What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aldarc]

2. Let's step back for a moment and look at the definition of FATE's aspects as I think this will help us examine it at a high level (and perhaps shed clarity on what I mean by that...

I already did this. So from what I gather from the clarity you shed below, it means "you must be high for this argument to work..."

Aspects...
So it's a phrase that describes something unique or noteworthy about whatever it's attached to. I would say creating Bonds, Flaws and Ideals do the same (thought admittedly they are more categorically limited than aspects...).

I would say creating Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals do not do the same. Let's go back to something that I quoted earlier that talks "at a high level" what aspects do:

In Fate, aspects do two major things: they tell you what’s important about the game, and they help you decide when to use the mechanics.

Maybe BFIs touch lightly on the first if one is generous here, but they do nothing in regards to the second.

They're a primary (though not the only) way you spend and gain FATE points... so I would say that kind of debunks the tight coupling of FATE point expenditure and aspects,

I'm not asking you to read my posts at a high level, but I would appreciate if you read them on some level. If you did, then you would have seen where I established this point. So I am not sure what position you have debunked. But aspects do constitute three-quarters of uses, with powering stunts being the other. I would estimate that players engage with the aspects/fate economy 95 percent of the time, because we are talking about a rare special case of powerful stunts.

FATE points (which are the actual currency can be spent on bonuses related to aspects... but don't have to be. In turn inspiration could be spent on an action relevant to the Bond Flaw or Ideal... but don't have to be.

Yeah, and I think this is the wrong way to read this at a high level. I don't think that the "can/could" leads to meaningful statements here, and such formulations open the floodgates for some absurd" high level" comparisons. (E.g., a brick can be used to strike repeated blows on nails to drive them into a surface; ergo, bricks serve a similar function as a hammer.) Here is how I would see the "what" differently here, and this leans on your first formulation which erred closer to the mark:

Fate: Character aspects are the primary way you gain Fate points, and you primarily spend Fate points when your aspects may help you.

D&D 5E: Character BFIs are the primary way you gain Inspiration, but you primarily spend Inspiration whenever you want on things other than your Character BFIs.

They influence the story in one of 3 ways...provide an opportunity to get a bonus/complicate characters life/add to another character's roll... These are all things the Bond/Flaw/Ideal system coupled with Inspiration cover...

Wrong again, but I have already explained how before, and I don't think that it would be polite for you to expect me to explain it again when it's available for you to read.

FATE Points...

They influence the game... Inspiration does the same.

This again is an incredibly superficial reading of both, and it's difficult to see much value in "high level" interpretations if these are the results of such analyses. Much like with "can" before, "influence the game" is applied to liberally that it is virtually meaningless. Is this really how "high level" analyses work for you? Render something to the point of insipid meaninglessness so as to make false equivalent statements?

Fate points influence the game. Spells do the same. Fate points influence the game. Attack rolls do the same. Fate points influence the game. As it turns out, mechanics and agents influence the game.

Well I've tried to clarify it above but I am starting to think that many proponents of FATE see admitting similar their high level functions are in each game.

I don't think that you have. You have made broad, generic statements and applied superficial analyses. You have not demonstrated or articulated the function of these game mechanics in their respective systems apart from saying that they are the same or similar.

I'll just leave this tidbit from wikipedia and let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Love how the bold stops right before the BUT.

Hmmm... I disagree with how you view skills in FATE...I haven't seen anywhere in the rules where skills are totally optional. Can they be tweaked for your particular game, yes but they are assumed to be part of a FATE game, at least according to the FATE rules. Skills are how you perform any action in FATE not Aspects. If there are nothing but Aspects... what exactly are they being tagged to give a bonus too? Also FATE Core does have a list of default skills and suggestions on tweaking said list for different genres... Personally, I see Aspects as a modifier to the basic competencies of your characters represented by skills and stunts (these are the rolls being modified by FATE points which are in turn gained through Aspects.

