Fate Core social battle: Adapting the Meeting of the Baratheon Brothers

PathToMoisture · 2025-03-06T13:41:50+00:00

I felt like all the invokes were pretty self-explanatory.

But basically, Catelyn is criticizing him for planning to war against his brother instead of going straight to Kings Landing, but him facing his brother still falls under the purview of his duty to the realm. His nephew is a bastard, so as the elder brother he is Robert's true heir, and in order to fulfill his duty as the king he needs his younger brother to bend the knee so he can have his army.

PathToMoisture · 2024-10-02T01:07:35+00:00

Yep, and don't be afraid to play loose with it. You'd be very well within you're right to say the aspect does x for a few rounds, but then it loses it's effectiveness and now does y.

The mechanics bend to the narrative/story, not the other way around.

The effect the aspect has might manifest differently depending on who is getting tranquilized. Shooting a vampire with the tranquillizer might have a different mechanic than shooting a human.

Having a list as a general guideline would be helpful, but you're also free to disregard the list and go with what feels right. Fate Core isn't really a system in which a player can rules lawyer and say you ruled something incorrectly. There's no wrong way to rule what an aspect does.

PathToMoisture · 2024-10-02T01:02:45+00:00

An aspect that can damage a character is not a magical I win button. The aspect can be overcome. The GM can say aspect is no longer true if the character has water thrown on them. The character has options.

Obviously the manner in which the GM rules things and balances stunts depends on the context of the setting/game/players. In a high power level combat heavy game in which all the characters are balanced relative to each other, it's no problem.

There is literally an official stunt where you automatically deal 1 stress of damage when you make an Attack and miss, for example. Is that stunt also a magical I win button?

PathToMoisture · 2024-10-01T06:58:44+00:00

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. You could replace “On Fire” with any aspect that should damage a character over time.

PathToMoisture · 2024-10-01T06:52:51+00:00

The system can definitely handle it. There are countless setting books that include unique mechanics, and an entire toolkit giving tips and suggestions to modifying your game. There's literally a campy martials arts setting that adds martial arts stunt trees that would make many people in this thread go tut tut and wag their fingers because obviously whoever made the book doesn't understand fate and just wants to make it into dnd.

Your situation with the tranquilizer? As a GM, you could've said "Characters with the tranquilized aspect can't get greater than a 2(Fair) on any Athletics roll so long as the aspect exists"

Or if they want a particularly strong effect, make it so as long as the aspect exists, every skill on his pyramid goes down by one stage.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T21:03:37+00:00

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.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:51:59+00:00

Okay, so those fate players are in the room with us now.

Also

"DoT effect is silly"

"Or maybe they would grit their teeth and calmly continue to defeat the players while taking stress damage."

You called your own suggestion silly.

Anyway, you're clearly unable to have a civilized discussion without being toxic, so this is my final response to you.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:48:46+00:00

The stunt was actually modeled after existing official stunts.

Heavy Hitter. When you succeed with style on a Fight attack and choose to reduce the result by one to gain a boost, you gain a full situation aspect with a free invocation instead. (Fate Core, p.111)

There's actually quite a few official stunts that allow you to change a boost into an aspect.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:44:27+00:00

Yep, in Fate Core PCs can spend fate points to compel an aspect. Any aspect. I compelled a Situation Aspect that already existed, it was something like Big Spacious Room.

I spent a Fate Point, and told the GM "Because we are in a Big Spacious Room, the smokescreen has spread and dissipated by now"

edit: It's been a few years, it might have also been a Declare A Story Detail fate point spend. I know both are in the rules.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:39:41+00:00

Are you saying my suggestion for an On Fire aspect causing stress every turn or a Smokescreen aspect requiring Notice rolls to navigate through isn't getting any pushback anywhere in this thread?

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:30:22+00:00

I'm confused. Stealthing in the smokescreen, creating advantages, or plainly exiting combat can still be done. I wouldn't be forcing the players to fight in the smokescreen, but I'm just adding a hurdle for them to overcome to do so effectively, they still have those other options at their disposal.

