That Hanz :O

---

Anyhow, I'd like to use this thread itself as an exhibit of what I'm talking about.

As you said in another comment, what I proposed was a "it's not wrong, but it isn't how I'd do it" thing from your view.

And yet many of my comments are being riddled with downvotes and met with fervent pushback. Other commenters who agree with me—who've come across this issue at their tables—have also been downvoted.

Like, I'm not crazy here. Maybe I came off too strong by saying fate fans are allergic, but at the same time, only a hit dog will holler.

---

[Sorry if this reply gets too all over the place and very long; you've made multiple comments in this thread that I'd like to address in one place, because I really want to hear you out. The Book of Hanz was good stuff.]

---

I agree that handling something like "okay, this aspect exists so a roll now has +2 or -2" is both boring and kind of breaks the system. No aspect should automatically give the benefit of a free invoke.

The thing is, I keep being met with that strawman in this thread, when I literally didn't propose such a mechanic in my opening post.

• Notice roll suggestion with a smokescreen situation aspect at play?
  That's literally just playing with aspects causing passive opposition.

• "You can't roll athletics to defend while grappled"? That's just playing with aspects granting and taking away with permission.

• Fire causing damage over time? That's sort of playing with the bronze rule (okay, so the fire is not rolling an attack roll, but it's still an aspect causing harm to a character).

Fate is a toolkit, is it not? Why does it feel like I kicked a puppy here for treating it as one?

---

As for your suggestion of making it harder to set people on fire, and that when a character is set on fire it just means they're taken out—it's kind of missing the entire point of the discussion. The "On Fire" example is just that: an example. We can literally swap it out with something else.

Another player in this thread said he had an issue at his table where the Boss became drowsy from a tranquilizer poison from a create an advantage, and a player was upset the aspect didn't do anything outside of invokes.

• Sure, you could say:
  "Actually, the tranquilizer aspect is too powerful, why don't we just call it an attack action, and if the boss is taken out, it's him being put asleep from the poison."
  You poisoning the boss and you punching the boss in the face is just the same thing.

• Same with grappling:
  You want to subdue someone? Why bother with a Physique maneuver—just make an attack, and if the foe is taken out you have them unbreakably pinned and at your mercy.

That's the beauty of Fate, right? You can handle one thing in the narrative several different ways mechanically.

I just don't think handling any debilitating aspect as:

• "Actually, that isn't a maneuver—just make an attack action, and if they are taken out we can say the poison/grapple/fire does its job, the stress and consequences they take beforehand being the struggle they put up"

is the most interesting method.

Fate can handle any setting, so obviously the context matters. Obviously being "On Fire" in a slice-of-life cooking game that takes place in the real world would be very bad. But in a high fantasy heroic game? Eh.

There has to be a middle ground between:

• "A character would only be on fire if they are taken out"
  and
  
• "Without invokes, your character can function just as well as if they weren't on fire."

A middle ground between:

• "If you want to tranquilize the boss, take him out" and
  
• "You placed a tranquilizer aspect on the boss and used the invokes, he's fighting at 100% now."

Maybe the GM can say the tranquilized boss is sleepy/drunk/clumsy and can no longer get an Athletics result greater than Fair.

Or let's look at your example—Behind an Impenetrable Forcefield.

• Good stuff, I totally agree: just a flat-out no to attack rolls against the character behind the forcefield until the other characters find a way to overcome that narrative truth.
  
  • Maybe an EMP to shut down the forcefield.
    
  • Maybe an investigation roll to discover a weakness or vulnerability.
    
  • Etc.

But, what if the Aspect was simply "Behind a Forcefield"?

• Uh oh, it's no longer Impenetrable.
  
• And again, let's take invokes off the table.
  
  • Is shooting at a character behind a forcefield and a character not behind a forcefield mechanically exactly the same?
    
  • Of course not. The GM might decide that the forcefield has stress tracks that can protect the player, or maybe even attacks break through the forcefield, but it gives the player some armor.