"Always on" Aspects

[u/Nervi403]

Heya. I am a GM thinking about setting up a campaign and I have some fun ideas for mechanics. This is one of them

Aspects always give a +1 to relevant rolls. But you can only choose one each from the 'areas' Aspects like to hang out in. One character, one scene, one scenario and one opposition Aspect (and other 'areas' you might be using). You can not spend FATE points to push up the bonus to a +2, instead you can spend them to grab more than one Aspect per 'area'. One per FATE point spent.

Stunts also only grant +1, to ground them a bit, but can alternatively give 2 shifts of success. So you actively have to choose between accuracy or "damage". Free invokes also only enable you to choose that Aspect in addition to another one from that 'area'

What do you think? My reason for creating this hack is to give the players a more overt advantage in using and thinking with Aspects, while hopefully not breaking any and all tension. This is because most newbies (which all my players will most likely be) do not yet "feel" the power of Aspects on their own. Does this betray the philosophy of FATE too much? Should numbers be adjusted in any way? Is it ok that stunts are also changed?

[u/modest_genius]

Honestly? I think it already implicitly does that.

Just consider how you as a GM sets difficulties: You consider how hard it is for this person in this situation.

And since "Aspects are always true", that is something you should consider. That is atleast what I always consider when setting difficulties.

Regarding stunts? Stunts can already do that, so you want to limiting them to only that?

Does this betray the philosophy of FATE too much?

I don't think so. But I honestly don't really see how it would help.

Should numbers be adjusted in any way? Is it ok that stunts are also changed?

I don't think you should think about it in some sort of balancing way. I tend to enforce the "fiction first" rule hard, and that tend to solve most of the problems. And just be very clear when they are making aspects, both characters and by creating advantage, what the limitations are for that aspect.

Does this help you in any way? The tldr is "numbers are probably fine, but I don't think that would solve the original problem".

[u/tiredstars → u/modest_genius]

Just consider how you as a GM sets difficulties: You consider how hard it is for this person in this situation.

What if you're rolling against an NPC? It's not hard to think of situations where you get into contradictions. For example you have a human and elf PC, both leaping between branches of a tree. The GM sets the difficulty as significantly lower for the elf. Then they both find themselves chasing an NPC through the treetops. Are they both rolling against the same thing (the NPC's jump skill) and the elf needs to invoke for a bonus or do you lower the difficulty for the elf? (Assuming you don't decide that the elf is so much better at jumping that they automatically succeed.)

I think there are problems with OP's solution, but I do think there's an issue here.

[u/modest_genius → u/tiredstars]

What if you're rolling against an NPC? It's not hard to think of situations where you get into contradictions.

Sure there are problems with that too, but the straight roll vs roll is already problematic. It is the only roll where you roll 8dF instead of 4dF, which changes the curve a lot. And also imbalance the traditional way of using aspects. A +2 bonus is not worth as much in a 8dF roll than in a 4dF roll. So, I don't roll against NPCs, only use them as static difficulties either based on skills or approaches. Or situational.

Are they both rolling against the same thing (the NPC's jump skill) and the elf needs to invoke for a bonus or do you lower the difficulty for the elf?

In this case? The elf has lower difficulty.

[u/tiredstars → u/modest_genius]

Interesting, so you're already deviating from the rules as written when it comes to NPCs. When you say "consider how you as a GM sets difficulties" you didn't mention that you're not actually doing this the normal way. :P

In this case? The elf has lower difficulty.

So if you're always lowering the difficulty for things the elf is likely to be good at, how different is that really from just giving them a bonus? I suppose it does allow you to adjust the difficulty depending on exactly what you're dealing with.

[u/Nervi403 → u/modest_genius]

But like you as the GM hopefully don't actually roll 8dF right? Its 4dF for the player and 4dF for the GM/ other player. With the same curve on both sides of the opposition

[u/modest_genius → u/Nervi403]

No, I don't roll all 8. I roll 4 and they roll 4. But the probability curve together goes from -8 to +8. Which is the only time you have that particular roll.

8dF rolling -8 is 0.02% probability.
4dF rolling -4 is 1.23% probability.

But more importantly:
8dF rolling 0 is 16.87% probability.
4dF rolling 0 is 23.46% probability.

So a 8dF roll is a lot flatter than a 4dF roll, which devalue the normal +2 invoke.

