Questions and thoughts about Aspects in FATE

[ffilz]

Cool - glad to see a place to discuss FATE on the Forge...

I will be starting a Fudge campaign, and have been looking at FATE. I was just about sold on FATE's aspects until I did a demo of The Ring of Steel.

One thing that was bothering me about FATE was that I'm not ready to let go of traditional attributes. On the other hand, I like the character history use of Aspects, and I like the thoughts on their use in play.

I think one issue I have with Aspects is that they serve multiple purposes. They replace traditional attributes (and also replace some of the ideas of character class in D&D), but they also serve a role in play almost exactly like TROS Spiritual Attributes.

I also have to admit that the thought of "positive" and "negative" Aspects raises my Gamist Defense Shields. Of course on reading about GNS, I realize that to try and defend against the Gamist is to lose (probably), so perhaps I should just let the feeling pass.

As to replacing traditional attributes, my thought is that I don't want to start PCs with much more than 5 Aspects, but that means that a PC will really only be exceptional (compared to the population as a whole) in one or two traditional attributes. Of course perhaps that's fine, since what the game really cares about is the PCs exceptionalness in relation to each other (for example, if everyone has an 18 Str in D&D, then 18 isn't really an exceptional value).

So right now, I'm looking at using the Aspect play mechanics, but having the players define them more like TROS SAs. And perhaps I can keep the character history bit in by having the players weave their story about how they wound up with those particular Aspects.

Frank

[inky]

I suppose, but it
I also have to admit that the thought of "positive" and "negative" Aspects raises my Gamist Defense Shields. Of course on reading about GNS, I realize that to try and defend against the Gamist is to lose (probably), so perhaps I should just let the feeling pass.

I would, yeah. Negative aspects only reward players when they're causing problems, and the players still have to pay for them with points. I don't think there is any getting-something-for-nothing going on here; on the contrary, I think it's a nice way to encourage people to buy personality traits for their characters and act accordingly.

As to replacing traditional attributes, my thought is that I don't want to start PCs with much more than 5 Aspects, but that means that a PC will really only be exceptional (compared to the population as a whole) in one or two traditional attributes. Of course perhaps that's fine, since what the game really cares about is the PCs exceptionalness in relation to each other (for example, if everyone has an 18 Str in D&D, then 18 isn't really an exceptional value).

The guidelines that I see in the rules suggest 5-8 phases, with each phase giving one Aspect level, and most/all of the sample characters putting multiple levels into an Aspect. So, er, your thought seems to line up pretty much exactly with the rules -- are you perhaps confusing Aspects and skills?

On a related note, I think you're underestimating the applicability of Aspects. In terms of use they're much closer to being like a d&d class than like a d&d stat -- "Rogue" would be a perfectly valid aspect. So in some sense this is only being superior to the rest of the world in one area, but it comes up in so many situations players aren't likely to feel underpowered.

[DevP]

From what I've seen, Aspects don't quite mechanically work how Attributes are expected to mechanically work. Attributes often give a baseline and/or a bonus for lots of skill usage, while Aspects give one of the biggest in-game boost, and are more about generating interesting character behavior or hooks and the like.

IMHO, if you want attributes, they were actually here all this time - just in a different part of the rules. Unless the player suggests otherwise, you can readily assume that their attributes are all Average, and there are already rules for untrainted skill usage. If you wanted to reflect the idea that higher natural attributes leads to stronger skill usage, you could allow for an augmentation roll (and there are a few methods rolling around about how to deal with augmentation-esqe things).

(A quick idea that came to mind: you buy Skill Ranks in "Attributes" if you want to take them past Average, and they are rarely used inherently, but reflect a "ceiling" for any skills based on that attribute; in compensation, perhaps give players more skill ranks per phase in character creation. How does this sound?)

As for potential Gamist abuse: well, "gamist defense" is a bit of a dodgy cause anyway, but in any case the Aspects are a finate resource for the players' positive, voluntary invocation, and if they twist things to get a bonus, it's not too big a deal (it's really a more constrained form of having X "drama points"). The negative invocations - which would theoretically be mined for points - seem to be only invoked by the GM. I would play it by allowing for collaboration - I'd love a player to suggest a negative invocation - but I could still use my judgement to rope in the negative invocations as you liked.

[ffilz]

I should have clarified why Aspects make me feel I might have to raise the Gamist Defense Shields. The issue I see is that a purely negative Aspect is certainly less "powerfull" than one that's a two way street (and probably would be perceived as less powerfull than a positive only Aspect).

As to attributes, of course one thing that I have always struggled with is the relation between attributes and skills. I think some games give too much advantage for having good attributes (I actually kind of like the way The Riddle of Steel handles skill and attributes, and there are other games that do similar things - in fact these systems encourage you to keep your attributes and skills in pace [you will get the best bang by having both good rather than one great and the other fair]).

