Aspects are just codification a of what's hoping on in the game. If you're hands are tied in the game, then you can't juggle AND the GM can highlight the fact that your hands are tied by pointing out the Aspect "Tied Hands." You have that aspect as long as your hands remain tied.

The assumption, which turned out not to be the case, was that people understood that the aspect was coming from the same place as the inability to use your hands, the description of what's happening in the game world (can we just call that the Fiction without everyone freaking? ). The aspect wasn't the cause, but an effect. Saying the aspect is always true us a bit of a redundancy. The aspect is present because of things that are true in the world.

I haven’t really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing “Breathes Underwater” as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like “Protector of the oceans” or “Fish-girl, mutant freak” (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my “internal landscape” Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it’s a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character’s passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

Which is also the reason why I tend to de-emphasise Scene Aspects when I run Fate. Every time a player tags a Scene Aspect like “Dark room” it’s a missed opportunity to invoke a more personal Aspect, something  that relates specifically to that character. There are/were rules for environmental effects in Fate, I used those in preference.  

Of course there are exceptions. The character’s ship in Bulldogs! should have Aspects, likewise the superhero HQ is ICONS because these locations are very much recurrent character’s in their own right.

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my "internal landscape" Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things.

That's how I see it too.

I bought Spirit of the Century a while ago, just to see what this FATE craze was about.
We tried a session and it just didn't click with me or my players, especially the aspects part of it. Invoking and compelling aspects just seemed to interfere with our feeling of immersion. We don't want to think about how one can use some kind of description to its best advantage in-game.
Let's just say it's not our cup of tea...

SG, I agree that scene aspects are often over used. GM's throwing out a ton of scene aspects for free invokes is one if the things that I often find annoying in Fate games. I do think that highlighting a few select pieces of the setting with scene aspects can be fun and has a place in the game.

Quote from: Noclue;696056Aspects are just codification a of what's hoping on in the game. If you're hands are tied in the game, then you can't juggle AND the GM can highlight the fact that your hands are tied by pointing out the Aspect "Tied Hands." You have that aspect as long as your hands remain tied.

The assumption, which turned out not to be the case, was that people understood that the aspect was coming from the same place as the inability to use your hands, the description of what's happening in the game world (can we just call that the Fiction without everyone freaking? ). The aspect wasn't the cause, but an effect. Saying the aspect is always true us a bit of a redundancy. The aspect is present because of things that are true in the world.

I just saw a great quote from Rob Donoghue regarding aspects always being true vs. paying a Fate Point:

"Not everything which is true matters.

You are not paying for truth, you are paying for significance."

Quote from: Vonn;696072I bought Spirit of the Century a while ago, just to see what this FATE craze was about.
We tried a session and it just didn't click with me or my players, especially the aspects part of it. Invoking and compelling aspects just seemed to interfere with our feeling of immersion. We don't want to think about how one can use some kind of description to its best advantage in-game.
Let's just say it's not our cup of tea...

It probably isn't, but one way to look at it isn't that you define aspects to be used to their best advantage in the game - the aspects come out of the descriptions that you are already using. So I don't say, "You are standing on the edge of a wood. It has the aspect of Haunted Old Forest.". I say, "You are standing at the edge of a Haunted Old Forest." Maybe it's a predefined scene advantage. Maybe one of the players wants to bring that aspect into the spotlight and takes an action to make it that way (via, depending on the flavor of Fate, declaration, or assessment, or create advantage).

Regardless, the way that the aspect is used is the same as any other game. Having the GM say, "This is a haunted old forest. Make a saving throw versus Fear to go inside" as opposed to the GM compelling the Haunted Old Forest aspect to make the PC too scared to go inside, is functionally the same thing.

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057I haven’t really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing “Breathes Underwater” as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like “Protector of the oceans” or “Fish-girl, mutant freak” (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my “internal landscape” Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it’s a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character’s passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

In Fate Core, you can do it either way. But one way to look at it is buying a stunt can be permanently paying a Fate Point to have an ability. Either way, whether it's a stunt or an aspect the character can always breathe underwater. But whichever it is is going to depend on the setting, the game and what the table agrees to. In something like Dishonored, I'd probably make it a stunt. In another game, it might be an aspect.

But the one thing that has come about from Fate Core is that aspects aren't just why characters do things. They can also serve as justification for being able to or not. One useful rubric that has been brought up is aspects allow, justify and deny. If having the aspect "Butterfly wings" justifies the character being able to fly - within the understanding that both player and GM have for what the aspect entails - then they can fly. No need for invokes or Fate Points. If the player wants a stunt that lets them cross two Zones for the price of one, they may need an aspect - such as Butterfly Wings - to justify having that stunt. Not having the aspect Trained Mage Of The First Tower might deny a character being able to cast a certain spell (or any magic at all). In that sense, the set of "why characters do things" are still covered by aspects, along with "can a characters do something."

Quote from: Soylent Green;696057I haven't really given Fate Core a spin yet, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but from my perspective I was happy with representing "Breathes Underwater" as a Stunt and leave Aspect for more personal, creative things like "Protector of the oceans" or "Fish-girl, mutant freak" (which of course are the type of Aspect that lend themselves to be always true anyway).

