Aspects without Stunts & other stuff...

[AXUM]

Hello!


I have 2 SOTC questions:

1-What happens when a PC chooses an Aspect that's a prop (like Jet Black's Jet pack) or a group (like the Bolsheviks), but doesn't give it a Stunt? (one of my players ran out of Stunts for a heroic organization he wanted to be in - yet he has it under one of his Aspects; another wanted a Gizmo he made: "the amazing Watchamacallit" in his Novel Phase, yet didn't spend a Stunts slot in Universal Gadget, alas!) - is the Aspect wasted?

2-Can a Personal artifact be "merged" with a Rare artifact (mechanically the player spent 2 stunts but wanted to combine the artifacts into one powerhouse artifact - thusly having around 5 improvement slots in one artifact)?


Thanks
AXUM

[iago]

1-What happens when a PC chooses an Aspect that's a prop (like Jet Black's Jet pack) or a group (like the Bolsheviks), but doesn't give it a Stunt? (one of my players ran out of Stunts for a heroic organization he wanted to be in - yet he has it under one of his Aspects; another wanted a Gizmo he made: "the amazing Watchamacallit" in his Novel Phase, yet didn't spend a Stunts slot in Universal Gadget, alas!) - is the Aspect wasted?

Nope.  Consider "My Trusty Hat" as an aspect for Indiana Jones.  Think about why that's cool, why it's useful. 

Now think about why his hat doesn't need to be a gadget.

I find that this is the clearest way to illustrate the difference between taking the two, the synergies when you take both, and the lack of necessity for everything to be a gadget.

2-Can a Personal artifact be "merged" with a Rare artifact (mechanically the player spent 2 stunts but wanted to combine the artifacts into one powerhouse artifact - thusly having around 5 improvement slots in one artifact)?

The rules spell this out.

Personal artifact says "may be taken multiple times, but may not be combined."

Rare artifact says "May be taken multiple times, and may be combined."

This is all on page 173.

[AXUM]

"1-What happens when a PC chooses an Aspect that's a prop (like Jet Black's Jet pack) or a group (like the Bolsheviks), but doesn't give it a Stunt? (one of my players ran out of Stunts for a heroic organization he wanted to be in - yet he has it under one of his Aspects; another wanted a Gizmo he made: "the amazing Watchamacallit" in his Novel Phase, yet didn't spend a Stunts slot in Universal Gadget, alas!) - is the Aspect wasted?


Nope.  Consider "My Trusty Hat" as an aspect for Indiana Jones.  Think about why that's cool, why it's useful. 

Now think about why his hat doesn't need to be a gadget.

I find that this is the clearest way to illustrate the difference between taking the two, the synergies when you take both, and the lack of necessity for everything to be a gadget."


Hi:


So, to be ABSOLUTELY clear: if a PC takes a "prop" (let's say a gadget) as an Aspect, s/he doesn't need to take any of the Gadget (personal or Universal) stunts.  S/he gets the Gadget (whichever 'fits' better) - technically the Stunt - for free.

This also applies to groups the PC's a member of;

and, to mystical Artifacts;

Yes?

...Then, why does Jet Black have BOTH an Aspect for his Jetpack & a Personal Gadget Stunt?  Just to get FPs?



Thanks
Da'AX

[iago]

So, to be ABSOLUTELY clear: if a PC takes a "prop" (let's say a gadget) as an Aspect, s/he doesn't need to take any of the Gadget (personal or Universal) stunts.  S/he gets the Gadget (whichever 'fits' better) - technically the Stunt - for free.

This also applies to groups the PC's a member of;

and, to mystical Artifacts;

Yes?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, if I'm understanding your interpretation right.

I'm saying this.

1) If she wants the mechanical advantages of compels and invocations, she should represent her relationship to the item and the item's importance in the story with an aspect.

2) If she wants the mechanical advantages of gadget improvements as outlined in the gadgets chapter, she should use a stunt to design a gadget .

3) If she wants the mechanical advantages of compels, invocations, and gadget improvements as outlined in the gadgets chapter, she should take both an aspect and a stunt. 

And note, you can substitute the word "artifact" for "gadget" in all of the above text with absolutely no cognitive turbulence resulting.

Jet Black wants the advantages of invokes, compels, and gadget improvements, so he takes both the gadget stunt and the aspect.

Indiana Jones' hat is simply important to him and significant in the story, so he really only wants it for that cool story mojo, and the mechanical benefits that result therefrom.  So for him, it's just an aspect.

Sally Slick might simply want to toss together a cool widget once  in a while to solve problems.  So she's more purely-the-stunts.

For me, I like to get my cool from combining stunts and aspects in general.  I mean, why have either bread or cheese when I could put them together and have grilled cheese sandwiches?

...Then, why does Jet Black have BOTH an Aspect for his Jetpack & a Personal Gadget Stunt?  Just to get FPs?

Or to get rerolls and aspect-driven +2's when he's using his Jetpack.  This is basic aspect stuff.  Why WOULDN'T someone want to have an aspect in addition to what they get from their stunts, I say.

[AXUM]

So, to be ABSOLUTELY clear: if a PC takes a "prop" (let's say a gadget) as an Aspect, s/he doesn't need to take any of the Gadget (personal or Universal) stunts.  S/he gets the Gadget (whichever 'fits' better) - technically the Stunt - for free.

This also applies to groups the PC's a member of;

and, to mystical Artifacts;

Yes?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, if I'm understanding your interpretation right.

I'm saying this.