Sometimes I have considered just having attributes for things that really have very few skills associated (strength and health for example), but I also find it handy to know that someone is generically pretty agile. It would be interesting to come up with a system where you buy skills, and the number and type of skills you take set your attributes.

Hmm, attributes as skills could work. Endurance and Lift would be pretty reasonable skills. Health probably works also.

As far as Aspects being closer to D&D classes, that certainly would work well for Tekumel, but it also feels like Aspects should be more than that.

I guess what makes it hard for me is that I really have not done an attributeless system (well, ok, Traveller might as well have been attributeless, I don't think attributes were ever used for anything other than the physical ones being hit points). I don't know if my reluctance is due to my Simulationist outlook or something else.

Frank

[iago]

For what it's worth, I'm running a little experiment in Mike Holmes' Fate PBEM, Shimmering Sea, where I'm playing a character almost entirely based on so-called "negative" aspects.  

In general I tend to have a fairly broad view of circumstances for invoking an aspect.  If someone has a Coward aspect, for example, it's easy for them to use it to get rerolls on running away.  My character Mump in Shimmering Sea has an aspect of Slave as well, but could use that for helping out on his "Beneath Notice" skill rolls.

I have a pretty hard time thinking of aspects which can't be used "both ways" -- when they're negative.  If anything, the most inflexible aspects -- the ones that don't provide for both fate point accumulating GM invocations, as well as player invocations for rerolls, etc -- are the definitively positive ones.   In the rulebook (one version of them at least) we talk about a Strength aspect being invoked against the character by suggesting that he doesn't know his own strength and thus accidentally crushes a fragile vase.  Now that feels like a stretch at times.   But on the yahoo discussion group, folks have recently brought up the "disadavantage" of Blindness.  There, much as with the Slave aspect on Mump, I'd be tempted to try things like "You wouldn't hit a Blind guy, would you?" and "I'm Blind. Pretty easy to underestimate." and so on.  These feel like less of a stretch than the Strength example.

Regardless, these days we come right out and say "the best Aspects are the most interesting ones".  Sure, an aspect of Knight has its positive and negative applications -- but a Knight of Tindalos aspect more directly hooks you to story, the ups and downs of the Tindalos organization, its reputation, its specialties, and so on -- by choosing the more interesting aspect, you get something that's going to be more broadly applicable, in both senses -- leading you to more fate points, more reroll-applicable situations.

So you're entirely right thinking that a purely negative aspect (if there is such a thing) is less useful than a "balanced" one.  Less useful than a purely positive one?  I'm not so sure.

Ultimately I like to think that the aspect mechanics encourage a player to think about both the positive and negative applications of any aspect they choose.  If their choice seems to have too few facets to it, they're probably better off choosing a more ... interesting one.

[ffilz]

Ok, and that's a lot of what I picked up from the rules. The problem I see is that the attribute aspects are relatively bland (and I think a negative attribute aspect would often be harder to use than something like coward). So it comes back to now we don't know how strong anyone is because hardly anyone has a strength score (since they didn't take an aspect or a skill).

I have to admit that I latched onto The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes a lot better, and what I am thinking of doing is defining FATE Aspects more like TROS SAs (the FATE Aspect mechanics mesh just fine with the Aspects being things like TROS SAs - plenty of opportunities for player and GM activation).

And I'm planning on still having Attributes, Gifts, and Flaws. It certainly will mean a busier character sheet than pure FATE.

But I'm also still hashing things out. Right now I'm working on my skill list and magic mechanics.

In a lot of ways Fudge/FATE is not really the right system for me. But the two players who have done demos during the summer with me didn't like my college friend's system, and Tri-Stat Tekumel isn't out yet (and the other Tekumel game systems aren't that attractive to me). TROS would have been interesting, but there would have been a lot of work to map Tekumel magic into TROS (the whole aging thing doesn't mesh well with Tekumel magic), plus it would not be a good system for the two players who have done the summer demos.

So, I work with what I've got... (and thank the lords that at least a couple players are willing to play a non-D20 system).

Frank

[Yokiboy]

It would be interesting to come up with a system where you buy skills, and the number and type of skills you take set your attributes.

TSR's old Conan RPG did just that, and it worked too.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

[Mike Holmes]

But you do know how strong they are. They're at default for strength. That would be Average on the scale. Unless they have an aspect that could cover for strenght. That is, if you're a soldier, you can probably use your Soldier Aspect to win contests of strength. See the rules on using Aspects as skill ratings directly.

I'm not seeing the problem. FATE makes very well enumerated characters. I've never had a problem with this in play.

Mike