|
FATE
Home Page |
Discussions from the Yahoo group on Aspect and Items and Extras and the like.
Comment from Fred Hicks about what makes what sort of item, in a narrative sense [1]: The distinction between an item bought with an aspect and an item just bought with skills is supposed to model certain elements of fiction.
The item bought with an aspect should be such an intrinsic part of the character that it will be pretty much permanently baked into any story about them. Stormbringer is an intrinsic part of any Elric story, Captain America will always have his shield, The Ring is key to Frodo's story, etc.
Those bought without aspects are useful things a character has that is not central to their story. The elven cloaks in Lord of the rings are a good example of this, as is most magical loot from games like D&D. These are things that add color to the character, but aren't defining.
To my mind, the litmus test was whether seeing the item on its own would make you immediately think of the character in question. To use an example from comics: Thor's Hammer would be an aspect - you see it, you think "Thor". Hercules' adamant mace would just be bought with skills because, well, who even knew he had one?"
The original post by Bill Kokal post goes on:
So... If you had a Texas Ranger character who carried a sixgun, if it was important enough to him, it would be an aspect. If it wasn't so integral to the character, it would be bought with a skill level. Stuff that really doesn't provide any advantage (like a suit of clothes) is just stuff, and it's kinda assumed the character has. ...
Sixgun-as-Aspect: - powerful, can be thought of as 'part of the character' (You would never see the Lone Ranger without his Sixguns)
Sixgun-as-Extra - personal extra, and, to quote the rules "Equipment is easily dealt with. Assign the item one or more aspects, and it will grant rerolls and occasional passive bonuses when the aspect is appropriate." (p25 of the .pdf) (misspellings are mine, btw) It's there - it helps you, but it won't come back if it's lost, and it's not a defining part of your character. ...
Sixgun - no bonuses, no rerolls. Just something that allows you to shoot.
I guess a better mental picture would be a horse:
Silver, the Lone Ranger's horse, is an Aspect
A better-than-average horse, that you want to keep, and can occasionally get you out of trouble, is a Personal Extra
A horse that you forget about as soon as you're off it, and go through the saloon doors - a mode of transport from here to there - is just window dressing.
Wow. That's powerful stuff. A horse can be one thing to one character, and a completely different thing to another.
A note from Robert Donoghue. [2] In making Excalibur an aspect, you still get the benefits of it as an aspect, which means that, generally speaking, it's going to be pretty cool. Whacking people? Check? Cutting things? Check. Holding it, flashing in the sun as you give the heroic speech before charging the forces of darkness? Check. An aspect already tells a lot of the story about what something can do: extras are just over and beyond that. In fact, the limits of the aspect are really up to the GM.
Take the aspect Knight as an example (This will make sense in a minute). If I just take Knight, everyone's got a pretty clear sense of what that means. However, if I take the aspect "Knight of the Stars" and define it as an order that evolved from the bodyguards of an ancient order of astronomers, and whose skills include traditional knight stuff, and also some science, math, stargazing and so on. By creating a more interesting aspect, I've also created a more powerful (in this sense meaning applicable in more situations) aspect.
The same thinking could be applied to an item. As such, if you take the aspect "Sword of Power" and leave it at that, then, well, it's a pretty cool sword. Lots of potential uses for the aspect. But if you come to me with a _legend_, with the tale of this sword and what it _means_ to people and to the story, then you've done the same thing: made it more potent by making it more interesting. As such, Were I to make king arthur I'd be unlikely to buy any extras to cover excalibur, though I might for the scabbard, because it's a little munchkin-y. :)
Naturally, that's not the only way to do it. Not everyone is comfortable with the subjectiveness of the approach, or the limited number of boxes that an aspect may have. Also, frankly, a lot depends on how you see magic items. D&D has shaped a lot of the world, so it becomes easy to want to describe Excalibur as a "+5 keen vorpal longsword" - and there's nothing wrong with that. Extras allow you to describe things in terms like that if that's what you want, but it's not the only way. Ultimately you can do it either way, the only question is which you're more comfortable with.
On a purely personal level, extras serve two big roles: they cover widgets like James bond gadgets or things that are neat, but not really central. They also serve as a potential check against an abuse I see very little of in practice. See, in theory, one could buy the aspect "God" and demand that it grants omnipotence. It's an extreme example, but there are others as well. Once you open the door to powers and magic, there will be some player who will really try to maximize things solely because they can. Extras provide a mechanical limiter on such things, and they work just fine, but that does not mean you need them.
If everyone is ok folding that stuff into aspects, that's totally cool with me.
To give an example, Let's take a wizard's staff, something like the Staff of Magius, Raistlin's staff from Dragonlance. it's magical, and it can generate light on command. There are a few ways to handle this:
Pure Aspect: Staff of Magius [][] The GM just considers light to be an interesting special effect, so the character can just use it whenever they want without a mechanical limitation. Beyond that, it can be used for supplementing most any magical task, and occasional weirdness, like boosting the wielder's life force. Supplemental Extras: Staff of Magius [][] * Illumination A single extra covers the ability to grant light at will, since it sees pretty heavy use and is effectively a schtick for the item. Beyond that, the aspects can be used much in the same way as pure aspect. Explicit Extras: Staff of Magius [][] * Illumination * Magical Battery * Transfer Stamina * Unknown Power This lays out what the staff can in pretty clear terms (assuming there are rules for each extra) but also limits the staff much more severely. The assumption is that the only powers it has are those listed as extras, so the Aspect boxes will be somewhat less flexible, though those things it can do will be more potent. Personally, I'd probably go with the Supplemental Extras approach in this case.
Thoughts from [Landon Darkwood]? on a Super-computer Aspect vs a Hacking Kit gadget/extra. [3] Did he spend skill ranks on it as well? He can take the computer as an Aspect, and then spend a couple of skill ranks [Extras] to deck it out with "Specialized Number-Crunching Software", which would then give him the benefit of both the static bonus and the rerolls. Or, if you don't feel like making him spend the skill ranks, there's no reason why you can't say that it also provides the static bonus free of charge as part of its normal use. I mean, he's investing a whole Aspect in it, after all.
I would say that it's totally GM's call, and internal logic should be your guide. If you think the player should have to pay more than an Aspect for the separate benefits, so be it. If you think the investment is already significant, you can call the static bonus a by-product.
Or, if you want to get complicated, you can give any computer systems he'd hack into their own rating on the ladder and make an opposed roll between his Aspect and the opposing computer's "Awesomeness" rating and see who wins, which would then determine who gets the superior equipment bonus. :)
|