Greetings from Thailand. I'm trying to learn FATE. Please do explain.

For OSR gamers, if it doesn't affect the dice, then it feels like it does nothing. I think it's the perception of the type of game that Fate is that needs to be taught, not necessarily aspects themselves.

That said, I sort of share their feelings about it, which is why Shadowcraft uses aspects the way it does.

But it can effect the dice, through issue opposition.

And I don't know that it's necessary an OSR thing, though it's certainly a common complaint from that direction.

+Nakorn Srisomwongs imagine you are playing a game of Fate with friends, and your characters are in a warehouse or other big building that catches fire.

The GM places an aspect "Fire All Around You" on the scene. This aspect represents a true fact about the scene. There is actually a fire burning. It's hot, it will produce smoke, it's dangerous to be near.

Say a player says "my character goes to the door and leaves". They would need to account for the fire. If they just walked forward, they would be very badly burned. They could try to leap through, but that would be risky. They could put the fire out. But they can't just ignore it, even when it isn't being invoked or compelled.

Hope that helps.

Yeah aspects are true, regardless of whether or not the rules system of dice and bonuses are engaged. Someone who has an aspect representing their blindness... Can't see. Period. It's true. Invoking or compelling it isn't needed to make it impossible for them to read a street sign.

I think this is also why so many folk dont "get" Fate accelerated... because there are no skills to dictate "what you can do". Because I came to fate via Risus, I already liked the idea of descriptive phrases defining who and what your character is, and what you can can reasonably expect them to do (and NOT do! )

I can understand the misconception. I think it is because of where aspects sit in the game; as a kind of bridge between fiction and mechanics. And because fictional situations can be so variable there are no real rules for adjudicating the mechanical difficulty of aspects, except for the use of GM fiat. I guess some people might think: "Every other game I've played uses GM fiat to some degree or another without aspects, so what's the point?" When they say "aspects do nothing unless they're invoked", I think they might be highlighting that when aspects are invoked at least it is clear what value they have within the rules.


Is there maybe also an issue (for people seeing this problem) with having two traits (aspects and skills) defining what you can do? One always manipulates tye dice, the other only the fiction.

/devil's advocate

+Red Dice Diaries​ that's exactly what Shadowcraft does.

I've gotta say, though, I prefer skills/professions remain a thing. Shadowcraft was a fun exercise in how to do skill-less Fate, and it's fun, but my personal preference is for a bit more crunch.

Also, making skill-less Fate limits what kind of aspects you can make for your characters.

By default you have:
a) Aspects, that are good at telling, who your characters are and what they can do ("Infamous Girl with a Sword");
b) Aspects, that are good at telling something about your characters and their relations with the world, but mostly fail to tell what they can do ("I Owe Old Finn Everything").

I think a good way to make skills it's own thing. The list of facts you can write in somewhere, independently from 'Skills' and 'Aspects'.

I agree with OP on matter of narrative binding power of aspects. But you, as GM need to teach your players about that power. To both find a way to overcome it and to harness it.

Otherwise they will treat aspects (and non-aspect facts), as cute gimmick at best.

(Again, devil's advocate)

Aren't aspects simply cute gimmicks anyway? Fate doesn't break if you throw aspects out the window completely and just play with fate points -- spend one to get a bonus on a roll, earn one when the GM complicates your life.

With a short description, I can say what my character is about and what they can do, and even point to some complications for the GM to use against me.

And when I want to change the scene, I can just describe how it's done, and if I roll to do it (create advantage), I get a fate point for succeeding (or +2 on my next roll). Other games handle it that way.

(If you missed the part about Devil's advocate...)

Aspects help to congregate narrative facts into dramatically important statetements that help to describe the situation.

"On Fire" tells us roughly the same information as "2d6 of fire damage if you try pass through it unprotected", but with less rules.

If you throw aspects out of the window, you'll still congregate narrative facts one way or another.

Whether it's wrong or not is debatabale in the same vein, as "rules light/heavy vs. freeform RPGs". (Right answer: do, as you like and don't force your way on others)

I think, aspects make your job easier, IF you and your co-players are on the same page about what aspects do.

But interesting question is, are aspects any good at this job, as a game mechanics tool and could something else deal with it better?
To be clearer and more accessible.

See, there has to be a reason, why people, new to roleplaying games or experiences, find it so hard to comprehend aspects. If you'll know that reason, you would be able to update aspects' description or replace them with somewhat better tool.

I would say that aspects are not a "cute gimmick," though I have had plenty of fun playing games that basically do what you describe here, +Ryan M. Danks. What takes aspects out of gimmick territory for me is seeing how some of my players missed them when we switched one of our games to another system that kept the "spend a point for a bonus" mechanic. They missed having clear prompts on their character sheets to remind them off what drives and colors their characters (which is different from "what my character is good at"). And combat became a bit more rote when we lacked prompts on the table for interesting features in the scene you can use to your advantage, especially for a group that came from D&D and was used to having such things illustrated before them with maps and minis.

Now, that's not to say that group never had problems with aspects (they did), nor even that everyone in it likes Fate (one of them really dislikes it for reasons I still don't quite get) ... but it did get me thinking about what aspects do. I think D&D 5e has an interesting approach in basically having character aspects (background, ideals, books, flaw) that can earn you a fate point (inspiration), but aren't referred to at all to spend that bonus. It kind of shows how aspects do something even when you don't or even can't invoke them.

I tend to play with various sorts of Aspects, so some are going to be persistent, while others may be highly variable, or indeed do need to be paid for to be active.

Sword Master is an example of an Aspect I would assume is always on, but not always affecting die rolls. What it does, constantly, is keep me from compelling a PC for not knowing much about swords, and how they are used.

My Sword is a Part of Me is an example of an Aspect that is always on, in much the same way, but I may actually Compel that a PC is not using the given sword that makes that Aspect functional, if we have determined their sword has been stolen, lost, or destroyed. Though that is a bit of a downside, the upside is that since their sword is a part of them, I would treat it like one of their limbs, so if someone touched it, I might make them detecting that automatic, whereas the Sword Master might have to make a check to see if someone was swiping their sword.

So, I suppose I see it as Aspects having some constant, and some variable effects.

Is this also seen as misconception? If so, I fear that the rules definitely need to be clarified.

I would probably still run the game as such though, and just work with players on the front end to make sure they were writing Aspects that accomplished what they were hoping for. I would, of course, have to explain what my interpretation of their Aspect was, how I planned to use it, and ask them about what their goals were.

I don't know that I'd frame it as misconception (Perhaps play style seems more appropriate to me?), but if that's what it is... if it's widely held, wouldn't that suggest the text needs clarification, so errata might be published to correct this?

+Bill Garrett Ah ha! Thank you very much.

+T to the E to the O – No, I'd say that's a great example of always-on, flexibly-interpreted aspects. And that flexible interpretation is key – it's why you don't just use stunts for everything.

I'm not really sure you're playing Devil's Advocate, +Ryan M. Danks. I think these might be points that actually have dissed your gruntle :)

As I said in my last post, I think aspects primarily represent narrative "cause", allowing narrative effects to happen. If we haven't established Crazy Ass Geysers on a planet, then it feels cheap when one goes off right underneath the Milano.

Character aspects also act as prompts from the player as to what they want to see in a game. When a player has the aspect The Black Society Is After Me you know they want the Black Society (whatever that is) to muck with them.

And, narrating how invokes happen certainly has value to me. Yeah, you could do that without aspects, but it provides a nice prompt.

I think there's a huge difference in how people look at games. If you view the imagined world as the "main" thing, and what people describe in it, then I think Aspects work and are useful and interesting. If you view the underlying numbers as model as the "real" thing, then I think they're less interesting, and I honestly don't think Fate will be a very satisfying game.

The real "aspects only count if invoked" argument I was referring to is saying things like "If you are In Cover, it does nothing unless you spend a Fate Point". Which is just false.

And, +T to the E to the O, I'd agree that it could use some more clarification in the text.

+Robert Hanz, I like Fate, and aspects. My responses are those I've received when introducing people to Fate, and struggled through on my own journey--finding answers much akin to yours above. Hence devil's advocate.

+Ryan M. Danks: Sorry for the misinterpretation, then :)

(Thinking...)

Well, stunts is interesting point, in a way, that by the book, they don't cover facts at all. They're purely meta mechanics.

Stunt is about what you already can do, here's rules exclusion (+2, etc.) for it.

In Fate Core you don't spend your refresh on stunt, that simply says, that you know everything about swords.

Now, that said, if the answers are potent arguments, then there might be something to that.

No system is perfect.

Not only is no system perfect, but no system is right for every person.

I'm not sure that even the Devil can successfully advocate to the effect that " Fate doesn't break if you throw aspects out the window completely ".

OK, it can be argued that you wind up with something unbrokenly playable, but I think you can counter--argue that that thing isn't Fate. In fact, I'm pretty sure it'd be Fudge.

I will also, however, continue to say to people who need to hear it that "not every truth needs to be an Aspect".

+Robert Hanz I heard of and met many people, who got Aspects. But it was hard to them.

There are people, who won't get Aspects, because they won't need them in their gaming experience, yes. That's a given.

But why people struggle at understanding Aspects at all, is what intrgues me.

Is it system itself or how it is presented?

+Bean Lucas​ the argument that you don't need aspects was the first one my table brought up to me. We had been playing M&M for half a dozen years and they said "why do I need to tag something to spend a Hero [Fate] Point, and why do you need to tag something to create a complication and give me one?"

Hmm, I see Stunts as facts too. They are just facts that are more concretely rooted, and consistent.

It seems to me that some Aspects make perfectly good Stunts, and it just depends on what the player really wants from the Trait they've attached to their PC.

I feel the phrasing of FAE is useful here.

I could have an Aspect:
Keen Witted Werecat

and/or a Stunt,

Because I'm a Werecat, I get a +2 when I Cleverly Create Advantages.

One way of dealing with it require adjudication, on my part, as a GM, while the other does not. Stunts are very clear, and persistent, but they are also attached to Aspects, in that the need to be granted permission by them.