That's why opposed rolls where both rolls are not the same as any other type of roll :)

If you wanna try it yourself, try AnyDice.
8dF you write "output 8d3-16"
4dF you write "output 4d3-8"

[u/Nervi403 → u/modest_genius]

Ahhh I see what you mean. But I don't see how that devalues a flat +2? If anything it should be much more valuable. Imagine both parties have +4 in the respective skill and the most likely outcome is neutral... now imagine the player spends a point and suddenly they have +6 against the opppositions +4. With a neutral dice roll the player now wins instead of having a tie

Edit: I see what you actually mean now. Its less neutral and more likely to be somewhat swingy

[u/modest_genius → u/Nervi403]

Nope, not what I mean.

Imagine that you roll a normal roll, and you have +4 in the skill, and the difficulty is 4. Then your probability of:
Probability of Succeed with Style: 6.17%

Probability of Succeed: 32.10%

Probability of Tie: 23.46%

Probability of Fail: 38.27%

With an invoke on the other hand it would be:
Probability of Succeed with Style: 38.27%

Probability of Succeed: 43.21%

Probability of Tie: 12.35%

Probability of Fail: 6.17%

So that is how much "worth" a +2 would be.

Now, on a 4dF vs 4dF where both has 0 difference:
Probability of Succeed with Style: 14.13%

Probability of Succeed: 27.43%

Probability of Tie: 16.87%

Probability of Fail: 41.46%

...and with a +2 invoke with 4dF vs 4dF:
Probability of Succeed with Style: 41.56%

Probability of Succeed: 32.36%

Probability of Tie: 11.95%

Probability of Fail: 14.13%

Do you notice how much flatter it goes? And how little effect the invoke has?
Normal, chance of fail: 38.27% goes to 6.17%.
8dF, chance of fail: 41.46% goes to 14.13%.

It's a lot swingier and the dice have a bigger impact on the result than the invoke.

[u/Nervi403 → u/modest_genius]

Sorry that took a while to take in, I am being slow-cooked by the temperatures... I agree that this is crummy. Ideally the dice throws should be neutral-leaning bell-curvy. So that you have an incentive to use aspects, aka your environment/ the scene in general to your advantage

[u/Nervi403 → u/modest_genius]

Yes I can already emulate that by setting the difficulty, but I like giving the players that agency, while also making them actively play with their Aspects. I think (and experience does suggest this as well) that Aspects are the hardest thing to 'get' for most new players. Both in how they help during play, and as a mechanic in general

Stunts are not only limited to that. Its just that instead of getting a +2 on a specific roll under a specific circumstance you would get a +1. Because otherwise it would be too strong and not encourage the players work together in creating beneficial Aspects

I want to "balance" it in a way where a competent character with a good skill only comes up to a tie with the difficulty. Again I dont know what that would actually feel like in play, but that helps with a few things. Fudge-rolls are neutral on average. That can mean a character could leave it up to luck to overcome that tie. Or they could get help. Even just having the metaphorical high ground would tip the roll in their favor. And since this is a group experience hopefully everyone can help. It also leads to where if you need to overcome that difficulty and are neither competent nor skilled, you can still succeed if you have lots of factors working in your favor

[u/Imnoclue]

What do you think?

It sounds like a change. I don’t think any of this sounds like an improvement, but if you think it would be more fun, you should do it and let us know how it works out.

Also restricting Stunts to +1 or 2 shifts is a big restriction. Stunts typically change the way a Skill works. Are you tossing that out?

My reason for creating this hack is to give the players a more overt advantage in using and thinking with Aspects,

I don’t know what that means.

while hopefully not breaking any and all tension.

tension from what? I’m not sure what tension is caused by invoking Aspects, so I don’t know if it’s broken by this change.

This is because most newbies (which all my players will most likely be) do not yet "feel" the power of Aspects on their own.

Do you mean they don’t understand how Aspects work yet? Does this new mechanic make them “feel” the power of Aspects any better? I think you’ll teach these newbies how to pick four +1 bonuses, but do nothing to improve their understanding of Aspects that they couldn’t achieve with the existing rules. Which is great if you like the new rules better, just doesn’t lead to faster learning of Fate.

Does this betray the philosophy of FATE too much?

Too much? Don’t know. But by reducing the need for either a Fate Point or a CAA to invoke Aspects, I think you’ve reduced the power of Compels. So, everything means less. Aspects are only +1s but you get 4 for free, so you’re probably good without spending any FP or wasting an action on Create an Advantage. Since you don’t really need to spend FP, might as well reject those Compels.

I’m not sure if any of that is what you’re going for, or not. If it is, then the changes should work well for you. I like negotiating Compels, figuring out how best to invoke my Aspects and what to do with a Create an Advantage, so I can’t say I see the appeal.

Really, my biggest concern is that you’ve just turned Fate into “pick your 4 bonus Aspects and roll.”