Several points here. I would argue that skills are not about how you perform any action, but instead reflect the nature of the action, the what. The contextual mode for "how" occurs in the four possible actions: overcome, attack, defend, and create an advantage. Because you can use, for example, the Provoke skill to Overcome an obstacle, make a mental Attack, or to Create an Advantage. It depends on the circumstances of the fiction.

Two, Fate Accelerated kinda throws a huge wrench into this argument as well because it uses Approaches rather than Skills. Skills are about "what," whereas Approaches are about "how."

Three, if you read the Fate System Toolkit - also available to read for free on the Fate SRD - then it provides alternative skill systems including, Aspects only. You will still associate the Aspects with a numerical bonus, but that still is removing a skill list. See Three Rocketeers for one version of this. I vaguely recall that Shadowcraft may be another skill-less Fate game.

In FATE Core there are 3 actions...

There are four actions. You even quoted the Fate SRD above where it says that there are four actions, and it even lists them: Attack, Defend, Overcome, and Create an Advantage.

So it's the same thing you can do with an aspect. I'm sorry but in core FATE I'm just not seeing how someone who enjoys tactical play is going to find this satisfactory much less someone who's primary enjoyment is derived from it.

I must not exist then. IMHO, you are missing a HUGE element of the game: the primacy of the fiction. Aspects are always true and they are a tangible piece of that fiction that the PCs and NPCs can interact with. When you use Create an Advantage to create and invoke the aspect "knocked prone," then the enemy is knocked prone. And they have to spend an action to clear that aspect, equivalent to attempting to stand. You can use Create an Advantage to set up your attacks and defense so that you get a bonus to your attack (and damage) on the foe who is knocked prone. Create an Advantage "I have the high ground, Anakin." Create an Advantage "Stunned Against the Wall." You can do this using different skills depending upon the situation. And so on. You could take nearly every single detailed rule from the 3.X PHB that confers tactical fun and now condense that into "Create an Advantage." But without the, "I darn, I only have a 10 Int so I can't pick up the Expertise feat and then get the Trip feat."

I often find myself playing tactically in my D&D groups, so take it from me when I say that I absolutely love how empowered I find myself when using this system for my own tactical-minded play. But I have seen other super tactical players from D&D who need rules telling them what they can do find themselves tactically stumped by Fate, and I have seen non-tactical D&D players - once the grasp Create an Advantage - suddenly take off the gloves and become fierce tactical beasts. But the tactical play of Fate is rooted in the fiction first use of the mechanics.

 

[Imaro]

SNIP... Because if I engage with you at this point I'd probably get a mod warning or worse

Dude all the snark (and again mis-representing what I said) in this post was unnecessary and on top of it I wasn't even addressing you. I'd ask in the future if you want to engage with me loose the serious chip on your shoulder you seem to have developed for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You could take nearly every single detailed rule from the 3.X PHB that confers tactical fun and now condense that into "Create an Advantage." But without the, "I darn, I only have a 10 Int so I can't pick up the Expertise feat and then get the Trip feat."

Like 5e did with Advantage and the Help action that, well, 'creates Advantage' for a buddy?

 

[Aldarc]

Like 5e did with Advantage and the Help action that, well, 'creates Advantage' for a buddy?

I was speaking more along the lines here of tactical combat. 5E Advantage/Disadvantage has undoubtedly been an effective mechanic for streamlining certain subsystems of play between 3E and 5E. It's also something fairly easy for GMs to apply as a general rule of thumb or eyeball gauge for when it applies as well as for new players to grasp. Advantage does, however, get kinda dull or rote when it becomes too ubiquitous in practice.

I should look up again a fun example in "the Book of Hanz" of the Fate mechanics used by a roguish character for getting the drop on two guards because it highlights a lot of Fate's fiction first mindset and how it variously uses mechanics to emulate the desired fiction of the scene.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was speaking more along the lines here of tactical combat.

Yeah, I just found it amusing that an off-the-rack 5e Action happend to 'Create' an 'Advantage.'