Further, the Aspect Keen Witted Werecat doesn't make a pronouncement about all Werecats, but the Stunt does.

To me, it seems like Stunts are definitely facts, and have the ability to define things well beyond the PC.

I'm curious about how other might see it differently, and if that difference might serve me better than my own take.

(On the matter of certain systems not being for everyone... I get that, but I recently had a friend tell me to vote with my feet, because I was pointing out things that were displeasing about 2E D&D, and these are things that have been improved upon with successive editions. While it is opinion that these tweaks, additions, and excisions are improvements, it seems like the aim of trying to yield greater consensus is both noble [in that it's fundamentally egalitarian], and practical [in that a system that requires me to search far, and wide for willing players isn't going to get much use]).

I like Fate, because it's for a big cross section of people. I find, mostly, that complaints come from people that are loath to change, or think about things differently. Fate, for me, has had the highest success rate among noobs, and kids, but has also appealed to old schoolers that no longer have time to worry much about the accounting, and argument that has accompanied many trad games (part of that is rules based, but a huge chunk is about the culture that grew up around certain games, not the games themselves).

I suppose this is why I'd say that if treating Aspects as only pertinent when fueled by FP serves a group, I see no issue with that. If, however, that interpretation is detracting for enjoyment of the game, it's a problem, no matter what we call it.

So, +Robert Hanz, in what context to you hear this most often? Are people complaining about it?

Hm, I've been trying to find +Robert Hanz's old post about the MANY things which Aspects do. It would contain the answer to +Ryan M. Danks's group's question about "why I NEED to invoke an Aspect in order to spend my currency". The answer is that in Fate you can't spend points on any-old thing and make absolutely-anything happen as a result. Aspects give permission to do so.

+Bean Lucas But how would you keep in mind all semi-important details, if it's not Stunts, Skills nor Aspects, then?

Memory storage space is limited, aspects slots and stunts, too.

Aspects are so useful though. Is the complaint, +Ryan M. Danks, really more about the meta gaming currency than Asepcts themselves? It seems like their problem is having to "pay", not so much having an Aspect.

+Bean Lucas : Do you mean this: http://www.faterpg.com/2013/richards-guide-to-blocks-and-obstacles-in-fate-core/

I didn't write that one, but it's pretty much THE guide.

As far as "why do I have to tag something?" goes, well, if you're just saying "I invoke <foo>" there's little value.

If you're narrating out what happens, I find it more useful by far.

Exactly, +Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi - I assume you're reacting to me saying "not every truth needs to be an Aspect". For decades there has been no problem with keeping track of "facts" in RPG's without making them Aspects.

Aspects are, and should be, limited. It's very easy to find many other posts talking about the problems of "aspect spamming" and "aspect dilution".

For me, a huge problem is the Fate Point economy. That's where I lose people, because, honestly, I don't have any good answers for why. They are usually defensive, like, "Dice are meta too, but we're just used to them."

I don't even enjoy FP much, though I used to take them for granted as necessary. I've recently been pondering replacing them with alternate mech, because I've had similar complaints about Fate, but the root cause is always about Fate Points, not whatever else people started their complaint with.

"Fate Point economy" is a trigger phrase for me :)

And, yeah, stunts are facts. Skills are facts. Lots of things are facts that aren't aspects. Aspects are a certain subset of facts, and turning every fact into an aspect is not a great idea.

As facts go, there's two interesting things about aspects - first, that they're narratively significant, almost a kind of foreshadowing. Second, that they play into the information economy and allow us to tell players (and GMs) what is important at this point in time.

+Bean Lucas well, that only tells me, that you and your friends have a particularly good memory and get to play often.

I congratulate you on this. Yet it doesn't exactly help me.

You're missing the point of what I said.

I understand the perception / misconception. Honestly, I think that the presence of Skills in Fate Core contributes to this misconception. As I see it, Aspects set expectations, establish the tableau of a given scene, and provide justifications for actions; Skills are just labeled bonuses that reinforce Aspects and should not themselves provide justifications for taking actions.

I don't justify shooting you because I have the Skill Shoot +2; I justify shooting you because of the emerging narrative, and my character's place in it based upon their own Aspects, and the other Aspects currently in the scene...when I do so I get to add my relevant Skill bonus to the check.

I prefer skill-less Fate, or a version of Fate where Skills are doing something else interesting like Atomic Robo's modes because I think they get in the way more often than not and take the focus off of Aspects, which to me is one of the strongest parts of Fate and a primary reason for using it. There are lots of Skill based games around, and in that pool taken as a Skill based game Fate isn't particularly compelling. However taken on its strengths as a narrative game backed with a very strong and elegant action and resolution system, it shines as one of the best game systems of all time (IMO).

Putting myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't already "get it" and is coming at Fate from a simulationist or gamist background, I see a familiar thing (a Skill list) with mechanical bonuses associated with it...very much in line with what I would expect to see. Then there's this other soft squishy stuff about "Aspects" that have a mechanical benefit sometimes but only by spending a very limited resource...which seems LESS good than a flat bonus that always works when it applies at no such cost. But the rules strongly express the idea that Aspects matter a lot. Cognitive Dissonance sets in...if Aspects are such a main thing, why don't they ALWAYS apply a bonus when relevant? From a simulationist / gamist background, this just does not compute. Remove Skills from the equation and the focus of the system on Aspects and their relationship with the narrative becomes much more clear.

+Robert Hanz then why people keep pushing all these Skill-less and Approach-based games? Approaches are devoid of character facts, so you have to push facts into Aspects.

"I Owe Old Finn Everything" tells me nothing of my character's skillset. If I have four aspects like that, and one that says I'm "Mysterious Hobo", I know nothing of my character's skillset and at this point I can establish whatever I want - Aspects neither help me not prevent me from saying I know quantum physics, archaeology and kung-fu.

It forces me to deal with fourth entity and add it to character sheet. The facts themselves. Like, having an eye patch, being master cook or moderately good programmer, fluently speak Hindi or being friend with my neighbour Tom and having a water plane. All facts, that do matter, just not that much to warrant an Aspect/Stunt/Skill or, at least, not right now.

Facts are just facts. Skills/Stunts/Aspects are not facts, these are just mechanics to help you to channel facts into the game/narrative.

(I'm not saying it's good solution, but I don't have better one on my hands.)

+T to the E to the O​, the complaints were more "we can tell the story without the system pointing out what's important" and "spend points because our characters are awesome; we don't need permission to be awesome."

The idea was more "why does the reason we're awesome need to be predetermined? Why can't we spend a point because our characters are determined to win in the moment, or some random thing comes to our aid...however we want to describe it?"

(Note: this argument was two years ago, and has been resolved. I just find it relevant to the discussion.)

I think that aspects are hard to explain for a few reasons.

1) They model something (narrative "causality") that not a lot of people are cognizant of - if you're not a writer, it might not make sense.

2) At first glance, they look an awful lot like feats/advantages/etc.

3) Most traditional games don't really have aspect-like things.

Approaches do have facts. They say that you're good at being Clever, or Forceful, or whatever. They're just different facts.

My mistake, +Robert Hanz, in attributing this: https://plus.google.com/106241934410359097878/posts/XMuAG9FrYWk to you. I mis-remembered it as one of your Thought Of The Day posts. Turns out it was +Luke Green

It's relevant to this discussion because it says things Aspects do besides being used to shuffle Fate points around the table for mechanically-motivated reasons.

Aspects are basically story beats.

Aaaaaand now I see +Robert Hanz  answering Luke with the same link he mentioned to me above :) We come full circle.

I also see +Jake Gulick offering a nice nutshell statement about Aspects: " Aspects are always true. That truth is not always relevant, Relevance is what you're paying for. "

That statement sounds like he's specifically talking about invokes and compels, but it also addresses the permit/deny/justify functions. A permission or a justification "costs" an Aspect because there are only so many slots. so, we put the important details in them.

FWIW, I explain, to D&D literate people, the five elements of Fate like so:

Aspects = Stats that matter.
"You know how you might roll a stat that gives you no mechanical bonus? Well, in Fate, you don't even note that on your sheet. You only note stats that are so bad, or good that they are going to matter, and them being particularly good, bad, or just true is going to open up other options, the way class, and race do in D&D."

Stunts = Feats, and special abilities unique to your character.

Skills = Proficiencies, while
Approaches are roughly like the set stats of D&D.

Stress = HP, roughly, but is more temporary, and perhaps even more similar to SDC from Paladium, or Vitality from SW d20.

Consequences = Aspects that describe some sort of injury, or affect that persists upon the PC, and needs to be treated, or solved to go away.

After that speech, D&D literate people seem to get it, but they still have trouble with Fate Points, because nothing in D&D is in the sort of Quantum Flux that exists in Fate, or rather, when it is, you roll a die rather than spend anything you've suffered to collect.

So, +Robert Hanz, I generally don't speak of the Fate Point Economy to my players, because it makes things less, rather than more understandable, but what do you prefer, and do you have any advice about addressing how foreign that part of the game is? I used to except it was just a "love it, or leave it" thing, but I'm now feeling that it'd be pretty easy to have a polyhedral associated with each Aspect, or Consequence, and when it mattered, roll that. Success means you keep the die, and get what you want, Failure means I get the die, but you still get what you want, conditionally, or some such.

I think that'd address the issues I have.

+Ryan M. Danks, one of the things I have noticed about Fate, and AW based games is the tendency to talk about the mechanics before the fiction. So, when I used to read posts on the community, everyone would be talking about how to climb a wall, because they couldn't connect that that was an Overcome action. So, some of the advice would be to tell the players, "You need to say you're doing an Overcome action."

I'm not a fan of that. I like them just telling me they are climbing the wall, and I'll just tell them to roll. I know it's an overcome action, they don't need to be bothered with that, unless they want me to bother them.

I'm wondering if it may not be that your players just didn't want to see behind the curtain, so to speak?

And I believe, +Bean Lucas, that the "paying for relevance" argument is what sticks in the craw of many OSR gamers.