Well, I think that breathing underwater is implied as part of "Fish-girl, mutant freak".

Whether a stunt would be required for underwater breathing would, I think, be dependent on the game.  I could make arguments either way, depending on the game.

Quote from: apparition13;696053Mine may not be an orthodox take on Fate (assuming is there such a thing) but in my "internal landscape" Skills and Stunts were for how your character did things, Aspects were for why they did things. I turned to Fate because it's a character centric system, the sort of game in which your character's passions, history and motivations matter more than their gear.

I agree.  I might make a wizard like this:

Aspect:  Master of the Arcane
Skill:  Shoot +4
Stunt:  Massive fireball - Attack actions against all opponents in a zone divide their shifts as if there were one less opponent, minimum of one.

The aspect gives you permission to do magic.

The skill measures how well you do it - the fact that it's magic is mostly color.

The stunt says how it's special.

Sometimes gear *can* be an aspect, but usually I avoid that.  But something like the key in Grimm?  Yeah, that's probably an aspect.

Quote from: apparition13;696053Which is also the reason why I tend to de-emphasise Scene Aspects when I run Fate. Every time a player tags a Scene Aspect like "Dark room" it's a missed opportunity to invoke a more personal Aspect, something  that relates specifically to that character. There are/were rules for environmental effects in Fate, I used those in preference.  

Eh, I think focusing on the scene and focusing on the character are both good.  Ideally, you have a mixture of both - a bit of emphasis on scene aspects helps keep people 'in the scene', or so I've found.  But you're right, they can be overdone, absolutely.

An aspect is just really "something that's important", anyway.  If the light level in the scene isn't important, don't mention it or make it an aspect.

I haven't seen the environmental effect rules, but I typically prefer to avoid any kind of static bonuses.  That's just me.  I'd rather have players be active via Create Advantage, rather than looking around to see how many passive bonuses that they can stack - the active model to me has resulted in faster, more engaging play and less arguments.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694091Please excuse my rant/vent/frustration. As with any system I expect that what happens at the table is mainly to do with the people sat there. But sometimes what you are doing doesn't help....

We played Diaspora last night. A session that has finally turned me off the Fate system. Why? Well, it is partly the system and partly the group. I will elaborate. The game has been running for a month, I joined for the first time last night.

Diaspora 'seems' to be a Fate-based attempt at Traveller. It is difficult to produce a space-based game without standing in the long shadow cast by the Traveller system. But the notion that player agency and co-authorship of the narrative provide a compelling roleplay experience has again failed.

Firstly Aspects. This is the second time we have used a Fate derived system and the second time that Aspects are used simply as a way of tacking bonuses onto dice rolls, or justifying players re-rolling within the 'Fate Point Economy'. There is scant evidence to show that the Aspects system supports any Roleplaying as I wish to engage with it, and a wealth of evidence to show that Aspects and Fate Points are a mask drawn over "Special Snowflake" decisions that cannot be seen to ever fail.

The Fate Point Economy fails without incredibly tight management. The idea (drawn out from my reading of the Dresden Files system books) that players are compelled to take negative consequences to an action and earn Fate Points for later use in the game (thus allowing them to 'pull through against all odds') fails to address the large amount of points (and therefore the large amount of re-rolls and narrative 'ret-conning') floating round the table. The upshot of this is virtually all player rolls are bumped, re-rolled or adjusted to avoid failure at all costs. This leads to a not too surprising result. The games played so far have lacked any sense of danger or consequence.

There is never a sense of loss, urgency, danger or threat. Aspects can be pulled out for each roll 'at-will' giving the players a constant edge over anything that is thrown at them. An analogy might be "A group of 1st level D&D characters set loose with a Bag-of-Holding packed full of Relics and Artifacts". This leaves me feeling that the games I have played thus far using a Fate-system to power them hark back to D&D gaming I did when I was 13. The style of game that naive 'wet behind the ears' newbs might engage with that has every character maxed out on amazing, game and world breaking magical items laying waste to anything in their path.

Or perhaps the Fate systems play into this idea that no one must ever fail, everyone is special and that we must all get a medal and a hug at the end of a gaming session? It's not for me, and because of my experiences I can see how others are quite critical of the system.

I've never played Diaspora but I have run lengthy campaigns of both Starblazer Adventures and ICONS;  in SA my players would be running out of Fate points all the time, in ICONS certain characters seem to run out of Determination (fate) points all the time.

So my conclusion is that the above is not really a problem of system but of how someone GMs it.  If you're handing out Fate points like candy, or letting players dictate the terms of when they get fate points, then sure, I could see this being a problem.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;696711I've never played Diaspora but I have run lengthy campaigns of both Starblazer Adventures and ICONS;  in SA my players would be running out of Fate points all the time, in ICONS certain characters seem to run out of Determination (fate) points all the time.

So my conclusion is that the above is not really a problem of system but of how someone GMs it.  If you're handing out Fate points like candy, or letting players dictate the terms of when they get fate points, then sure, I could see this being a problem.

RPGPundit

Nail on the head there. Good call.

Yeah, I think the key is to be generous with (moderately reasonable) invocation of Aspects, and to be stingy with Challenges.

RPGPundit