5E Advantage/Disadvantage has undoubtedly been an effective mechanic for streamlining certain subsystems of play between 3E and 5E. It's also something fairly easy for GMs to apply as a general rule of thumb or eyeball gauge for when it applies as well as for new players to grasp. Advantage does, however, get kinda dull or rote when it becomes too ubiquitous in practice.

There's a whole thread about that last bit.

I honestly didn't even remember "Create an Advantage" from the times I've played FATE. But, then I barely remembered there were 'actions' at all, and, looking them up, it's probably because they're all pretty improvisational in nature, anyway, and improv is something I'm pretty used to.


...and, as always, anytime I start re-reading a little of the FATE system, I find myself thinking "I should try to find a game again sometime..."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is so dependent on which NWPs you choose to take though. Obviously if your taking a NWP tied to an ability score of 9 or something, your chances will be poor. In my experience, players tended to take NWPs that connected well with their abilities. And you can still increase your ranks in them. If you have a NWP for a skill that is 13 or higher for example, your chances are not that bad. Also, if the baseline is too low, I think it is reasonable to pad them with a couple of extra ranks or something. But why I liked them better than 3E skills was they were far less intrusive and they were so much more grounded. There wasn't this massive upward progression of scaling. It was just a roll against the ability score itself with some minor improvement in your rank over time.

2e's version is the MOST generous in terms of chances of success, but its still not THAT good, as the average stat is still a 13 or 14, which gives you somewhere as low as a 50/50 success rate, depending on the exact NWP (and lord knows what the logic for the check modifiers is, except most things that would be really useful in a tight situation are -2). Yes, you can, in 2e, sometimes have a certain NWP that has 95% success (20 always fails) if you have a VERY high stat. All of the earlier versions are MUCH less generous, the OA implementation is a flat DC that is often 17 or higher to succeed!!! 'Padding with a few levels' is not really an option for most PCs, particularly as the better NWPs all take 2 slots (and thus 2 per added +1 as well, ouch).

I think it is clear that by 2e the designers were starting to think maybe the rest of the industry was onto something, but it doesn't seem like they REALLY thought much of the idea. They clearly are biased against any real good coming of NWPs. The ones that would be good in a tight spot are double price and have significant penalties on them. It really is like they don't want you to get anything like an advantage of any sort out of NWPs. This is part of a sort of relict Gygaxian mentality that permeates 2e. The players are a sort of 'enemy team' that shouldn't be granted much leeway.

Not trying to convince anyone if they don't work in practice for them. All I am saying is, my experience was I used to laugh at NWPs as 'obviously bad'. But after years of playing 3E, when I went back to 2E, it was so much better. In actual play I just about preferred everything about them, and I discovered something that always irked me a bit about 3E, was immediately gone. So I just always tell everyone, give them a try for a bit before knocking them (I realize this might not apply to you, but again, so many people form their opinions on systems based on second hand reports from posters on forums like this).

Also, worth pointing out, NWPs are purely an optional mechanics. There are a couple of different options presented in the 2E PHB (at least in the first one----the one from the mid-90s might have changed things).

I have a PDF, and haven't gotten out my hardbacks in a few years. So I don't remember for sure if the PHB had Secondary Skills in it when it came out or not, but the later versions probably did, as the PDF text seems to be taken from them.

I guess I'm not sure in what sense the 2e NWPs are 'better'. I actually LIKE the way DCs scale with the level of the task. It provides the GM with a whole extra dimension, higher level skill-based challenges! The mere whippersnapper level 1 fighter has no hope of climbing the ice cliffs of the mountains of death, but my 20th level guy who stared Orcus in the eye and then stuck his sword through it, he can! 2e has no answer for that, except 'hit them with enough damage to gank anything lesser'.