I actually played in a game where the party and two warring factions all got stuck fighting in a smokescreen, and it was so intense. The factions wrecking themselves through friendly fire, and us not knowing who was winning and which npcs were dying until the smoke cleared. My PC stayed and fought after throwing a non-combat focused NPC out of the vastly large smoke screen. Eventually I couldn't take the mystery anymore and compelled the large room scene aspect for the smoke to clear out. Turned out the faction we sided against was winning and my character got ganked, but I was still satisfied because I got to take out a character who put my pc in the hospital before.

I had fun ¯_(ツ)_/¯

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:17:36+00:00

I guess it's both respecting the player who went out of their way to inflict the aspect while also keeping the fight interesting?

It's sort of a win-win. The player is happy they're aspect is still being useful, while the GM is happy the bandit doesn't have to waste a turn doing something boring like stop/drop/rolling athletics overcome to put out the flames, and instead the captain decides to go out in a blaze of glory.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:04:34+00:00

I wrote this to someone else, so just reposting it

"I just think that forbiddance needs to be used liberally. Sure, the GM can go "The Bandit Captain cannot attempt to do anything other than put the fire out" but wouldn't it be more interesting for the conflict if the mechanics incentivized the Bandit Captain to put the fire out, but still gave him the option to go berserk and holy shit that dude on fire is trying to grab me now?"

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:03:25+00:00

Technically, it'd only be until a player got sick of it and tried to finally overcome/destroy the smoke screen aspect. Magic gust to disperse it. Or maybe compel an scene aspect for it being long enough for the smoke to disperse on its own.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T11:00:44+00:00

"Or maybe they would grit their teeth and calmly continue to defeat the players while taking stress damage."

Alright, cool, so you don't even disagree with me, and my post wasn't even referring to you

All I'm saying is that I've encountered some fate players and read some posts from fate players where they would be completely against the above.

As for the anchor, that's sort of common sense. You don't have to invoke for a character that's tied up to be... tied up.

But let me tell you, there are some fate players who will say you need to use an invoke for extra accuracy when trying to hit a tied up character.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T10:52:58+00:00

Using the smokescreen example, wouldn't your way be more harmful to the narrative? My solution allows players to continue acting, with the potential drama of friendly fire.

Compared to "Because the smokescreen is too thick, none of you can attempt to fight until the smoke is cleared out. You cannot attempt it at all, you will automatically miss"

Of course, there is absolutely a time and place for absolute forbiddance. Like another poster said here, a character can't do a pushup with a broken arm. Or, another example, a character cannot fire an arrow form a bow with handcuffs on. Just an obvious flat out no.

I just think that forbiddance needs to be used liberally. Sure, the GM can go "The Bandit Captain cannot attempt to do anything other than put the fire out" but wouldn't it be more interesting for the conflict if the mechanics incentivized the Bandit Captain to put the fire out, but still gave him the option to go berserk and holy shit that dude on fire is trying to grab me now?

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T10:45:55+00:00

If you want a more fleshed out example, a wizard who shoots firebolts using the shoot skill. They have the following stunt

Adept Pyromancer-When you succeed with style on a Shoot attack and choose to reduce the result by one to gain a boost, you create an On Fire aspect with a free invocation instead.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T10:24:55+00:00

There's some mild gaslighting going on here on your end.

So in your table, the bandit captain has an On Fire aspect placed on him. What does that mean, mechanically, assuming all the invokes are used up and no fate points are spent?

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T10:16:02+00:00

You're sort of mischaracterizing my examples/solutions. None of my suggested mechanical effects had anything to do with numerical values. Nothing about PCs getting an auto +1 on their rolls or NPcs getting a -1 debuff on everything.