If I buy Super Strength as a super power in another game, then it's always present, relevant, and mechanically applicable. If I take an aspect Super Strong then it's always true, but I have to pay for relevance. And if someone who's not super strong rolls against me in a strength contest, and I have no fate points, then I could lose the contest (by the letter of the rules; some GMs will not let such a roll happen because of the disparity, but that's a vague level of use that is not represented in the game text).

Now, you can take stunts to have the same relevance, but then why have a Super Strong aspect when you have a Super Strength stunt? It seems redundant to many players.

+T to the E to the O, no. They did not want the "fiction first" method of Fate. They wanted their character sheets to simulate everything they could do, to the exact level that they could do it. And if it's on their sheet, they didn't want to have to spend a resource point to use it unless they bought a flaw on the trait that required doing so.

After coming from a game that has Damage 10 (Energy Blast; Extra: Ranged; Flaw: Tiring: Spend a Hero Point to use), having to spend a fate point to do something that they didn't accept a flaw for felt like the system was punishing them.

Well...ok, I would flip the "why do we need to spend points to be awesome" around a bit +Ryan M. Danks

It is a valid question, but as I see it, it is more of, "as a Player you have a degree of narrative control normally reserved for the GM, but your ability to exert that control is rationed so that no one Player can completely dominate the narrative, thus making the GM and other Player's irrelevant. You generally express your narrative control via the lens of your character's defined concept and any circumstantial things emerging from the game as it is played from scene to scene, act to act.

To keep things fair and balanced, the GM has also given up some of their traditional authority and plays by similar rules, and thus works within the system via compels and invocations just as a Player does. The GM's latitude to run the game comes largely from not being limited to having one character to act as the lens of their narrative control, and having an unlimited budget for compels (but not invocations). This creates a dynamic, called the Fate Point economy, that is quite effective at propelling a group of PC's forward into the narrative when used properly.

A given group / GM can of course do something similar in any game because a narrative focus is at its essence a function of the interplay between a group of Players and a GM rather than being based on a ruleset or mechanic, and can thus be accomplished more or less with any rpg, though some are more suited to it than others and perhaps even have a loosely defined "plot point" or "hero point" sort of mechanic.

However, because Fate formalizes narrative control via Aspects and the Fate point economy into its core mechanics, rather than leaving it largely undefined to be resolved via fiat, other rules can be written to directly interact as part of a coherent system."

It's not a pithy answer, but I believe it to be true.

As you say the objection was resolved, at least some of your players must have come around to favor Fate eventually? ;)

I definitely prefer story tied Aspects, because they are less prone to conflict like that.

Super Strong maybe more suited to being a Stunt, in a Supers game.

Once it's an Aspect, it becomes relative.

So, Solar Powered Alien as the Aspect, and Super Strong as the Stunt.

+Ed Hastings, would that I had your eloquence in explaining it. :) But, alas, the group actually broke up because of the ensuing arguments about what we actually want from our gaming. As it turns out, there was never a time when everyone was happy with the game we were playing.

They just didn't care about the narrative. They took an attitude of "it's whatever the hell the GM says it is and the dice justify." For them, spending resources was to make the dice roll better so they could get the GM to narrate the way they wanted.

I get the sim thing though. I had a rough time with Fate for similar reasons, but then I had a breakthrough that was based on what it enabled me to do. In many ways, though it's advertised as otherwise, Fate is one of the most powerful engines for simming things on the fly.

+T to the E to the O, agreed. It is much cleaner like that. (I think my article on Iron Man colored their perceptions in thinking that you can just make all of your powers as aspects.)

>>>Approaches do have facts. They say that you're good at being Clever, or Forceful, or whatever. They're just different facts.

They vaguely point at facts. That's different.

One way I've explained FP is that it's a way for players to show me how invested they are in a given outcome, and in turn, it's a way for me to show the same thing to the players with my Compels. I try not to get to philosophical about it, because the more words I use, the more points there are to quibble about : )

+T to the E to the O Agreed, re Fate as sim engine. The four action / three resolution model based upon intended outcome is fundamentally an extremely flexible and powerful engine, regardless of degree of narrative focus of the "runtime" or game it is being used to power.

THIS is very telling: " the group actually broke up because of the ensuing arguments about what we actually want from our gaming " And " They just didn't care about the narrative. "

Yeah. I want everyone to have the kind of fun they want to have. I can't give it to people like this, so, I want all of us to discover this mis-match as quickly as possible, so that they can go find another game (it just means that they can't play Fate with me - which is OK because I won't play D&D with them. Doesn't mean we can't be friends), and I can give fun to the ones who want what I can give.

That is why I'm less interested than some people here seem to be in figuring out how to train people to "get it". Half the time, the problem isn't that they don't get it, but, that they either don't want to get it because they already know they have a problem with what they're hearing, or, they actually do do get it but they sound like they don't because what they're really saying is that they don't want it.

RE: Super Strength Aspect

Breaking that down a bit...in a setting where super powers are commonly expressed as Aspects, this makes sense. In a setting where super powers are expressed as Stunts and / or Skills and / or Extras...it isn't a very good Aspect IMO as it doesn't express the intended outcomes for the character in a manner that is consistent with the setting as a whole and thus sets a player up for aggravation.

+Ryan M. Danks, your supers via Aspects examples are great, it was one of the things that made me seriously dig into Fate initially. And in that model, if that's how the supers of that setting are defined, then it all makes sense and will work out in play.

But if one of the players decides to double down and starts embellishing their "Super Strength" with hard mechanical bonuses such as Stunts, and another player who's character is supposed to be super strong doesn't do so...in a head to head encounter the second player is depending almost entirely on their stack of available Fate Points and their ability to draw compels onto themselves to compete in the "super strong" narrative space with the min / maxed guy.

This may or may not be a problem, depending on a variety of factors including role overlap, PvP vs PvE, and whether the outcomes are being determined via Conflict, Challenge, Contest, or narration. Not necessarily a real issue in actual play, despite the obvious player concerns to the contrary.

I think some of this can be addressed just by shaping a better Aspect in the first place. Rather than the humdrum "Super Strength", perhaps something more evocative such as Gamma-powered Pulverizer, or Mutated Might, or The Strength of Atlas, etc...something more tied into the character's back story and concept and less anchored on a gamist expression of effect.

There are a lot of soft, difficult to quantify qualia for taking this approach, but in the context of the "I shouldn't have to spend a Fate point to make my Super Strength relevant" argument, a differently worded concept based Aspect makes it more clear what is going on... "Because of my Mutated Might, it makes sense that I can move this heavy thing" rather than "Because I am supposed to be Super Strong, I have to spend this Fate point to move this heavy thing?". Despite being nothing more than semantically different, semantics is the source of many an argument and misconception.

Another key point is, you DON'T have to spend a Fate point to "activate your Super Strength" Aspect. That is quite the wrong way to look at it. Because the character has Super Strength as an Aspect, they can justify changing the narrative in various ways based upon applying their Super Strength to the scene. No Fate point necessary, the character can justify taking a Attack, Defend, Overcome, or most notably Create Advantage action* to impact the narrative in some way using their Super Strength.

After they have rolled, the player can also spend a Fate point to either re-roll the roll or gain a bonus. This isn't a penalty (spending a limited resources), it is a benefit ( I have a way to not let my character's concept get crapped on by a bad die roll ).





* and this is one of those places that I think Skills interfere with Aspects the most...looking at the Skill lists in Fate Core, certain Skills only allow certain Actions, and there is an implication that to take an Action, I must do it via a Skill. This is, IMO, a mistake and one of the reasons I prefer FAE as written over Fate Core as written.

Agreed, +Bean Lucas. I'm actually not sour at the fact that the group broke up. I haven't played a game since :(, but at least I'm not being roped into games that I feel are a waste of time.

+Ed Hastings. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think we have similar preferences with Fate mechanics.

+Ryan M. Danks probably not a coincidence; I followed your early postings back in the day and was compelled in part by them to try Fate. ;)

Yeah I'm with you on the Super Strong is a bad aspect front.

That's the biggest problem I see with aspects - people with other RPG experience want to make things aspects that would be advantages/edges/feats in other games, and it's just not a good map. That's what stunts are for, or just buying higher levels of a skill/approach.

In most games, your "effectiveness" is your skill + your stats + any appropriate edges/etc. Fate is more direct - you just buy your "skill" (and Fate skills aren't actually skills) up to the level you want, and justify that however you want in terms of why your character is a badass at fighting or whatever.

That's a huge shift.

I also don't think that Skills vs. Approaches is that big of a difference, once you grok Fate. I think the problem is that a lot of people come to Fate with the idea of "list-based gaming", and so see a list of skill-like things as "here's what you can do," which isn't really how I see the intent. The advantage of Approaches, in this case, is that you basically can't do that. They force you to engage with the fiction, because "I Forcefully Create Advantage" means nothing.

I see an additional layer to Aspects in that they don't just establish facts, they also serve as an invitation for the group to invest those particular facts with greater narrative significance. As others have pointed out, there are far more facts established in any gaming session than are granted Aspect status, and, of those, a subset will come into play in ways that meaningfully impact the story. Whenever Fate Points change hands, it represents an Aspect becoming more important for the direction of the story.

Invokes represent situation trees, where normally things would go down one way, but instead, because of (Aspect), the story takes place in a way that is more in line with the Fate-point-spender's vision of how things ought to go down. Having a limited pool of Fate Points available to each individual at the game table (except the GM for compels) isn't about saying that the characters are only conditionally who they are or conditionally awesome, it's about achieving a degree of balance in who gets to shape the narrative. I think the best analogous system that most gamer's from all systems know and accept is turn taking during conflicts. It's a construct that is there to make sure that everyone has an equitable opportunity to act and make something happen.

With Invokes, specifically, I also don't see a single action as representing a "single action". I see it as representing a shot sequence. Invoking an aspect allows you to extend that sequence out further, adding appropriate narration and details. Tha'ts the heart of the ellipsis trick, right? You narrate a situation where it looks like the outcome is decided, but then additional invokes can be used to add additional things and make the sequence go your way.