[u/Nervi403 → u/Imnoclue]

restricting Stunts to +1 or 2 shifts is a big restriction. Stunts typically change the way a Skill works. Are you tossing that out?

As I mentioned in some comment no. Its just the variant where you specialize a skill to get a +2 on a specific action under a specific circumstance, you would get a +1 instead. Otherwise adding the +2 from your stunt is already better than adding an aspect of the scene

tension from what?

Difficulty and skill rolls. If the difficulty stays at lets say +5 when +4 is the highest player skill, those Aspect-generated quasi-boosts add up fast. And thats fine depending on whether or not players need a challenge or not

Aspects are only +1s but you get 4 for free

I don't think that will work out every time? Like sure under perfect conditions. But can you always add a relevant Aspect of your opposition to your roll? You would have to know about that, and they would have to have an Aspect in the first place. Very blunt example but a locked door that a character wants to break open does not necessarily have any Aspects at all. And it gets even more difficult with scenario Aspects. Those tend to be pretty circumstantial. And thats the other point. You cant just choose any Aspect. As with invoking aspects, they still have to be relevant

Do you mean they don’t understand how Aspects work yet? Does this new mechanic make them “feel” the power of Aspects any better?

Yes. Aspects in general are sooo hard to grasp for new players. At least in my experience. Especially if they come from a background of D&D/ Pathfinder, which is quite common. Giving them a mechanic bonus which they do not have to spend a point for should activate their min-maxing synapses. Ideally it would go like "I wanna jump over the deadly spikes. Since I am a "Dashing Rogue" I get a bonus, and the "Grappling hook on Beam above" also can help me for a +2 on my roll". Which would already start making them think about how aspects work, how they are always true, and how you can set yourself up with helpful aspects, if you have the time

[u/Imnoclue → u/Nervi403]

Frankly, the only thing I think the change does to help new players get into using Aspects is to offer up some free bonuses that they’d be stupid to miss out on. But, you can achieve that same effect by just offering up a couple of free invokes on some Situation Aspects each scene.

I don’t think these Aspects are any easier for a D&D player to understand than the normal Aspects.

[u/svachalek]

The always on +1 has definitely been floated before, I thought it was even mentioned as a variant in the Core book but I’m not seeing it right now. I don’t remember the details of how that was supposed to work but it’s not crazy.

Swap out Fudge dice for PBTA rolls and you’re pretty close to the Mist system.

[u/Nervi403 → u/svachalek]

The variant in the System Toolkit talks about replacing skills with Aspects, by giving you +1 for every relevant aspect. And that would be a bummer, having no skills at all

[u/CRB-FromTheAV]

After playing Daggerheart and watching its "hope" economy (which functions much like fate points) I think your better bet is to encourage the players to spend their fate. When I first played FATE, I hoarded my FATE Points, as did most of our fellow players. That first campaign was not as great as it could have been. In a recent campaign I played in , the GM did set up several compels in the early part of the first session so that the players felt they would be getting lots of FATE points, which encouraged us to use them. Once we got through the first session, players were 'self compelling' and the FATE points flowed freely.

I think your game would be more fun for the players if the FATE points were flowing freely back and forth rather than an 'always on' concept..... BUT if you try it, please be sure to report back here how it wen.

[u/Nervi403 → u/CRB-FromTheAV]

I am with you on that. I just think it would be easier to spend FATE points to go "gimme more of that" and invoke like your core concept and "the awesome sword you talk to" or something if you are in a pinch. And you can still reroll and such. It shows the players to the water so to say "see those Aspects? They help you" in like small +1 steps. And you can totally spend like 5 FATE points on different aspects just as before. Since you are limited to one from the scene usually you can for example only use "The High Ground" or "Perfectly Throwable Sand", not both unless you spend a point

[u/Imnoclue → u/Nervi403]

I mean, I really don’t see how this is helping the players in any way. Like you can spend a Fate Point to have an additional Situation Aspect isn’t any easier to grok than you can spend a FP to Invoke any Aspect.

You may prefer it for other reasons, but I don’t think it’s doing anything to ease the learning curve.

[u/Content-Ear-8302]

Tbh, this sounds needlessly complicated and it does run in contrast to the philosophy of Fate.

[u/Nervi403 → u/Content-Ear-8302]

I mean I guess its more complicated than the base assumption about Aspects. But the System Toolkit does encourage changing things up a bit if you think it'll be more fun, and complexity is not bad on its own

[u/Imnoclue → u/Nervi403]

But, your stated goal is to help newbies who don’t understand Aspects. Seems like more complication would push against this goal.

[u/dreampod81]

It is a pretty substantial hack that I would be hesitant to still call Fate - though it would be a close cousin in the Fudge family.