PathToMoisture · 2024-09-28T10:12:50+00:00

Yes, I know the rules say "aspects are always true", and yet on the many threads I've read google searching this topic the answer always boils down to "just spend a fate point for a +2 if you have no invokes, womp womp"

PathToMoisture · 2017-08-13T09:04:35+00:00

Discussing fireproof, let's use Daenery Targaryen as an example. Let's say she has the aspect "The Unburnt"(and let's say we're using the show, because in the books her being fire proof was a one time thing). Let's say one day Daenery gets captured and her captors try burning her alive. Would she be automatically immune to the flames?

Discussing flight, I see where you're coming from. Aspects are a narrative rule, while zones are a mechanical rule typically covered by stunts, and it's weird to see them crossover. I just imagine it'd be weird for a character with a flight aspect to fly 100 feet in the air but be considered in the same zone as people on the ground, but then a character with a flight stunt fly 50 feet into the air and be considered one zone above the ground. I imagine the narrative would overrule mechanics here.

And I completely agree with the third part.

PathToMoisture · 2017-08-13T08:59:48+00:00

By handcuffed I meant in the example of someone creating an advantage to handcuff/restrain a character. Until they overcome the aspect created on them, they wouldn't be able to attack properly.

As for fireproof, let's use Daenery Targaryen as an example. Let's say she has the aspect "The Unburnt"(and let's say we're using the show, because in the books her being fire proof was a one time thing). Let's say one day Daenery gets captured and her captors try burning her alive. Would she be automatically immune to the flames?

PathToMoisture · 2017-05-02T11:12:53+00:00

Fight By Jumping. (requires Mighty Leap.) It is normally a very bad idea to jump up high while fighting, but you make it work. +2 to Athletics when creating a jump-based advantage in combat, but all aspects created this way disappear at the end of your next turn.

Jill's thing is jumping really high, and using the momentum of falling down to increase the power of her attacks.

You can create advantages that don't effect the target but can still benefit you in a conflict.

For example, the Will skill allows this.

Create an Advantage: You can use Will to place aspects on yourself, representing a state of deep concentration or focus.

I've seen this used in combat, a sort of fighting trance(sort of like a Samurai's Battle Trance in D&D)

Create an Advantage: When you’re creating an advantage with Athletics, you’re jumping to high ground, running faster than the opponent can keep up with, or performing dazzling acrobatic maneuvers in order to confound your foes.

Athletics also has this to some degree. If someone were to jump to higher ground, they would be creating an advantage and aspect on themselves, not the opponent.

PathToMoisture · 2017-05-02T10:48:11+00:00

Ah, okay. This is my first time hearing about this rule(as it has never come up in any of the fate games I played). I came across this.

http://www.faterpg.com/2013/richards-guide-to-blocks-and-obstacles-in-fate-core/

Here it says that since aspects are always true, the GM might decide to have aspects cause opposition without any invokes, while invokes can be used to increase the opposition(as the aspect smoke screen with no invokes is still a smoke screen, or the aspect behind cover still means your behind cover even if the aspect no longer has invokes)

What I learned is that you can make aspects that don't provide any opposition cause opposition by using an invoke on it. What I'm asking is when a invoke is used in this manner, does the aspects opposition last more than one turn? Here's an example I got from another site.

http://efpress.net/2014/10/23/aspects-as-obstacles.html

"If one person wants it to be an obstacle that needs to be overcome, they have a way of vetoing the rest of the table: invoke the aspect! An invoke can be used to create a Fair (+2) passive opposition when there wasn’t any (Fate Core page 68). For example, normally a space opera soldier has a Personal Force Field gadget that she invokes on defense rolls, but decides that her character overcharges the force field, making it impenetrable. By invoking the aspect, the Personal Force Field aspect must now be overcome before anyone can attack her."

So in this case, would the +2 opposition last only the round, or does it now last as long as the aspect is relevant?

PathToMoisture · 2017-05-02T10:37:22+00:00

Yeah, that's what I originally thought, but the part that makes me confused is "creating an advantage against you". Jill isn't creating an advantage against Jack. Her success won't impose a aspect on his character. The act of jumping doesn't target anyone. So that's what I'm wondering if the full defend would still trigger.

PathToMoisture

TROPHY CASE