4e's skill system is even better. Lush even. There's a short list, so no implied incompetence, nor much ambiguity about which skill to use. It just works.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2e's version is the MOST generous in terms of chances of success, but its still not THAT good, as the average stat is still a 13 or 14, which gives you somewhere as low as a 50/50 success rate, depending on the exact NWP (and lord knows what the logic for the check modifiers is, except most things that would be really useful in a tight situation are -2). Yes, you can, in 2e, sometimes have a certain NWP that has 95% success (20 always fails) if you have a VERY high stat. All of the earlier versions are MUCH less generous, the OA implementation is a flat DC that is often 17 or higher to succeed!!! 'Padding with a few levels' is not really an option for most PCs, particularly as the better NWPs all take 2 slots (and thus 2 per added +1 as well, ouch).

I think it is clear that by 2e the designers were starting to think maybe the rest of the industry was onto something, but it doesn't seem like they REALLY thought much of the idea. They clearly are biased against any real good coming of NWPs. The ones that would be good in a tight spot are double price and have significant penalties on them. It really is like they don't want you to get anything like an advantage of any sort out of NWPs. This is part of a sort of relict Gygaxian mentality that permeates 2e. The players are a sort of 'enemy team' that shouldn't be granted much leeway.



I have a PDF, and haven't gotten out my hardbacks in a few years. So I don't remember for sure if the PHB had Secondary Skills in it when it came out or not, but the later versions probably did, as the PDF text seems to be taken from them.

I guess I'm not sure in what sense the 2e NWPs are 'better'. I actually LIKE the way DCs scale with the level of the task. It provides the GM with a whole extra dimension, higher level skill-based challenges! The mere whippersnapper level 1 fighter has no hope of climbing the ice cliffs of the mountains of death, but my 20th level guy who stared Orcus in the eye and then stuck his sword through it, he can! 2e has no answer for that, except 'hit them with enough damage to gank anything lesser'.

4e's skill system is even better. Lush even. There's a short list, so no implied incompetence, nor much ambiguity about which skill to use. It just works.

The reason I like that 2E NWPS don't scale up like 3E skills is that chances roughly stay consistent. In 3E you end up with tasks that are impossible unless you have an enormous bonus. That scale can really make things thorny in my view. Whereas with NWPs, the chance doesn't have this wide range of probability.

I don't think most of them break down to 50/50. I haven't crunched the numbers though, but that seems on the low side. Some of the NWPs do have a -2 check modifier, but not all of them. Most, if I recall fell between 0 to -1. With cropping up on some of them. But you can also take ranks in them. But if the probabilities are off, this is a pretty easy fix. What I like about it is the consistency, the lack of 3E style scaling, the fact that they don't interfere with aspects of role-play, investigation and exploration that I enjoy, and that are a simple roll under die roll.

Again though, my point was they worked well for me in practice at the table. There was a night and day difference for the better when I shifted back to 2E for Ravenloft and much of it boiled down to how skills worked (though there were certainly other things). If you don't get that experience from NWPs, I am not here to convince you that you should. I just think people should play with these mechanics themselves and see how they feel in practice, rather than rely on discussions like these where you have two people trying to score points for their positions. Worst case scenario, they try them, and you're right, they suck. Best case, they discover value in a mechanic they may have otherwise dismissed.

I think we just largely disagree on the Gygaxian approach. That is a whole other conversation. I don't think it is worth getting into here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess I'm not sure in what sense the 2e NWPs are 'better'. I actually LIKE the way DCs scale with the level of the task. It provides the GM with a whole extra dimension, higher level skill-based challenges! The mere whippersnapper level 1 fighter has no hope of climbing the ice cliffs of the mountains of death, but my 20th level guy who stared Orcus in the eye and then stuck his sword through it, he can! 2e has no answer for that, except 'hit them with enough damage to gank anything lesser'.

.

It is an entirely subjective thing, and frankly I am not 100% sure why I preferred NWPs (I am just trying to offer the best explanation I can think of). But I know they worked better for the game I wanted to run. I found this to be the case with a lot of 2E, and I think much of it had to do with the approach to play and the assumptions behind many fo the rules. You frame that somewhat negatively (as Gygaxian antagonism or something). Whatever was behind it (and I think antagonism is pretty reductive, because Gygax was all over the map if you read him, and he was pretty well excised from the 2E material), it made for a better Ravenloft campaign in my view. I struggled with Ravenloft during 3E. As soon as I switched editions, it just never felt the same. Something about the NWPs and other features, helped me get the feel that had originally drawn me to Ravenloft. Beyond that, we're just going to be going over the same series of points and rebuttals I think.