In most games, those would be attempted to be modeled as discrete actions on separate turns.

+Robert Hanz Agreed.

To my perspective, mechanically, both Fate Core Skills and FAE Approaches are just a flat bonus to a 4dF roll with a label attached to it that suggests when it is appropriate to add the bonus. They only differ in scope, with Fate Core Skills being narrower in scope (you can only sometimes attempt to Shoot), and with FAE Approaches being basically global in scope (you can almost always attempt to be Forceful).

One is vocational while the other is descriptive, and thus subjectively they can "feel" different during actual play, but objectively both Skills and Approaches are just labeled bonuses that differ in permissiveness of applicability. Ad rem (when relevant) vs ad arbitrium (whenever).

Personally I like the dynamic adverby flow of Approaches, and I like a freewheeling style of play that doesn't put many barriers in the way of characters trying to do things.

On the other hand, I do feel that FAE games can become very strained over multiple sessions in a serial campaign as it can get rather boring to see a character attempt their thousandth Forceful whatever. And there's always at least one player in every FAE group who always does everything using their best Approach no matter what.

To a certain extent I think that's intended.

Personally, I don't let players dictate the approach they use. They describe what they're doing, and as the GM, I say what approach is used (though I'll accept a certain amount of "I was really aiming for...").

The challenge then comes in how the narrative changes because of always using a Forceful approach, for instance.

+Bean Lucas >Half the time

No revelations about the other half?

+Robert Hanz "In most games, those would be attempted to be modeled as discrete actions on separate turns." and the rest of the post....

Yes, agreed.

Once upon a time, I bought a little RPG named Universalis, read it front to back as quickly as I could turn the pages, and was much enlightened by it.

Of course, I could never convince anyone to attempt to play it with me. But the ideas it injected into my brain stuck with me, and has a large impact on how I approach Fate-based games, and for that matter Cortex Plus Heroic. It's all about story beats, shaping a collaborative narrative, and a mechanism to mediate degree of creative control.

It is very much like improvisational theater, welded to a normalized distribution model of probability with which to settle competitive potential outcomes.

I personally favor a sort of stack-based model of piling on modifiers as Fate points and invokes fly around the board, to see what the final resolution is, and then someone (typically the winner of the resolution) narrates the outcome in an interesting and dynamic way.

Sometimes a single "action" is like a single panel in a comic book, other times it's more involved. Always, the overriding idea that ties it all together into a coherent story is constantly asking the question "given what has previously occurred...does this next thing make sense?".

+Robert Hanz
>>They force you to engage with the fiction, because "I Forcefully Create Advantage" means nothing.

THAT!

Approaches "force people to engage with the fiction", BUT don't help them to do that in any way, shape of form.

It's a great idea, but deeply flawed implementation.

People, who don't know, HOW to engage with the fiction haven't learned it after playing FAE. Surely, not because FAE is any good at explaining how.

It removes a cane you somehow hobbled with and throws you into ocean instead.

+Robert Hanz re: Approaches: I don't like to take away the agency of my players like that...I prefer that they describe what they want to do, and then I might say something like "that sounds Clever to me" and then they may or may not agree. However if a player says "I FORCEFULLY command the guard to open the gate", I'm not going to stop the game to quibble with them about it. I prefer to let the game tumble forward.


"The challenge then comes in how the narrative changes because of always using a Forceful approach, for instance."

Yes, exactly. As I believe Rob Donaghue said, the most interesting thing about choosing an Approach, is the other Approaches you DIDN'T choose.

By committing to Forceful, you are not being Clever, Sneaky, Careful, etc.

I also follow the practice of often having different difficulties based upon the contextual likelihood of one Approach working over another. Typically there's one or two Approaches that seem ideally suited, one or two that seem ill-advised, and then the other ones are just neutral. The difficulty can thus range across the steps of ideal to impractical.

+Ed Hastings :"However if a player says "I FORCEFULLY command the guard to open the gate", I'm not going to stop the game to quibble with them about it."

That's pretty much what I intended to say, so long as the narration supports the approach.

But yeah, highlighting the weakness of repeated use of an approach via narrative consequences is far more interesting to me than mechanics. But yes, difficulty of an action can and should differ based on what is being done - even potentially two actions that would map to the same approach.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi: "People, who don't know, HOW to engage with the fiction haven't learned it after playing FAE. Surely, not because FAE is any good at explaining how. "

I'm not really sure what rules help with getting people to understand "No, really, just say what your character does". Not providing support for list-based gaming is about the only thing I can think of.

+David Whitton
>>>Invokes represent situation trees, where normally things would go down one way, but instead, because of (Aspect), the story takes place in a way that is more in line with the Fate-point-spender's vision of how things ought to go down.

Come to think of it... Had anyone tried to make invokes give success with style, instead of flat +2 or reroll?

That would prevent any type of back-and-forth with invokes, which I think is a big feature of Fate.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi on the contrary.

IMO, "engaging with the fiction" is nothing more than having a shared understanding of what is happening in the scene and having your character act accordingly. There is no mechanical bias to that fundamental idea. The player either is following along and has some kind of mental representation of the so-called "theater of the mind" in which the shared context of the game is being acted out upon which allows them to express their character's actions in a way that is compatible with it, or they are not. Mechanics don't facilitate this. You don't need mechanics to do this; you can just sit down with one or more friends and collaboratively narrate a story.

At best, mechanics can stay out of the way of this process of shared understanding, and at worst they can interfere with it.

Given two different mechanics, it is possible to state that one of them may interfere with "engaging with the fiction" less than the other.

But Skill vs Approach...they are fundamentally the same thing except that Skills are more restrictive than Approaches, and thus it is very difficult, I would think, to make the case that Approaches interfere with engaging with the fiction more than Skills do despite being less restrictive in their application.

Just as "I Forcefully Create Advantage" means nothing unto itself, so to does "I take the Create Advantage action using Shoot" mean nothing unto itself.

Tying either statement to the narrative requires context, but in either case given a context, it is possible to ground either of the mechanical statements into the emerging story...with the FAE Approach having the edge there because it is less restricted in its applicability than the Shoot Skill is. There will be more contexts where it doesn't make sense to Create Advantage using Shoot, but wherein there is some kind of Advantage that can be created in a Forceful way.

But, +Ed Hastings, while I generally agree with you, Skills look like they might be able to be used for more list-based/mechanics-based gaming, and a number of people do try to approach Fate in that way - which leads, I think, to a lot of the "Fate is too meta" complaints. Because when you start saying "I Create Advantage with Shoot to create the 'Hail of Bullets' aspect", then yeah, that sounds totally disconnected from the game world.

+Robert Hanz
- I hack the computer.
- How?
- I hack it. With hacking.
- Do you have any tools, any relevant skills, password, anything?
- My Aspects doesn't say I can't hack things. I hack the computer.

The problem is, that character sheet can work as a prompt, reminding you stuff and focusing your attention at what your priorities and abilities. What you can do and what you'd likely do.

Abstract stats, devoid of any creativity, doesn't help. They just distract and waste your time.

I'd better play with characters Aspects and Facts "list" (ranging from "Don't trust Krusk!" to "Newly Unpacked Hibachi Cyberdeck ZX-4000"), with only stunts, compels and invokes, than will be using Approaches.

Seriously. They're useless.

+Robert Hanz re: list based gaming / skills: I agree entirely. As I've said a few times in this thread, I think Skills get in the way of Fate and prefer versions of Fate that do not have straight Skill lists.

I do like Atomic Robo's modes because of the other things they do for the game besides grouping Skills. That's been the exception thus far.

+Robert Hanz
I believe it's flaw, rather, than a feature.

"We just spent five minutes, 2 and 3 FP respectively and changed nothing in the fiction. Yay!"

But whatever.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi  It might not have been clear from my post, but, I was describing the half of the time when there are real obstacles to getting on the same page and enjoying the game.

So, the unstated "other half" from my point of view isn't about the rest of of people who can't understand Aspects for reasons which don't have to do with not wanting to play with Aspects. I'm not alleging that that half exists.

From my point of view, "the other half" is the people who do come to learn Fate without too much difficulty.

To put a fine point on it: Based on my experience, when there are arguments about Aspects, it's because on one side of the argument you have people who are interested in Fate, and on the other side of the argument you have people who are interested in arguing instead of saying "No thank you, let's find something else to play".

Leaving arguments aside, in my experience, when there are productive conversations about developing an understanding of Aspects, on one side are people who get it and are trying to teach, and on the other side, people who are interested and are trying to learn. This is not a problem.

You don't need mechanics to do this; you can just sit down with one or more friends and collaboratively narrate a story.

Except for the fact, that this is boring to me and majority of players I know. If I would want to make up a story, I'll write it myself. If I need to play/game I will need rules.

Kudos for you if you don't, but for me rules are divided in two categories: they either help or interfere. Lack of any of well-defined rules definitely interferes with my gaming experience.

I no one would ever need rules for RPGs, we wouldn't have any and that would've been the end of discussion.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi well, no one is making you use Approaches if you don't want to.

However, if I were to run a cyberpunk game using FAE, then presumably one or some of the players will express that their character has some hacking (or decking or whatever) ability.

Prior to running the game, either we met as a group and talked out what we collaboratively want our cyberpunk setting to be like, or the group preferred for me as the GM to make those decisions and just tell them (or some in between of those two models). If hacking / decking is a thing in that setting, then there is some idea of how that is supposed to work as part of that setting, and the players are aware of it.

Probably, just taking an Aspect such as "El Hacker Supremo" or "IC Killer" or "Hat-less Hacker" or "Mad Cyber Skillz", is enough to justify attempting to hack stuff. If you want to be really good at it, you could take one or more Stunts to cement the idea and gain reliability.

"Hibachi Cyberdeck ZX-4000: because I have a sweet tricked out cyberdeck, I gain +2 to Overcome actions when I am jacked in and attempt to hack my way past obstacles"

Of course, it would also be possible to treat the cyberdeck as a situational Aspect gained via Create Advantage, with some story set up. This would be better suited if hacking were not a main focus for your character as it imposes some amount of set up to get going.

