when he wins he can exhaust the robot's Armor 'Fu', making future attacks much more powerful as he just removed the most powerful Fu the enemy had against him. Now, he can link that to an attack with a weapon or Fu attack as well, going for the weak point hit as part of the shot, allowing for cumulative bonuses. In this case the attack is rolled, successful, then the Engineering is rolled with bonuses to exhaust the armor, then he can try to roll damage, taking the cumulative successes of the attack and engineering check, hoping to exhaust another 'Fu' that the robot will put up to resist the damage now that the Armor is 'out of play'. Of course, if he fails that damage check, the Armor isn't necessarily exhausted either.... gambles. But that got too complex, didn't it.
Now, social ratings might not continue to exist, being folded into Advantages, though it remains a useful topic. Ideally, Social points are rated into 'Lores' just like Fu. Only instead of 'attack' or what have you, you'll have 'network' or 'schmooze' points. Points in 'Find contact', for example. This doesn't exclude the possibility of adding techniques as you expand your socialness. Techniques like 'Find arms dealer anywhere', for example.
This is what makes up a character, this is how we define characters (fu is in there, yes).