With 3E I never liked the scaling of the system in general. I was also never a big fan of everything being oriented around challenge ratings and encounter levels. At least not for D&D. Don't get me wrong, I played the system for years. I mastered the system because I had to in order to keep my players happy. However there was a lot of frustration getting there, and in the end I just realized it wasn't the system for me. It was one that I fell out of love with the longer I played it. I ended up using it soley for wuxia campaigns after a while (because there I found the scaling, multi classing and feats worked pretty well for the style).

With 4E, I think the reduced skill list was good. But I just never clicked with Skill Challenges or the general 4E approach to things. Again, whole other conversation. I get that the game works for lots of people. I just never connected with the game (even under great GMs).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If a game asks you to "re-learn what it means to be an RPG player," it's strongly implying that it's not an RPG - or that every RPG before it wasn't. Neither seems like a politik sort of implication.

I've taken you for more sophisticated and less parochial than this. There are a lot of different RP paradigms. FATE and D&D (as examples) rely on different roles for players and GMs. Anyone who goes from playing GMing D&D (any edition really) to playing or GMing a FATE-derived game WILL have to relearn some things. They will have to learn some new things, forget some old things, and relearn some things that are just different. We all know this to be true of RPGs.

To imply that any game which isn't mostly like D&D in some way is 'not an RPG' is FAR FAR FAR less 'politik'. Anyway, I take it you really mean that you think the EXACT PHRASE is unfortunate, OK, whatever. I would take it non-literally myself.

Oh, there'll be some re-learning whatever you emerge from D&D into (obviously, other than Arduin, PF, OSR, Fantasy Heartbreakers, &c). Even in the 70s, going from D&D to Traveler, for instance, you're not treasure hunting, leveling up, and having your character fundamentally changed by arbitrary run-ins with curses, wishes, magic items, etc... you're just getting older.
Going to Hero you'll be re-learning all that, and getting used to the idea that the number (power/limitation/advantage) on your sheet only represents what you can accomplish, in game terms, not what/how you do it, that's night & day compared to D&D.

I feel like there's a lot more to this thought...
"...not just about..."
...but also:

?

I think that the point we're trying to make is that there are different sorts of variations in games. They follow 'paradigms' (I am eschewing certain sets of terminology which shall remain nameless here, as they are misleading). D&D has a paradigm in which the DM is central arbiter, deciding all that is in the fiction without exception, and players restrict themselves entirely to acting and reacting in character. Ideally in D&D everyone spends all their time 'in character' and there is no meta-game. This is generally also true of Traveler and pretty much all other 70's RPGs (there are actually a few VERY obscure exceptions, but trust me, you didn't play them). In fact nobody had yet conceived of any other paradigm at that time.

FATE and other similar 'story telling' games (and other non-similar ones too) work on different paradigms. In FATE the role of the GM is to present fiction, but as a response to prompts of the players in the form of aspects/troubles/high concepts. This takes a dynamic where the players spend FATE points to invoke/compel themselves to a high point, and then accumulate them again as the GM ruthlessly narrates them back into the pits of despair.

You have to learn each type of game. This is no different from how you have to learn bridge and pinochle, even though they are both card games, and even have somewhat similar rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Definitely agree.



Ok two things...

1. Let's remember the context of this side discussion... it was not if one player wants to play FATE and another wants to play OD&D then they can both get what they want by using a mainstream game like 5e... that's too specific and was never my argument. I assume if you are knowledgeable enough and focused enough and nothing matters more than getting the exact experience of FATE... well then you'l be playing FATE with a group of like-minded individuals... personally I don't think the specific rules and experience are that important to the majority of gamers and so my argument was based on players with particular leanings and preferences vs. a desire to play an exact system.

