[SotC] Other People's Aspects

[inky]

So I got SotC recently and have been looking through it with the intention of running a game with it sometime. Overall it seems like the system has a good blend of tactical crunch and looseness, which I like, but there's one thing I don't get. Namely, why would you ever want to tag an opponent's aspect?

My understanding from my reading is that the limit on the bonuses you can add to a roll is 1) the number of aspects you can find ways to apply and 2) the number of fate points you have to spend. 1) presumably isn't that big a deal -- with ten aspects I assume characters will have two or three of their own that apply to any roll, plus any aspects they've identified about their opponents or the location. If you tag your own aspect or an aspect of the scenery, the fate point just goes away. But if you tag an opponent's aspect, they get to add the fate point to their pool, right? Doesn't this negate most of the benefit of tagging them? I mean, ok, you got a big hit in, but unless you finished them off, they've now got an extra point to hit you right back.

I should add that I have seen the rules that you get the first tag free on aspects you create with a maneuver, discover, or cause by forcing them to take a consequence. Those free tags are obviously worth it. In fact, the fragile tags are great -- you use them, and then they go away so your opponent doesn't have another aspect to work with. But the other ones don't seem to be much help.

Am I just not thinking in the spirit (heh) of the game here in worrying about this?

[Alan]

Hi Dan,

You tag Dr. Methuselah _because_ it gives him another Fate point. If you like the conflict with him, you pump points across so he comes back for more fun later in the episode. Keep in mind that you can win a conflict without exhausting your opponent's fate points. Likewise, your opponent may just concede and run away with the FP only to use them to make the story more exciting later.

This suggests a strategy that actually supports the arc of an episode: tag opponents in the first half of the episode while conflict is developing and hold off on tagging when the conflict is rolling to a close.

(The GM can follow the same rule, tagging players early and often. Meanwhile, with early encounbers with big villains they might consider conceding a conflict [as heroes so often have minor failures in the begining of pulp stories.])

[Alan]

(...Meanwhile, with early encounbers with big villains they might consider conceding a conflict [as heroes so often have minor failures in the begining of pulp stories.])

Scuse me. I meant:

(...Meanwhile, with early encounbers with big villains _players_ might consider conceding a conflict [as heroes so often have minor failures in the begining of pulp stories.])

[inky]

You tag Dr. Methuselah _because_ it gives him another Fate point. If you like the conflict with him, you pump points across so he comes back for more fun later in the episode. Keep in mind that you can win a conflict without exhausting your opponent's fate points. Likewise, your opponent may just concede and run away with the FP only to use them to make the story more exciting later.

Thanks for this reply, but it's not quite the sort of answer I was looking for (I really should have specified I was looking for a tactical explanation, not a director-stance one). I believe I've located the answer, though -- you don't tag an opponent's aspects to get a bonus to your rolls unless you're desperate, you tag them to initiate a compel on the opponent. That's got potential to get a real tactical advantage over the opponent, so I can see how it'd be worth giving them a fate point.

[Alan]

Hi Dan,

My post was intented to challenge assumptions that tactics is the most important function of game mechanics. In fact, I want you to consider that you might be bringing assumptions over from other games. Instead of analyzing Aspects from the point of view of combat advantages and exchanges, as someone might analyze DnD weapons or feats, how about looking at Aspects as ways to make great conflicts?

[Darren Hill]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

For my take on it, when a PC (or NPC) is invoking an enemy's aspect to get the +2, the enemy doesn't get a fate point. But when the invocation causes a compel, a fate point is awarded.

[iago]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

For my take on it, when a PC (or NPC) is invoking an enemy's aspect to get the +2, the enemy doesn't get a fate point. But when the invocation causes a compel, a fate point is awarded.

For my take on it, when a PC (or NPC) is invoking an enemy's aspect to get the +2, the enemy doesn't get a fate point. But when the invocation causes a compel, a fate point is awarded.

Technically, the game rules are this:

* When an aspect is first introduced -- due to a maneuver, a successful assessment action, inflicting a consequence, whatever -- then the person who revealed/inflicted it is due one "free tag" -- getting to invoke the aspect without spending a fate point.  This "free tag" can be transferred to an ally if it makes story-sense to be able to do so, rather than using it yourself.

* If you're tagging an enemy's aspect to take advantage of it, you get the usual effects of an invocation: +2 or reroll.  The enemy is due a fate point if your use of his aspect constitutes a detriment to him, but he doesn't get that fate point until after the roll is resolved, and (more importantly) isn't due a fate point at all if the tag was free.

* If you're tagging an enemy's aspect "for effect", you pay a fate point (or not, if it's a free tag), and you're done.  The GM then takes over and runs a compel with on your enemy, targeting the aspect you tagged.  Normal compel rules apply.  In this case the enemy (if he accepts the compel) is always due a fate point even if the tag was free, because the compel is a compel being run by the GM.  (That's why the lingo is the way it is.)