And of course you could elevate the cyberdeck to being an Aspect unto itself if it were somehow part of your character's identity. I would tend to express my "hacker" Aspect in a way that incorporated the gear, such as "Well Equipped Hacker" or "Have Cyberdeck Will Hack", rather than spend two Aspect slots on such close Aspects. I prefer to not model gear as Aspects myself in general, but there are cases where it makes sense. And there is a mechanical reason to do so as well, as you could invoke both on a given action for a +4 bonus.


As far as the "Don't trust Krusk" thing...I'm not entirely following your point there. There's some missing context. But I'm assuming you mean you don't want to have to take an Aspect stating a relationship between your character and another character.

And if so, the answer is simple...you don't have to do that. You can do it if for some reason that relationship is important to your character's concept. Does their lack of trust of this person named Krusk come up a lot? Does it compel them to act in a certain way due to the mistrust? Does it allow them to affect the narrative in a way that is beneficial to themselves? If the answers are "no"...then don't take it as an Aspect or Trouble.

If your character has some kind of relationship with some other character, that's just roleplaying. Unless you want it to become a defining element of your character and impact their ongoing story in a significant way; then you would consider rolling that relationship into an Aspect.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi: "You don't need mechanics to do this"

No, the mechanics come into play when you say someone is doing something where the result isn't obvious.

So the flow is:
1) Say an action in terms of the imagined world
2) Rely on mechanics to resolve it

instead of...
1) Say an action in terms of mechanics
2) Rely on mechanics to resolve it

Nobody's talking about going full freeform.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi...and that isn't what I said. Perhaps if you gave it a second read thru from a calmer vantage point it might clear it up.

The gist of the post is in the next paragraph, namely:

"At best, mechanics can stay out of the way of this process of shared understanding, and at worst they can interfere with it."

And it goes on to point out that comparing Fate Core Skills to FAE Approaches in this context doesn't seem to bear out in Fate Core's favor.

However, it does seem like you want to argue rather than converse, and if that's the case, I wish you good luck with expressing your position but don't care to personally participate in an argumentative exchange with you. Fate is a big tent and there's room for people of different opinions to disagree agreeably while underneath it.

A great deal of this conversation has focused on players' conceptions/misconceptions of Aspects. I think much of it concerns GMs handling of situations as well, though. Character Aspects also represent something of a contract with the GM to keep those things in mind and create dramatic situations that meaningfully engage with different Aspects. The case of a character with a Super Strong Aspect was offered earlier and, for me, a situation where that Aspect only mattered when it was invoked would constitute a failing on the part of the GM. Basically, certain challenges ought to become more or less relevant based on the Aspects of the character in play. The Super Strong character shouldn't be asked to roll for certain types of actions that other characters would have to. Doing so would break trust with the players.

I think part of the art of GMing in Fate is to craft scenes and challenges that acknowledge and build upon who the characters are, and Aspects constitute a primary forum for players to cue the GM in on what they want/expect from the story.

+Bean Lucas Except, in my experience, many people struggle to understand the basics of Fate Core or outright misinterpret it, regardless of how much person tries to teach them, until one day they didn't wake up and simply get Aspects/FP economy/etc.

Not because of the lack of effort on either part, really.

+David Whitton, agreed. There is a form of social contract at play here.

I think the general concern of the players who anchor on the idea of "paying to invoke" the Aspect to "turn it on" are unconcerned about narrative fluff when they are just described to do super strong things and are more concerned in the context of when there is a roll required and they feel like their "super strength" should be impactful without having to pay for it.

This sort of concern is particularly strong when bringing in new players before they've had a taste for the game and the GM's permissiveness. Players coming from more of an adversarial approach to games in particular have reason to be concerned about things like this; in the sorts of games they are used to the DM / GM is their foe and the rules and particularly reliable bonuses are their only protection against a killer DM. For that kind of player, flat bonuses allow them to crunch the numbers up front and make decisions based upon likelihood of success in games where the stakes do include character death.

Fate turns all of that on its head, but before they can get into the game and realize that they have a strong say in the stakes and that character death is usually not on the table unless it is agreed upon..and even then they can concede to avoid it, and the GM is not an adversary, and the things that are mostly "fluff" in the kinds of games they are used to is kind of the whole point in this game with roll offs only happening when it matters and / or is interesting...before they can get into all of that, they first have to get thru character creation.

And for them, character creation is about spending finite resources to secure the maximum amount of effectiveness at whatever mechanical resolutions that their character is supposed to be good at. I'm the strong guy on the team? I better make sure I can make any roll necessary to succeed at being the strong guy. That's what the other games they've played have trained them to do. Thus the trepidation or discomfort of depending on bonuses that aren't always available.

Obviously, I'm talking about a certain kind of player with a particular sort of background, and not making general statements. However, that certain kind of player and that particular sort of background happen to be pretty common in our hobby. So, its not an edge case, I don't think.

+Ed Hastings You forget the part, where Aspect/Stunt slots are limited, while facts I think might become important can be 2-3 times longer.

I already used all Aspect/Stunt-slots and there is no more for cyberdeck. Nada. Zilch.
How important this cyberdeck? I'd say 3 out of 10.
Might it come handy sometime down the road? Definitely might.
Can I forget about it in spur of a moment? Undoubtedly I can! And will.

Same with everything else.

Everything can be important fact, and I have pretty good idea what should, but what if doesn't fit into Aspect slot space? System says it doesn't matter.
Where it goes? Into my memory.
What happens with it there? I forget about it.

Therefore, built-in prompts.

The default assumption of Fate is that most things don't actually matter. If you're a hacker, it's assumed you have a deck. The specific deck is not important, unless it is. We have no clue of what computers people are using in Mr. Robot, for example.

Fate models fiction, not reality. Most details are not that important in fiction.

Now, if you get some special deck, that should be absolutely recorded as a situational aspect in some way.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi

I'm pretty sure I didn't forget that Aspect and Stunt slots are finite. But, I suppose you may have a better handle on what I recall than I do.
I'm not even sure what your objection is to at this point. If you don't want to play Fate Core or FAE, then don't.

If you do, then there are some agreed upon parameters for a given campaign.

If you are playing in a campaign wherein PC's have 3 Refresh, 3 Aspects, 1 High Concept, 1 Trouble, and 3 free Stunts, then you as a player need to find a way to fit your concept into that, just like all of the other players. This is true of all games wherein PC's are assumed to start as "equals".

If you can't figure out a way to fit your concept into the available resources, you could seek the guidance of your group, or the community as a whole. If your concept just isn't workable in the design space provided, you can consult with your GM and the group and figure something out. If you can't find a way to cooperate to make a character that is acceptable to yourself or your play group, then I guess you wont be playing with that group. Again, this is not really any different than making a character for most other rpg's.

Don't have room to fit your fancy cyberdeck into your character concept? Well, I guess it isn't really that important to you then. It's really on you as the player to decide what things are important to your character. Can you still address the idea of it? Sure; there generally isn't anything preventing you from having a list of trappings on your character sheet if you want them; they have no mechanical effect (unless required to use something that does have a mechanical effect, such as Guns and Shoot), but it might become relevant later. You aren't required to take an Aspect or Stunt indicating you wear clothes or carry a pack of bubble gum or a cell phone either. It's just descriptive stuff that might be relevant from time to time but offers no special bonus and does not benefit from any kind of protected status. Stuff is stuff.

I do think you seem to have some kind of misconception about what constitutes an Apsect, stemming from an idea that "Everything can be important fact, and I have pretty good idea what should, but what if doesn't fit into Aspect slot space?" (sic).

Your character's Aspects describe their identity, their place in the setting, their focus on the story, their shtick. Not every conceivable thing about them, but rather the most important things.

Your character might like Peanut Butter, and have a strong dislike of Japanese Game Shows, but that doesn't mean you need to express such trivialities as an Aspect. You can if you want to, but then you are saying that it is REALLY IMPORTANT that your character likes Peanut Butter, or whatever, and that you intend for it to be a recurring theme impacting the narrative.


You also have a variety of options available to formalize some things that do occur as a game progresses. One, you can have situational Aspects attached to a scene, or a group, or a person. Misc gear that has been picked up along the way can be represented via situational Aspects. That right there can address any number of kind-of-important-but-not-identity-impacting things. You can use Create Advantage to create such Aspects, and the GM can put them into play.

Another option is that over time, you can change your Aspects at milestones; this allows you to tweak or replace your Aspects to incorporate new things encountered along the way.

And, of course, Consequences are themselves Aspects; and some transitory things that are Aspect like but mostly disadvantaging can be pushed onto Consequences in certain situations.

Most details are not that important in some kinds of fiction.

There is different kinds of fiction. In some there are few details and everything else is replaced with emotions.

In others are ton of details and they do matter, either as to explain how A leads to B then to C then to D or to establish how world or particular system works.

It's harder, than most of manipulative fiction, that relies on tricking readers/viewers' emotions instead of logic and knowing it's topic.

You can't make decent sci-fi to work without relying on a lot of details. Without those it's just science fantasy. Or philosophical fantasy.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi

It occurred to me that maybe the disconnect for you is the statement:

"All Aspects state facts"

It might seem like the opposite is true:

"All facts must be stated as Aspects"

But that is not the case. A fact can be "discovered" by creating an Aspect stating it. But there are plenty of facts not represented by an Aspect.

For instance, there usually wouldn't be an Aspect in play stating baseline facts such as The Earth Goes Around The Sun or that Water Is Wet, or that The Air Is Breathable By Carbon-based Lifeforms.

However, there could conceivably be scenarios with different ground rules where they might be stated as Aspects. In a campaign set in the Dark Ages, "The Earth Goes Around The Sun" might be a great Aspect for an Astronomer at odds with the church or even as a campaign Aspect for a group of Natural Philosophers trying to bring about an Age of Reason. In a hard scifi campaign it might be a common thing to attach Aspects to a "planet" describing its characteristics such as gravity and atmosphere. In a fantasy setting with high magic, Water Is Wet might be a humorous / tongue-in-cheek Aspect for a Hydromancer to take and flog for surprising utility.