2. Let's step back for a moment and look at the definition of FATE's aspects as I think this will help us examine it at a high level (and perhaps shed clarity on what I mean by that...

-Defining Aspects
An aspect is a phrase that describes something unique or noteworthy about whatever it’s attached to. They’re the primary way you spend and gain fate points, and they influence the story by providing an opportunity for a character to get a bonus, complicating a character’s life, or adding to another character’s roll or passive opposition.

Defining FATE Points
GMs and players, you both have a pool of points called fate points you can use to influence the game. You represent these with tokens, as we mentioned in The Basics. Players, you start with a certain number of points every scenario, equal to your character’s refresh. You’ll also reset to your refresh rate if you ended a mid-scenario session with fewer fate points than your rate. GMs, you get a budget of fate points to spend in every scene.

When your aspects come into play, you will usually spend or gain a fate point.

Aspects...
So it's a phrase that describes something unique or noteworthy about whatever it's attached to. I would say creating Bonds, Flaws and Ideals do the same (thought admittedly they are more categorically limited than aspects...).

OK, so I don't have any real issue with this so far...

They're a primary (though not the only) way you spend and gain FATE points... so I would say that kind of debunks the tight coupling of FATE point expenditure and aspects, FATE points (which are the actual currency can be spent on bonuses related to aspects... but don't have to be. In turn inspiration could be spent on an action relevant to the Bond Flaw or Ideal... but don't have to be.

I don't understand what rules you are referring to here. FATE points are spent to either Invoke an aspect, to Compel an aspect, or to avoid the compulsion of an aspect. I know of no other general use of FATE points. In all cases they involve aspects (and these may be aspects of any part of the game world fiction, not just of your character).

They influence the story in one of 3 ways...provide an opportunity to get a bonus/complicate characters life/add to another character's roll... These are all things the Bond/Flaw/Ideal system coupled with Inspiration cover...

I agree that they GENERALLY relate to similar things. I think however that it isn't exactly the same. Its like you have bridge and pinochle, and you are discussing bidding and rules of play in each game. They ARE similar in SOME respects. Bidding in each game serves some analogous purposes, but one is still a quite different game from the other.

FATE Points...

They influence the game... Inspiration does the same.

Now here is where I see the major differences at a high level... The DM doesn't get Inspiration to spend and There is no starting/refreshed Inspiration each game.

This is A difference, there are many others. I do see similarity, and I have never denied that there was ANY similarity, just that they're different in ways that make it difficult to talk about in any non-trivial way without getting into. Just like you cannot talk about bridge and pinochle without some reference to the fact that they use different decks.

Well I've tried to clarify it above but I am starting to think that many proponents of FATE see admitting similar their high level functions are in each game. Do I believe they are the exact same or that the mechanics of 5e can replicate FATE exactly... no, but I never made that argument.

I think this is as simple as, having played D&D and FATE I can say that the results, even with 5e's added mechanisms is VERY different. They are profoundly different games, both in terms of how they play and in terms of the goals of play. There are also similarities, and we can logically classify them both as RPGs. At a core level they're both games with a GM and players who each take on the persona of a single character (usually at least). Chess and checkers move pieces on an identical board too...

Well to be fair that was a very recent statement on my part and not really part of my initial argument... Also, FATE started as a variant of FUDGE... so not sure I'm willing to totally backtrack on that statement however I think it's only tangentially related to my main point so I'm also not ready to spend a ton of word count on disputing the matter. I'll just leave this tidbit from wikipedia and let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Well, yes, FATE is based on FUDGE, but the mechanics it inherits from FUDGE (if they are used at all, some FATE implementations replace them) are used in a very different way. FUDGE is fundamentally more like D&D than it is like FATE.