1) If she wants the mechanical advantages of compels and invocations, she should represent her relationship to the item and the item's importance in the story with an aspect.

2) If she wants the mechanical advantages of gadget improvements as outlined in the gadgets chapter, she should use a stunt to design a gadget .

3) If she wants the mechanical advantages of compels, invocations, and gadget improvements as outlined in the gadgets chapter, she should take both an aspect and a stunt. 

And note, you can substitute the word "artifact" for "gadget" in all of the above text with absolutely no cognitive turbulence resulting.

Jet Black wants the advantages of invokes, compels, and gadget improvements, so he takes both the gadget stunt and the aspect.

Indiana Jones' hat is simply important to him and significant in the story, so he really only wants it for that cool story mojo, and the mechanical benefits that result therefrom.  So for him, it's just an aspect.

Sally Slick might simply want to toss together a cool widget once  in a while to solve problems.  So she's more purely-the-stunts.

For me, I like to get my cool from combining stunts and aspects in general.  I mean, why have either bread or cheese when I could put them together and have grilled cheese sandwiches?

...Then, why does Jet Black have BOTH an Aspect for his Jetpack & a Personal Gadget Stunt?  Just to get FPs?

Or to get rerolls and aspect-driven +2's when he's using his Jetpack.  This is basic aspect stuff.  Why WOULDN'T someone want to have an aspect in addition to what they get from their stunts, I say.

Hi:

What about Aspects & groups...?  If a PC has an Aspect as an association with an organization/group, does s/he have to buy it as a Stunt also, to get it's "real" benefits (which Stunt would it be: Contacts or Resources)?  Same truism (as above) applied?


Thanks!
Da' Ax

[iago]

What about Aspects & groups...?  If a PC has an Aspect as an association with an organization/group, does s/he have to buy it as a Stunt also, to get it's "real" benefits (which Stunt would it be: Contacts or Resources)?  Same truism (as above) applied?

Let me turn this around for a moment.  Given what you've learned so far, if you were at the table with your players and had 30 seconds to make a decision about how to answer your question, what would it be?

[AXUM]

What about Aspects & groups...?  If a PC has an Aspect as an association with an organization/group, does s/he have to buy it as a Stunt also, to get it's "real" benefits (which Stunt would it be: Contacts or Resources)?  Same truism (as above) applied?

Let me turn this around for a moment.  Given what you've learned so far, if you were at the table with your players and had 30 seconds to make a decision about how to answer your question, what would it be?

Hello!

Whatever I rule doesn't matter right now because I want to know the official answer, to make sure my ruling is on the same page as the official ruling & I'm not breaking the rules of SOTC as written.

Please answer.


Thanks
Da' Ax

[iago]

Whatever I rule doesn't matter right now because I want to know the official answer, to make sure my ruling is on the same page as the official ruling & I'm not breaking the rules of SOTC as written.

Well, since you won't let me back you into the realization...

The official ruling is that the gut judgment call a GM makes at the table is the right one.

The official ruling is that there are several ways to answer every question in Fate -- by design.

The way I'd run it as a GM, yes, I'd apply the same thinking.

But thanks for not playing.

[AXUM]

Whatever I rule doesn't matter right now because I want to know the official answer, to make sure my ruling is on the same page as the official ruling & I'm not breaking the rules of SOTC as written.

Well, since you won't let me back you into the realization...

The official ruling is that the gut judgment call a GM makes at the table is the right one.

The official ruling is that there are several ways to answer every question in Fate -- by design.

The way I'd run it as a GM, yes, I'd apply the same thinking.

But thanks for not playing.

Hello!



I must be very dumb, I'm still confused! (lol)


Thanks
Da' Ax

[AXUM]

Hello?

Iago: you vex me so!

Da' Ax

[iago]

I'm not sure I know how to be clearer

[Valamir]

If I may be so bold as to endeavor to translate...

Ax, you said

What about Aspects & groups...?  If a PC has an Aspect as an association with an organization/group, does s/he have to buy it as a Stunt also, to get it's "real" benefits (which Stunt would it be: Contacts or Resources)?  Same truism (as above) applied?

Fred's answer is that there are multiple ways you could handle this within the system, of which applying the same truism as above (i.e. buying a stunt also) is one of them.  By design they are all legitimate, work just fine and the right answer is the one that works best for your group as implemented by you the GM.

So yes, that is *A* right answer, but if you're looking for *THE* right answer, he can't help you because having multiple different, yet equally "correct" answers is a built in feature of the design.  The above is the answer he would use as GM at the table but other's might rule differently at their tables.


Hopefully, I didn't misrepresent, Fred.

[AXUM]

If I may be so bold as to endeavor to translate...

Ax, you said

What about Aspects & groups...?  If a PC has an Aspect as an association with an organization/group, does s/he have to buy it as a Stunt also, to get it's "real" benefits (which Stunt would it be: Contacts or Resources)?  Same truism (as above) applied?

Fred's answer is that there are multiple ways you could handle this within the system, of which applying the same truism as above (i.e. buying a stunt also) is one of them.  By design they are all legitimate, work just fine and the right answer is the one that works best for your group as implemented by you the GM.

So yes, that is *A* right answer, but if you're looking for *THE* right answer, he can't help you because having multiple different, yet equally "correct" answers is a built in feature of the design.  The above is the answer he would use as GM at the table but other's might rule differently at their tables.


Hopefully, I didn't misrepresent, Fred.

Hiyas V!

That's the answer I was looking for, thanks!

-Axum