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?

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 wrote:
(...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 wrote:
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.

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?

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.

Darren wrote:
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.

Darren wrote:
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.