So, basically, just because something is a "fact" doesn't mean it needs to be represented as an Aspect. However, if it is interesting or serves a purpose, it can be. But if something is expressed as an Aspect, then it is also a fact.

Bob is a man, but not all men are Bob.
An Aspect is a fact, but not all facts are Aspects.

Specifically, aspects are a type of narrative causality. Almost foreshadowing, but foreshadowing is really a subset of these types of facts.



Scientific facts are certain true and very important in a hard sci-fi game, but they'd generally pop up in terms of allowing/denying actions or modifying the results of actions. They're not really something I'd - in most cases - encode as aspects.

+Ed Hastings​ that is an area that can easily confuse. If not everything is an aspect, then what are the hard limits? "Importance" works for some, but excepting major themes of the campaign that can be subjective around the table.

Noting that you are an Able Swordsman may work for one person, while another needs to know what weapons they have on them.

Also, as to genre coverage, it is a well understood truth that Fate is not intended to be good at every genre, per the designers' intent. Rob D. has made at least one post to that extent. If you find that there is a particular genre of play that Fate gets in the way of for you, use a different system for that genre. If that turns out to be all genres for you, that's ok to. It's not meant to be a universal system, though it is pretty close to being one.

+Ed Hastings At this point I think, you don't get what I'm saying from the very beginning of this thread, neither have any desire to.

Maybe because you didn't have experience, similar to mine. Or because I simply don't understand anything. Either way, I... Whatever. Bye.

+Ryan M. Danks: You write. If you're going to have ninjas attack the protagonists, you need to have something telling the reader first that such a thing is plausible, in most cases. Maybe there's a TV clip of the news talking about some kind of gang-like activity but nobody's seen the attackers, or something like that.

That's an aspect.

That doesn't mean that for your Able Swordsman you can't denote what weapons they have. Just that that detail is probably not an aspect.

As an example, Brienne of Tarth has a sword when we're introduced to her. We basically know nothing about it. It's unimportant. Same with the Hound's weapon.

When Brienne is given a Valyrian steel weapon? All of a sudden it's important, and causes various story beats to occur.

Her first, generic sword isn't an aspect. Her Valyrian Steel Sword From Jaime? Oh, yeah.

+Ryan M. Danks re: able swordsman: yes. And the answer can vary per campaign / hack. Fate doesn't have a default position on that per se. If the GM / group has decided to track gear and formalize it, then the answer of "what weapon(s) do I carry?" will flow from that decision. In a hack where gear doesn't matter per se, its just fluff, then the answer is more along the lines of "what weapons do you WANT to have on you?".

In a hack that's in between, which is to say gear isn't formalized but can be made to be important for a given character via an Aspect or Stunt, then the player that cared would express the degree to which it is important to them by burning it into their character's concept via an Aspect, Stunt, or both.

From my Pathfinder FAE hack for instance, under the header "Relevance of Specific Weapons and Armor", there's a block of text stating the intent for that hack. This is a snippet from that:

The character's competency is the primary factor; the tool they are using to exercise that competency is secondary and only matters to the extent that it makes the story more interesting.

...

To the extent that a particular kind of weapon or armor (etc) matters to a character or to the emerging story, it should be incorporated into Aspects and Stunts.

For instance, the fact that Bordos wears heavy armor and wields a hammer is reflected in his Aspects and Stunts. It is important to the character's concept and thus in the scenes that he is in he makes it matter to the narrative. On the other hand if Joe Fighterdude usually wears some heavy armor and uses a warhammer but didn't incorporate any of that into his concept in the form of Aspects or Stunts then ultimately it doesn't actually matter as anything more than fluff.

Even in DFRPG, where weapons and armor certainly matter, they're not encoded as aspects or stunts.

+Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi on the contrary, I've tried to understand what your position is and address your concerns as you have stated them in as detailed a way as I can so as to hopefully avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.

Totally. But that kind of stuff isn't explicitly stated, which causes confusion and requires blogs that talk about aspect spam.

And there's the idea that players want everything about their special snowflake characters to be important to the story, and thus an aspect.

Agreed 100% on both counts, +Ryan M. Danks.

If I have a serious complaint about Fate, it's the fact that a number of things like this are explained in mechanical terms, but not really explained in terms of what they're "modeling" (for lack of a better term).

The "how" without the "why" makes it easy to form inaccurate mental models, and makes it much harder to get a consistent view of how the game "should" work.

Agreed, +Robert Hanz, +Ryan M. Danks

Also, "special snowflake character", evoked Fight Club for me, so kudos on that whether intended or not.

The first rule of Fate Club...

I've often wondered how the designers play Fate. I've asked directly, but never gotten a response. It's almost like every comment in this thread is correct, because Fate was designed to be interpreted by how the table wants to play it.

+Ed Hastings: "It's not meant to be a universal system, though it is pretty close to being one. "

I find it's a fairly universal system for style of game - specifically, action-ish oriented stories with proactive, competent characters, done much like a TV show or possibly a book series.

It doesn't do other styles of games nearly as well. If I do a dungeon crawl, I'm pulling out D&D.

I've frequently said that "Tomb of Horrors" in Fate wouldn't look like the module. It'd look like "Tomb of Horrors: The TV Show".

I played with Morgan Ellis once. It went pretty closely to my interpretations of the game.

I'd love to play with Fred Hicks or Rob D. Or even watch an AP of them playing.

While I totally get that there are a number of "dials" in Fate, I do think that the idea of "it's whatever you want it to be!" is false and almost harmful.

Me, too. I asked for an AP shortly after Core launched, but no one responded.

RE: Tomb of Horrors, the TV show. On that note, a long time ago I did a thing called Demon Hunter: FBI, a very gritty street level supernatural sort of game, and published it in an APAzine. It was intended to be played with a pretty brutal, very dark tone.

Later, Dave Mattingly took the material and flipped it on its head for a tournament game; in which the players chose one of the pregens I had provided and a real life actor (such as Keanu Reeves, or Drew Barrymore as it turned out) to play that character on a TV show pilot. During the game, there were commercial breaks, and each break one of the players had to narrate a snippet of the "show" featuring their character doing something interesting that hadn't happened yet during the game as a outro for the commercial break, and then later the group had to figure out how to incorporate that snippet into the game as it elapsed.

In addition to being a really cool format for a rpg, it also resulted in a much lighter tone. And I learned a very valuable lesson about turning dials to get a drastically different usage out of the same material.

EDIT: dug it up out of the archives...

The actors chosen for the played PCs were:


 Kris Kristofferson (Millennium, Blade) as David Finch, occultist


 Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, The Fly) as Allan Carter, investigator


 Bill Fagerbakke (“Coach”, “Gargoyles”) as Billy Harker, redneck shooter


 Drew Barrymore (Firestarter, Charlie’s Angels) as June Park, pyrokinetic


 Wesley Snipes (Blade, Demolition Man) as Frank Mills, street fighter man


 Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, Speed) as Sam Rudy, ex-Navy SEAL

 Arnold Schwarzenegger (Commando, Eraser) as Sam Rudy, ex-Navy SEAL

"You’ll notice that there are two actors slated for the same
role. Keanu got replaced by Arnold after the first half hour,
when the player realized that he couldn’t really get into Keanu.
We explained it away as a mid-shoot recasting, due to a
scheduling conflict in Keanu’s current movie schedule."

It seems to me that it is in the game designers' best interests to not discourage the widest possible audience from playing their very toolkitty game.

And thus, from that perspective advocating a specific fixed playstyle by virtue of a videotaped example of the creators themselves playing the game would be counterproductive.

I find the open endedness for interpretation to be a good thing, personally. I like the freedom it gives me to make it work for my purposes. That openness keeps the FUDGE heritage alive, for me. I'd love to play with those guys; I think from following their posts over the years that it would be a good crew at the table and I have a huge amount of respect for what they've accomplished with Evil Hat in general and Fate specifically. But I'm also ok with them remaining cloaked in mystique as the wizards behind the curtain.

I'm guessing the to-be-aired Tabletop game run by Ryan Macklin is going to be as close as you can get to 'as intended' play, though of course I don't know that for a fact.

It seems to me that any game system is whatever we want it to be. There are many permutations of D&D that I find to be superior to the Orthodoxy published by WotC, and that phenomenon doesn't stop at Hasbro affiliated works.

Mutation, adaptation, evolution. These things seem necessary for the continued health, and improvement of our hobby. It's hard for me to approve of labeling the results of these unavoidable, and mostly positive forces false.

In short, it seems to me that the statement, "Fate can be anything you want." is essentially true. "We all die sometime." is also essentially true. That doesn't mean that anyone has to like it, though the fact the Earth isn't populated by every person to have ever been born is somewhat of a convenience : )

I dunno. I think there's a certain area that is "Fate-like". I don't think it's incredibly narrow. But there are certain things that aren't Fate-like. And if "Fate" can mean anything, then it becomes kinda useless as a classification.

I mean, if you do enough to Fate, you can houserule it into GURPS. GURPS isn't Fate, and I hope that's not a contentious statement.

The analogy I like is hockey. I play hockey. Now, you can play four on four, and it's still hockey. You can modify some of the rules, and it's still recognizably hockey. You can play on roller blades instead of ice skates, and it's still hockey. Street hockey? Still hockey. Field hockey? Starting to become a separate thing. Take field hockey, get rid of the sticks, and use a big inflated ball and bigger goals? Now you're talking about soccer. And soccer is fine, but it ain't hockey.

Now, there might be some purists that argue that anything except five on five hockey, on ice, on their preferred rink size isn't "real" hockey. Those people are jerks. And, similarly, anyone claiming that there's a super strict definition of Fate and any deviation from it makes it "not Fate" is kind of a jerk.