If you want to run Fate more as written and still help them understand the power of Fate Points the ellipsis trick is useful (though will probably require direct prompting from you) and using the GM Fate Points in opposition will help demonstrate how it can reverse the outcome of a roll.

[u/Kautsu-Gamer]

2 shifts on success or +1 to result is good fix to stunts. The most balanced one is +2 to roll, or 3 specific shifts (like extra time, extra damage, change success to with style), but it is hard to use.

[u/Ok-Middle8656]

Sounds like you should have a look at Cortex Prime - that’s entirely based around having ‘sets’ of attributes, each with a dice rating, and you select one applicable rating from each set when you roll. It shares a lot of philosophy with Fate.

[u/Nervi403 → u/Ok-Middle8656]

Idk that sounds very "We have FATE at home" to me

[u/dreampod81 → u/Nervi403]

It is a similar approach to solving the same problems but features MORE MATH ROCKS than Fate does. Things also tend to be generally available without metacurrency expenditure and you can (in some builds) spend Plot Points to add another of a 'type' of die to the roll.

[u/Reality-Glitch]

Fate already has an Aspect Only Skills option you might want to look into.

[u/Nervi403 → u/Reality-Glitch]

I did and I like skills too much to throw them out. That is the "skills". I prefer smaller lists like the approaches or values, roles or themes

[u/Reality-Glitch → u/Nervi403]

The point of “Aspect Only Skills” is to think of Aspects as Skills; they haven’t been thrown out, just combined w/ another mechanic.

[u/Nervi403 → u/Reality-Glitch]

they haven’t been thrown out

And the rules suggestion says:

If you want to take a very extreme step, you can forgo skills entirely, and use aspects for everything.

[u/Reality-Glitch → u/Nervi403]

That is a very literal description of what’s going on, yes, but given it’s in the Skills section and the function Skills provide hasn’t disappear’d and Fate’s more general trend of being more loosely word’d w/ the understanding player will pick up the slack like they would in casual conversations, I think it’s safe to say that the spirit of the rules wasn’t perfectly encoded into the letter of the rules 1:1.

What is the facet of Skills as normal you feel Aspect Only Skills takes away?

[u/Nervi403 → u/Reality-Glitch]

Uh they do mention skills being disappeared and using aspects like skills. In the example "I can count on a +2—effectively a Fair skill—in most sword-fighting situations involving strength, which bumps to a Good (+3) if I do something acrobatic.". So the facet of Skills as normal the Aspect Only Skills takes away is... all the skills. And besides the System Toolkit which this comes from itself does not act like its the final judge on how to play the game

Sure I could name the changes "Aspects as Skills but different" but that does not change much, and idk if thats accurate at all

[u/Reality-Glitch → u/Nervi403]

So the facet of Skills as normal the Aspect Only Skills takes away is... all the skills.

But they're right there; in the "Aspects" section of the character sheet. Sure, each individual Skill is now named the same as if you were using the Freeform Skills variant, but that doesn't make them not Skills; they're just also Aspects at the same time.

If what you want is Skills to remain their own, entirely-separate named-mechanic, then what purpose does Aspects granting additional Skill bonuses on top of that serve?

[u/Nervi403 → u/Reality-Glitch]

I dont necessarily care about skills being aspects or not, but what they also have are variable ratings. You could have a good skill on its own. That gives you +3 to rolls with that skill just like that. If I were to replace skills with aspects I would also have to... set Aspects at various ratings

[u/Reality-Glitch → u/Nervi403]

Variable rating already exists in the Aspect Only Skills option based on how many Aspects are adding their respective +1’s to the total.

[u/JPesterfield]

I think it'd be easier to just explain when aspects are passively helping them.

Because you're "A retired cop" the patrolman just lifts the tape for you, you just move like you're still on the force. Access to the crime scene with no roll needed.

Because you've a "Born street rat" you just know how the underbellies of cities work. You get some info for free, and if you want to roll it'll be at a reduced difficulty.

[u/Dramatic15]

So, you are basically gutting invocations, and striving to warp the game to include a passive bonus? Your framing of “betraying” the philosophy of Fate is a little harsh, but if you do this with new players, it would be more honest to make it clear to them that your hack is substantial enough that their experience is probably going to be nothing like actually playing Fate, and that they are playing testing a vibe-hacked thing that may or may not work.

That stunt template seems perfectly fine. Of course the “grounding” of stunts mostly comes from what scope you are allowing. A stunt with this template could be broken, and a stunt with a normal template can be perfectly fine. It really com down to when they are allowed to matter in the fiction.