19
\$\begingroup\$

I'm new in Fate, and I'm amazed by the game style and mechanics.

Nevertheless, reading the manual, I think I've found 3 mechanical incongruences.

Speaking about the Four Actions and their outcomes, in the Create an Advantage section, you can read that:

If you’re using create an advantage on an existing aspect…

  • When you fail, you give a free invoke on that aspect to someone else instead. That could be your opponent in a conflict, or any character who could tangibly benefit to your detriment.
  • When you tie or succeed, you place a free invocation on the aspect.
  • When you succeed with style, you place two free invocations on the aspect.

But reading the Defense section, you'll find:

  • When you fail at a defense, you suffer the consequences of whatever you were trying to prevent. You might take a hit or have an advantage created on you.
  • When you tie a defense, you grant your opponent a boost.
  • When you succeed at a defense, you successfully avoid the attack or the attempt to gain an advantage on you.
  • When you succeed with style at a defense, it works like a normal success, but you also gain a boost as you turn the tables momentarily.
  1. First incongruence: if A tries to create an advantage on an existing aspect of B, and B manage to tie the defense, then from the Create an Advantage section of the manual A manages to place a free invocation on the aspect, but from the Defense point of view, well, A will not have a free invocation on the aspect but a boost.

  2. Second incongruence: if B (defense) succeeds, it will avoid the attempt, but seen from the perspective of A (Create an Advantage - fail), B will have a free invoke on that aspect.

  3. Third incongruence: if B (defense) succeeds with style, then it will be a success + boost for B. But again, seen from the perspective of A (Create an Advantage - fail) B will have a free invoke on that aspect.

So, these are real incongruences in the manual of Fate Core or am I missing something?

\$\endgroup\$
20
\$\begingroup\$

Lenny Balsera, one of the main system developers for Fate Core, has given an official answer as follows:

So, first, the incongruity only comes up when you're talking about a Create Advantage action that piles invokes on an existing aspect. Making one from scratch, it all tracks:

  • Creator succeeds with style, Defender fails, creator gets an aspect and two invokes.

  • Creator succeeds, Defender fails, creator gets an aspect and an invoke.

  • They tie, creator gets a boost.

  • Defender succeeds, Creator fails, you don't create the advantage.

  • Defender succeeds with style, you don't create the advantage and defender gets a boost.

In the case where there's an already existing aspect, it goes like this:

  • Creator succeeds with style, Defender fails, creator plants two invokes on the aspect.

  • Creator succeeds, Defender fails, creator plants one invoke on the aspect.

  • They tie, creator gets a boost or a free invoke. In this instance, via the "Promoting Boosts" subheader in me and Ryan's thing, that boost can be promoted and hooked onto the existing aspect. But by Core rules, even if you don't have access to that, a boost and a free invoke are functionally equivalent anyway. No stacked effects, so the creator doesn't get a boost and an invoke, sorry.

Only reason why there's any wiggle room here is so that the narration can accommodate better. Frex, the room's On Fire and you want to make it more On Fire. But the defender's player says they're wrenching the gas can away from you.

It's a tie, so you can't exactly say that you ignore the defender and pour the gas on anyway. So maybe you just call it a boost in that instance, and explain it some other way, rather than hooking it onto On Fire.

There is a slight permanence advantage if you can promote to a free invoke, and hang it on an aspect, because then you can leave it there for a turn or two. Unpromoted boosts are "use it or lose it", so this is an instance where the ability to turn the fiction to your advantage with, you know, talking and stuff is useful. GM discretion, use your judgment, social contract, blah dee blah.

  • Defender succeeds, Creator fails, defender (or someone else in the scene) picks up an invoke on that aspect. Basically, the reason this is in here is to create some dynamism around repeatedly returning to the same narrative detail in a scene. If it helps you to see this through the lens of promoted boosts, above, then I'd recommend looking at it that way. You might tell me that it's then more tactically sound to invent a new detail for the scene than to keep hammering old ones, because it's easier for you to lose control of advantages already in play. And I'd nod at you and say, "Why, yes. It is."

  • Defender succeeds with style, defender picks up an invoke on that aspect / gets a boost. No stacking, so it's one or the other, as you choose. Effectively, what this means is that when there's an aspect already in play, and folks are jockeying for advantage, succeeding and succeeding with style for the defender are basically the same thing. Maybe that's lame, but every time this case came up, so much else was already going on in the scene that adding more cognitive load seemed like a bad idea.

Source: https://plus.google.com/104044332446362229092/posts/CnUGHFGkSxb

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you start a paragraph with >, it will format that paragraph as a block quote. This would help to make clear which parts of your answers are quotes from Lenny Balsera, and which are not. Also, a link to where he gave this answer would dramatically improve this answer. Despite all that, this is still a great answer; +1. Welcome to the site; if you haven’t, I recommend checking out the Tour, and in a moment you should be able to join us in the Role-playing Games Chat, if you wish. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Feb 18 '15 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is a very nice first answer! Welcome to RPG.SE. If you're new to Stack Exchange, you might check out the tour and the help center—they're a useful introduction to how things work around here. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Feb 18 '15 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks. I've edited the answer accordingly for maximal clarity. \$\endgroup\$ – Richard Bellingham Feb 18 '15 at 17:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alas, that I have but one upvote to give. :P \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Feb 18 '15 at 17:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan you can always work around that with a bounty :) \$\endgroup\$ – Wibbs Feb 18 '15 at 18:10
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your incongruences stems from the facts that there are 2 tables for creating an advantage: one for creating a new aspect, and one for an aspect already present.

If you’re using create an advantage to make a new aspect…

  • When you fail, you either don’t create the aspect, or you create it but someone else gets the free invoke—whatever you end up doing works to someone else's advantage instead. That could be your opponent in a conflict, or any character who could tangibly benefit to your detriment. You may have to reword the aspect to show that the other character benefits instead—work it out with the recipient in whichever way makes the most sense.
  • When you tie, you get a boost instead of the situation aspect you were going for. This might mean you have to rename the aspect a bit to reflect its temporary nature (Rough Terrain becomes Rocks on the Path).
  • When you succeed, you create a situation aspect with a free invocation.
  • When you succeed with style, you get a situation aspect with two free invocations instead of one

If you’re using create an advantage on an existing aspect…

  • When you fail, you give a free invoke on that aspect to someone else instead. That could be your opponent in a conflict, or any character who could tangibly benefit to your detriment.
  • When you tie or succeed, you place a free invocation on the aspect.
  • When you succeed with style, you place two free invocations on the aspect.

I believe you are right, the defense doesn't seem to provide a table to protect on an already existing aspect.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ thank you MrLemon for your great sense of esthetism and your pretty reformatting :) \$\endgroup\$ – Mouhgouda Feb 18 '15 at 15:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.