But at some point, you can change the game so much that it's not recognizably the same game. I mean, arguably, Fate itself did that in its evolution from Fudge. Fate is no longer Fudge. It inherits from Fudge, sure, but there's significant enough differences that the two systems play pretty differently and often appeal to very different people.

Yeah, and further, as a Lacrosse player I know that hockey is just Lacrosse on ice. ;)

You're dead to me.

I keed

But only a little; there is some shared history.

Early 19th-century paintings depict shinney (or "shinny"), an early form of hockey with no standard rules which was played in Nova Scotia. Many of these early games absorbed the physical aggression of what the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia called dehuntshigwa'es (lacrosse). Shinney was played on the St. Lawrence River at Montreal and Quebec City, and in Kingston, Ontario[11] and Ottawa, Ontario.

But is it an aspect? :P

I think there are people who focus on difference, and others who focus on similarity. As a person who focuses on the latter, I prefer to use tiers of classification, so GURPS, and Fate are actually amazingly similar in certain ways (ways that make them both more attractive to me than many other games). Further, I don't think it's a coincidence that the writers of Fudge, and Fate had worked on projects for GURPS, and Hero, which are related.

There is no reason to say that a given game isn't another game, names help with that, but to refute that hockey, and lacrosse are in the same family, just for the sake of classification, isn't any more useful than saying all games are games, and that's all we need say about it.

A game like Whitehack is both Fate-like, and D&D like, so using a form of classification that only seeks to segregate isn't going to foster understanding. It may make things simpler to grok, but what we'd be grokking isn't what is out there, in reality. Our understanding is based upon the limited amount of information we're allowing in our heads.

A caterpillar, and butterfly are much more different than each other than Fate is from Fudge, or Hockey is from Lacrosse, yet we don't feel the need to segregate them, because their relationship makes it obvious that they are related significantly.

At some point in our past, surely someone did think they were entirely different creatures, but once the process of transformation was witnessed, it became impossible to place the superficial classification before the reality.

I didn't say every game is Fate, but it's definitely the case that Fate can be made to suit any game. I know, because I've done it.

Given Fate is on it's 4th iteration, it's quite hard for me to agree that it can't be many things to many people, even before we get to the fact that people have been house ruling it for years, many volumes offering ways to tweak Fate to taste have been published by third parties, and Evil Hat itself.

So, I suppose the question I would pose is if a gaming group starts with Fate, and starts implementing tweaks to aid in practical application of that rule set (in it's current state) at what point are they obligated to say they are no longer playing Fate?

I don't think there's a reasonable answer to that, anymore than there is a reason answer to the age old question of who has the right to name the object of their devotion as a true god.

The mech of games can be discussed without referring to the brands of the games that use them, and using the brands doesn't really provide a ton of clarification, unless someone really gets into specifics.

I my estimation, using brands, names, and such labels has been much improved upon by the practice of tagging. Music has benefited greatly in this regard. If I am creating music, it doesn't matter how many people are arguing about what my work should be called. It's better, for my sake, to allow all those labels to be used as tags, and lead to the venue that makes my work accessible.

Things that are Fate-like are:
-Not having levels
-Not having class restrictions
-Not having racial classification
-Focus upon Skills
-Use of Advantages/Feats/Stunts
-No Hit Points
-Not having compulsory character Death
-Tracking Injury/Conditions with descriptors
-Focus upon particulars of an individual character, rather than upon a generic set of peoples upon which generalizations will be made that limit the individual

There are, of course many more, "Fate-like" things, but when listed, it becomes obvious that if those things are "Fate-like", and other games also possess them, if the word "like" is to retain any significance, those other games must be "like" Fate, to one degree, or another.

So, I can agree that some games are more, or less like Fate, but very few games are completely unlike Fate, and even those games that are least like it (Amber Diceless comes to mind) may have some relation that is not plainly obvious.

I suppose I don't see the point in drawing a line. I do see the point though, in explaining that if certain things are done, certain outcomes may be unavoidable.

So, in this case, if someone insists on playing Fate with Aspects that only come into play if paid for, telling them that they aren't really playing Fate, if they do that, helps little. Telling them that the effects of playing Fate that way are X, Y, and Z takes a lot more time, and consideration, but it's the right thing to do, because it's more likely to reach the intended goal.

Advising players of Fate about the alternatives, specifically to playing with Aspects that have persistent effects, is going to be even more effective than drawing lines, because players can then make informed decisions about what kind of Fate they want to be playing.

Fate is now a lot different than it was, and that's due to that fact the publishers played it differently than they originally intended, and solicited input from people who hacked it, sometimes to such a degree it no longer closely resembled itself.

I think it's important to recognize that Fate is a brand, at this point, and that the actual mechanics behind that brand are very likely to continue changing, and that the people who may be seen as having gross misunderstanding about what others think of as the fundaments of Fate may actually be drivers of those changes.

It really depends upon who widely adopted certain variations are, and if they effectively address problems that are common throughout the population that plays Fate.

A person could argue that 5e D&D is no longer D&D, for any number of reasons. They'd be incorrect, from a practical stand point, but if the same information they used to found their case was instead focused upon a discussion of how different 5e is from 1e, it would be difficult to refute, because it wouldn't be an argument. It would be a statement of fact.

Another way to put it, if we're playing Monopoly, and among our group we decide when you go to Jail, you can collect $200, we are still playing Monopoly, though we have significantly altered one of the most well known rules of that game.

Someone could say that we were no longer playing Monopoly, but that would be grossly inaccurate, given we have only altered one rule, even though the cascading effect of that alteration might have deep ramifications.

It could be useful to create a second tier descriptor, such as Bank Robber Monopoly, to make that variation categorically different, yet allow the reality that we are still, very much, playing Monopoly, to survive the process of classification.

Aspect Only Fate, is an example of using that modality to preserve the lineage of a playstyle, but meaningfully distinguish one style from another for the sake of convenience.

BTW, I highly recommend Aspect only play as a first step to any group learning Fate. In fact, after playing Edge of the Empire, it seems like EH should write up a tutorial that breaks down play into bite sized chunks. EotE's beginner set is brilliant in that way. Their pregen characters, and prewritten adventure make the question of how the game is intended to be played almost needless.

I don't think I really need to play with anyone in particular. I think that this other game, that differs a bit, but is also similar to some degree to Fate, has set up a great model for expressing how to get anyone who can read to play RAW.

Not that deviation from RAW is bad at all, but if someone desired that level of control over conveyance of the rules, I think tutorial is the way to go.

At least if people do deviate, they'll have a clear understanding of what they are leaving behind.

Labels and pigeonholes rarely make anything better, but we humans seem to be obsessed with them. They do serve a useful purpose for communicating that everyone is talking about substantially the same thing, but they often end up taking on much deeper meanings, as if the label defines the thing it is labelling. Just as the map is not the territory, the label is not the labelled.

I dunno. I've never looked at a butterfly and said "oh, what a pretty caterpillar".

I think I also need to clear up a misconception here. The context of the original post was not "hur dur, they're Fating wrong." It was someone saying that they didn't like Fate because aspects did nothing unless invoked.

Beyond that, I'm not really looking at similarities or differences. I'm interested in usefulness. Basically, if someone has modified Fate to the point where it is literally GURPS (using 3d6, character build points, aspects and stunts replaced with Advantages and Disadvantages, etc.), is it useful to say "we're playing Fate?"

By that metric, I'd say that yeah, it's useful to differentiate D&D. Roughly speaking, I'd count D&D as about four different games, appealing to different subsets of all roleplayers. Old school D&D (Basic, 1e, 2e, B/X, BECMI), 3e (+3.5 and PF), 4e, and 5e.

But no, it's not a bright line. There's a spectrum from "more Fate-like" to "less Fate-like".

You mention tagging music, and I think that's a good analogy. If we tag everything in a music store or database with the "metal" tag, then the metal tag is, literally, useless.

I'm not saying that only my preferred subgenre of metal should be tagged "metal". Wanna tag Godsmack or Deep Purple with "metal"? Knock yourself out.

But Justin Bieber and Beyonce shouldn't be tagged "metal".

Total concurrence here +Richard Bellingham.

I think the key, since our attraction to labels does seem unavoidable, is better labeling etiquette. Tagging, I think, has proven a far superior method of categorization, because it skips the quibbling about who is right, and gets right to the fact we are all talking about the same thing.

(In point of fact, tons of different sorts of music are tagged as Metal on the various digital outlets that comprise the modern equivalent of Record Stores.

The bands Nickleback, Slayer, and Witch Mountain are all tagged as Metal, but second tier descriptors help hone in on what makes them special, and related to other bands, and styles. In this case Alt, Thrash, and Doom, respectively.

Generally those who are fans will be more permissive, while detractors will be the ones making Herculean effort to enforce less permeable labeling strategies.

"Nickelback is not Metal!" is not a phrase a Nickleback fan is likely to spend much time voicing.)


It seems to me that there's no fear of mistaking a caterpillar for a butterfly, or any larva for it's winged form, if we permit ourselves to allow the species name to be applied to both, even subjects that deviate from what is familiar to us.

"That is a Monarch butterfly, while that is still a Monarch, though a caterpillar."

The practice a optimal tagging isn't much different than that used in the best dictionaries. Publishing multiple definitions for the same word may take more research, ink, and effort, but it's a superior approach if the intent of a book is to teach people the entire scope of a given word.

Some dictionaries opt for brevity, and at that point, the editor is directing the understanding of language, and not actually representing the language as it is actually spoken, or the truth that language is fluid.

Yeah, I'm with you on tagging. Especially as an alternative to strict categorization.

I'm glad. It seems to me that strict categorization has some very bad side effects, and at it's core, it relies upon inflexibility. So, that strategy is a sort of pseudo science to me. The key in having a scientific approach is being open to changes in our knowledge base. I think providing nomenclature that is flexible helps with that immensely.

Thanks for clarifying though. I get that people may complain about that. I suppose I feel it may not be a correctable thing, outside of play that demonstrates that isn't the case.

