Otherwise, I think the overriding idea here is to not let the rules get in the way of the narrative, which, as you mentioned, is the Silver Rule. Now, FATE is different from most other RPGs in that it's a lot more collaborative in style, so I don't think that dropping in an aspect out of nowhere to compel players to go into a cave, for instance, is really within the spirit of the rules not saying that's what you want to do; I'm just heading that option off before it gets brought up and I would expect players to object because you're taking control of the narrative away from them again, though, I think if a player brings it up themselves they're implying that they want to create that complication - an experienced FATE player may out and out say "I want to create this aspect to complicate things, so give me a Fate point", but sometimes you have to interpret for newer folks.
If we strip away all the divisions we currently have about using aspects, reduce the process down as far as we can, and eliminate artificial distinctions, what we get is the following:. The nature of that relevance determines who gets a fate point or has to spend one. Someone gets to do one of two things: manipulate the dice, or manipulate the in-game situation or the story, or the fiction, or whatever you call the part that you roleplay.
The appropriate parties exchange Fate points. The whole entire point of FATE points is to give the players something back in exchange for taking a little bit of their storytelling powers away from them for a moment, or at least to force them into making consequences they then have to find their way out of hence the ability for self-compels.
Given that, I don't think that the game creators would say anything but that compels can be based on aspects which come from anywhere. That's not the Silver Rule or Rule Zero or whatever, it's the rules as written. Aspects exist. You can call upon a player to be compelled by one, and if they are, you have to give them a FATE point back. There seems to be absolutely nothing out there about aspects that haven't been explicitly stated at the beginning of the scene and I have to think that that's because, to EvilHat, a question like "how do you compel without an existing aspect?
With a rules system so open, a lot of items are best answered not with a "must" but with a "should". I'm not aware of any flavour of Fate that allows the creation of a complication in such a way that on the one hand players are involved in the decision and no previous aspects are required, and on the other hand it works using the fate point economy. However, Edgerunner comes pretty close in that its rules for Declarations allow one or the other.
On one hand, you can suggest a new aspect, other players may support or oppose the creation of that aspect. This holds for every player, and every player has the same influence on the result.
As an alternative form of declaration, it is also possible to compel an aspect into existence, based on another available aspect, subject to the rules of the compel as usual. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.
Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Tempting fate: precedent for compels without aspects Ask Question.
Asked 8 years, 1 month ago. Active 6 years, 7 months ago. Viewed times. Fate Core 71 I do know the Silver Rule gives us carte blanche to do whatever makes sense in the narrative, including this. I'm still interested in what documentation or discussion exists on the topic of compels without aspects: Does any Fate system talks about compels that have no aspect associated with them?
Is this discussed usefully by Fate game designers or players in blogs, forums, or the like? Improve this question. The old adage 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail' is something that can apply very easily to GMs in a Fate game when it comes to aspects.
Unless and until it becomes important to the narrative, it's just description that the player or the gm can use to then justify their subsequent use if it's going to be relevant.
They can be rejected by the player at a price, and if accepted they give the player a Fate point. That is the point, which means I am specifically talking about "interesting," "important to the narrative" situations.
I do think you need to clarify what kind of answer you are looking for though, because your current request is a bit broad and tri-pronged. Perhaps now it's clearer? Currently we are still under the Day of Reckoning tag, pending the guild name change feature.
We have lost a significant amount of active raiders, and recruitment is wide open to bolster the roster to return to Man raids. We are looking for active raiders who want to be team players. If you are in it just for the purples, you need not apply.
We raid to see things die, not to get their loot. To this end, the loot system reflects our goal. Each piece of loot is seen as an upgrade to the whole, not to the individual. Get Known if you don't have an account. In Night of the Living Trekkies , the group of survivors has organized and formulate a plan to eescape Houston before it is bombed; all they have to do is make it to the USS Stockard an RV.
Jim Pike's Sister Rayna, says, "could be worse. Rayna Says, "This should be easy", then they hear a whole mob of Zombies burst into the bottom of the stairwell. Finally, Jim snaps: "I order you to quit saying optimistic things. If that wasn't a straight line, my name isn't Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden. Ogilvy: The chances against anything manlike on Mars are a million to one. Thereat King Robert muttered scornfully, "'T is well that such seditious words are sung Only by priests and in the Latin tongue; For unto priests and people be it known, There is no power can push me from my throne!
0コメント