From Wikipedia...
System

Probability of results in the Fate system
Fate is based on the FUDGE system, and uses FUDGE's verbal scale and Fudge dice, but most versions of Fate eschew the use of mandatory traits such as Strength and Intelligence. Instead, it uses a long list of skills and assumes that every character is "mediocre" in all skills except those that the character is explicitly defined as being good at. Skills may perform one or more of the four actions: attacking, defending, overcoming obstacles (a catch-all for solving problems) or creating an advantage (see below). Exceptional abilities are defined through the use of Stunts and Aspects.

FUDGE is entirely lacking the point economy which drives FATE. Yes, in FATE you can use a skill, as you could in FUDGE, to attempt to accomplish a task. This is a necessary underpinning which sets up the engagement of Aspects. So, a character needs to accomplish something, so a check is made with FUDGE dice against a skill. Aspects can then be compelled or invoked to produce bonuses and penalties to the check result. In FUDGE a character is COMPLETELY defined by these skills (and a set of underlying attributes which contribute to them). FUDGE is literally just a mathematical variation of Traveler in essence, they are both pure skill-based games. FATE is very different, even if it uses some of the same mechanics.

Hmmm... I disagree with how you view skills in FATE...I haven't seen anywhere in the rules where skills are totally optional. Can they be tweaked for your particular game, yes but they are assumed to be part of a FATE game, at least according to the FATE rules. Skills are how you perform any action in FATE not Aspects. If there are nothing but Aspects... what exactly are they being tagged to give a bonus too? Also FATE Core does have a list of default skills and suggestions on tweaking said list for different genres... Personally, I see Aspects as a modifier to the basic competencies of your characters represented by skills and stunts (these are the rolls being modified by FATE points which are in turn gained through Aspects.

You cannot say a given mechanic is or is not optional in FATE, because FATE isn't a complete system, it is a toolbox. Not all FATE-based games have skills! Also, FATE points cannot simply be spent to alter ANY arbitrary check, you MUST describe how you are invoking an aspect to get either a +2 or a reroll. ALL bonuses/rerolls are thus rooted in aspects, completely. You don't NEED skills for this to work either! You can simply assume everyone is equally good at all tasks, and modify checks via invoke/compel as needed. Aspects also allow tagging, which produces greater and more interesting effects, and there is invocation for effect, where you get to create a new piece of fiction by referencing one of your aspects. This alone is huge and unrelated to skills or anything from FUDGE mechanics.

NOW, possibly in some FATE-based systems skills, stunts, or other attributes (FUDGE also has other categories) COULD be highly important, and might be written so as to contribute more than aspects, or to temper them, etc. Its a flexible system! However, by default, aspects are pretty much the most important thing in the game, and the other things that are up there would be high concepts, troubles, etc.

Well I assume we are talking about FATE Core, if not then we have to make allowances for all the variations of the d20 engine as well.

Well, this is OK to a point, but FATE is not a stand-alone game. D&D is...

In FATE Core there are 3 actions...

Attack, Defend and Create Advantage. I think Attack and Defend are pretty self explanatory while Create Advatage allows you to invoke an aspect which in turn allows you to do one of 4 things...

Take a +2 on your current skill roll after you’ve rolled the dice.
Reroll all your dice.
Pass a +2 benefit to another character’s roll, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking would be able to help.
Add +2 to any source of passive opposition, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking could contribute to making things more difficult. You can also use this to create passive opposition at Fair (+2) if there wasn’t going to be any.

So it's the same thing you can do with an aspect. I'm sorry but in core FATE I'm just not seeing how someone who enjoys tactical play is going to find this satisfactory much less someone who's primary enjoyment is derived from it.

Again though, this would be like talking about 4e and only looking at the RC. Yes, it has all the rules in it, but you need other books to tell you what all the actual classes, powers, etc. ARE. You can only talk hypotheticals here. FATE barely has a combat system in core! However, if you look at Dresden Files, or SotC, or other actual games, they have various types of rules relating to specific genre elements. Characters in actual games can have all sorts of attributes.

I think it is fair to say that 4e would be more tactical than FATE, as a general thing, but this is still hypothetical. 5e, is 5e really tactical either? I mean, its OK to say a game simply does or does not emphasize something. However we were contrasting things...