Of course, after being shown that Aspects can have persistent effects, that may still not be enough, but it seems like whoever doesn't take a liking to Fate after seeing their initial complaints addressed is probably a lost cause, or at least needs to come to Fate at their own pace.

It took a while for me to warm to Fate, and it is only recently that I have entertained running anything else. I am currently working on a hybrid of The Black Hack, and Whitehack, and mulling over heavily what concepts I want to borrow from Fate that Whitehack didn't already.

+Robert Hanz, I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but what is your preferred way to describe what used to be commonly referred to as the Fate Point Economy? I'm all ears, because I'm not particular fond of that name, myself.

I generally don't. The impression that I get when we talk about the "Fate Point economy" is that there should be a constantly flowing set of Fate Points.

I don't agree with that. I think Fate Points should be a limited resource that is an interesting decision to use or not.

(Which doesn't mean that doing the "constant flow" way is doing it wrong, just not my preference)

I also think that too much focus on it places the game too much in the "meta" and not enough in the situation. Reifying that flow is not a positive thing, in my view.

Biology is a good example.. It's really difficult to divide animals into species because there's a continuity between every member of the species and, if you go back far enough, every other species.

It's a topic of much debate, and even the standard definition of 'able to reproduce within itself to produce fertile offspring' isn't entirely straightforward when there are members of some species that WON'T reproduce among themselves even though they're capable due to the fact that they've developed a different song, or some other minor differences.

It's only when you look at radically different end points that the differences are obvious, but there's a smooth and continuous series of transition states between them where it's impossible to distinguish them.

Rules changes to RPGs are much the same. Who gets to define the arbitrary cut-off points, and is it useful to debate where they should be placed?

(All that aside, I'm with you on the annoyance of 'aspects do nothing when they aren't invoked' talk, Robert)

There's clearly no bright-line dividers. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a set of things where you can say "yeah, that's not the same thing any more."

Maybe within tarantula species there's some cases where it's hard to really say "yeah, that's a different species." But we can still say that tarantulas are not the same species as blue whales.

I'm not arguing for a hyper-narrow view. I'm just saying that at some point you can change something enough that it's no longer the original thing any more, in any useful definition.

So, for Fate, there's a wide variety. There's a lot of things that we can say are definitely Fate. And there's even more that we can say are in that grey area of "still Fate, but starting to diverge significantly." And there are things that are definitely not Fate.

Again, to be clear, I'm really arguing for a more expansive rather than less umbrella. Like that one game that got released that's calling itself Fate but uses polyhedrals? I'd include that without a second thought.

+T to the E to the O "I prefer to use tiers of classification, so GURPS, and Fate are actually amazingly similar in certain ways (ways that make them both more attractive to me than many other games). Further, I don't think it's a coincidence that the writers of Fudge, and Fate had worked on projects for GURPS, and Hero, which are related. "

Yes, I've said the same thing several times, in the context of the Hero System, which has historically been my main game system for everything. Once I got past my reaction to the lack of crunch, I was struck by how similar the two games are in essence, or "spirit" despite their outward seeming.

The difficulty in me agreeing that Fate is different enough from Fudge to call it a different game comes from the fact that it's not true, from the most pedantic stand point. Fate is a specific build of Fudge, much like Ubuntu is a specific build of Linux.

Other builds I have used are Hack n Slash, Mudge (Mooks Fudge), and Five Point Fudge. The F in Fate originally stood for Fudge.

Fate uses the Fudge Ladder, and Fudge dice, which are the two most common foundations of Fudge, with everything else mutating from there.

I think it is an awful lot like Biology(good call +Richard Bellingham) , and though a Chiquaqua, and a St. Bernard look different enough to be considered a species if they had occurred naturally, the fact is, we know the process by which they came to be, so that artificial limitation has been replaced. Instead, we acknowledge they are the same species, and focus upon a new label, Breed, for the sake of convenience (though it's more of a description of an ideal we are forcing upon dogs than any essential truth about the dogs, since it's obvious, they could breed with any number of dogs that have other traits, if they are permitted to do so).

In this way, every label tells me a bit more about who is using it than it does about the thing being referred to, though if I log away the connections certain people make with a given word, what they label with it, that can be useful. It can also be problematic though. I'd say it's double sided, and whether a person wants to call it a coin, or a blade, it's not all good, or bad.

The most significant thing about the label Fate is that it distinguishes this particular variant more clearly, and effectively on the market, and I think that Rob, and Fred definitely deserve recognition for their contribution, as do all the wonderful authors (Richard's Secret Life of Cats is sitting right next to Brad Murray's Diaspora, and Starblazer's Adventure's, LoA, and a print copy of Free Fate) who have helped Fate stand out from the other variants of Fudge so far as to be more well known than that the large body of ideas that may as well serve as a species umbrella. So, Fate is under Fudge, while Secret Life of Cats is under Fate. The fact that SLoC uses the same Ladder, and dice as Fudge is hugely significant to categorizing it properly, I think. If a discussion is just about games that fall under the Fate tag, then it's not relevant to discuss all variations of Fudge, but if we're seeking solutions not presented by any Fate-like game, stepping up into Fudge-like games makes a lot of sense, because the underpinnings of all of those games will be nearly identical to Fate-like games. I mean to say that they will be designed to deal with 4dF, and the Ladder.

Anyone who is interested in how to adapt several of the mech in Fate in ways not suggested by Fate Core, or the Toolkit should definitely acquire other variants of Fudge though. Much of the new ground people have sought was covered decades ago, and it was all very open, before OGL ever came into being.

On my shelf, Fate, and Fudge books are right next to each other, because they are so compatible.

+Ed Hastings, I feel that, philosophically, Fate, Hero, GURPS, Fudge , HARP (formerly MERP), Rolemaster, Traveller, and a host of other games are almost identical.

I refer to the difference not by categorizing the ggames, but their mechnics, because games may contain mech that blur any line applied to the entire system.

I tend to refer to this distinction as Qualifying vs. Quantifying.

It's pretty easy to recognize the difference. If you can look at a character sheet, and tell me what kind of character it is without knowing anything about the system, it's a system, that at least in part, if focused on Qualifying. If instead, the character sheet is mostly seen as arcane code by the eyes of a noob, that's a system focused upon Quantifying.

Games that Qualify are worried about how an individual stands apart, while games that Quantify are concerned with what predetermined slot a character falls into.

Qualifying requires rules that permit new ideas to be made flesh, and only the ideas that are relevant will be listed on the character sheet, so as to make room for all of the things that matter. Quantifying requires rules that assume there is nothing new under the sun, everything can be boiled down to essentials and everything falls into one category, or another, and all categories that are relevant will be listed upon the character sheet, whether the values are significant, or not.

I like to use Conan as an example, because most people know about him. If you looked at a character sheet of Conan as created in any of the Qualifying systems I have listed, you would recognize who it was, even if the name wasn't among the traits listed, and you could play him accordingly.

If you looked at a character sheet of Conan created in any of the Quantifying systems, you wouldn't know who you were looking at, unless there was a name, because he's look like pretty much every other Fighter/Thief.

EvilHat seems to think that it's true, +T to the E to the O . Have you noticed that they stopped citing Fudge's license in their published material, several years ago?

It has in common with Fudge today: The fact that there's a Ladder (not the same ladder), and, 4dF's. Oh, and, F points (which don't do the same thing).

.

+Bean Lucas, have you read Fudge? IF not, you should. If so, have another go.

They suggest that you can adjust the ladder, and EH's is remarkably similar, employing tweaks suggested either in the core system documents, or later articles in the magazine The Fudge Factor (which was the first location for the publication of the idea of Aspects, to be used in Fudge. In fact, the F is Fate was originally for Fudge). They offer variants upon what FP can do, and admittedly, EH's variant is radical, but the core book of Fudge is really a heaping slew of articles authored by many different people. They cover many iterations of what you can do, if you want a certain tone, and direction to you game. You can have stats, or not, skills, or not, this, or not, that, or not.

The rules of Fate could easily just be among them in an updated volume.

Fred, and Rob took the liberty provided by the spirit of Fudge to cut their own path, and that's good, because Grey Ghost wasn't being as effective at promoting one of my favorite systems.

No longer citing Fudge's license was a calculated move. Fudge itself is currently using the OGL's language, so it is no surprise that Fate followed suit.

Really though, the mechanics of a game, any game, are not protected IP. Only the language, and trademarks are.

dF could have been protected, given they are a actual patentable object/idea. Fortunately for EH, O'Sullivan didn't go that route.

This is all really a matter of gaming history, and it seems like the quibble among some is whether EH has a right to distinguish themselves. I think they do, but I also think history, and more importantly, knowing, and acknowledging it, is a virtuous thing. Sometimes the attempt to erase Fudge feels a bit Orwellian.

It seems that one thing the OSR community has a bit more of is reverence for their forebears, and I think it's because most are obsessively aware of who started D&D. No matter how radically different a system gets, so long as it uses the underpinnings of D&D, it's pretty much mandatory that it be acknowledged as a form of that game.

True20, Hackmaster, D20 Star Wars, Whitehack, The Black Hack, DCC, even the editions of official D&D themselves all arguably vary from each other more widely than Fate Core does from Fudge, in play.

I don't think that in any forum dedicated to any of those games it would be the least bit controversial to suggest that they are forms of D&D. It would be more of an, "Of course they are, now let's move onto things that matter." proposition.

I suppose an analogy that's apt would be UNIX. At what point is it okay for developers to say their system is no longer UNIX? Linux (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, etc.), BSD, OSX, Orbis, iOS, Chrome, Android, and others are all Unix based systems, and differ in major ways from what UNIX once was. They all still work, at their core, on premises established by Bell Labs though, so are considered UNIX-like, even though they have come so far from what UNIX was when Bell Labs initially created.

Surely, in regards to their ancestor, all of these OS are far more different, and contain far more new code than could be said of Fate compared to Fudge.

All of the developers, and Corporations that own the rights to the OS listed also have the right to distinguish their work from that of others, but they don't need to deny the contributions of earlier pioneers in order to do that.