Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[howandwhy99]

I've been thinking about this some more and it struck me how Alignment in D&D is the rule system which leads players to cooperative play. That and being key to a whole realm of discovery for one of the core classes. But I can definitely see how Alignment is indispensable to the game as a mechanic.

Also Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic is best be described as the physical laws they represent. Creation, Stasis, and Entropy. Alignments shift depending upon behavior falling into those 3 categories: overall constructive behavior, overall sustaining acts, and overall destructive. And in player to player game play it means cooperation, solo play, and competition.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe I've misunderstood, but the worry that a player is "squirming his/her way around or negating a weakness" strikes me as a gamist concern - it's a worry that the player is cheating to gain a mechanical advantage.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. It's not about cheating to gain a mechanical advantage since denying or avoiding your TROUBLE aspect isn't going to garner you a mechanical benefit. Instead I would say it's about creating an interesting story... a character without a weakness or whose weakness never comes into play doesn't (IMO) make for a good story and begs the question why did you pick that as a TROUBLE aspect if it then is negated, ignored or whatever when a negative situation arises from it? Again you knew that in picking "Why''d it have to be Snakes" as a negative aspect... well negative things surrounding that aspect were going to happen to you in the game. Using "awesome" play as a reason the GM should avoid troubles centered around the aspect seems to totally miss the point of having a TROUBLE aspect.

I'm not 100% sure about what is meant by "there was going to be a monster". Are we talking about established backstory, or the GM's private intentions. If the latter, I don't see how those are relevant to adjudicating the game.

We are talking about the situation as it was first presented and going from there. Everyone else seems to get it not sure why you don't?? Maybe this will help.... the scene is framed with a monster already there... so the monster is not an added complication to the scene.

If the former, then yes I can see it. I had been envisaging the situation as the player rescuing some innocents; and the presence of the snake (or ogre, or whatever) is a complication (and if a snake triggers a Fate Point because it plays off the PC's aspect). If the established situation is not "the player rescuing some innocents" but "the player rescuing some innocents from an ogre" then the ogre is not, per se, an additional complication, given it's an already-established feature of the scene.

Again, what is the player "rescuing" the innocents from? If it's the monster then the scene was framed with the monster and it is not a "Complication" it is a part of the scene/encounter/whatever...

On the issue of "awesome play", I had in mind this passage that @Ratskinner cited (and I've seen others cite it before):

Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the blanks for you when you start the scene. Clever players may try to use it as an opportunity to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we like to call this sort of play “awesome.”​

It seems to me that this an invitation to the player, who is out to rescue some innocents, to remind the GM that s/he has a special thing for snakes, and to earn a fate point rom doing so. It certainly doesn't imply, to me, that the GM is meant to frame the snake situation from the get go and thereby deny the player the requested fate point on the ground that the snake was always going to be there and so isn't a complication!

Again if the player is rescuing the innocents from a monster anyway, and that is the scene... changing the nature of the monster does not create a complication for the character... It just changes the window dressing of the scene. A compel has to create a complication for the character. What has become more complicated for the player if a snake takes the place of a monster he was going to rescue the innocents from? The player could add the snake in to the scene with the original monster and that would complicate things... but swapping it out doesn't in and of itself create a complication

Let's look at [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s example in more depth... let's look at the actual examples for the passage he quoted. Here is the the character's aspect that is in question...

Zird has Rivals in the Collegia Arcana, which implies that some or many of them are scheming against him constantly. Because of that, a series of concentrated assassination attempts from someone or several people who know how to get past all his magical defenses would probably be a big problem for him.

The scene set up...

An Arcane Conspiracy: The Opening Scene
Amanda mulls over her questions and thinks about what she wants as her opening scene. A couple of obvious suggestions come to mind:

• Enforcers from the Collegia show up at Zird’s door and serve him papers, demanding he come with them.
• Cynere receives the contract and job details from a mysterious employer, and must decide whether or not to sign.

She decides to go with the latter scene, because she figures that if Cynere rebuffs the contract and then finds out that Zird’s going to the Collegia anyway, it might create a fun scene where she tries to get the mysterious employer to reconsider. And even if she sticks to her guns, it’ll establish whether or not they’ll have to deal with any drama on the way there, as the mysterious employer’s lackeys harass them on the way.
That doesn’t mean she’s going to just toss the scene with Zird aside—she’s just going to save it for a follow-up to the first scene.

Now here is the suggestion from a player that garners him a Fate point...

Let’s look at our example scenes above. The prompts don’t specify where the PCs are when they get confronted with their first choices. So, Amanda might start the session by asking Ryan, “Where exactly is Zird when the brute squad from the Collegia comes looking for him?”
Now, even if Ryan just replies with “in his sanctuary,” you’ve solicited his participation and helped him set the scene. But Ryan is awesome, so what he says instead is, “Oh, probably at the public baths, soaking after a long day of research.”
“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear, right?”
Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

Now according to your logic and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] 's view... Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication. Even Ryan suggesting the bath house isn't in and of itself a complication both of these are just scenery. It's only when Ryan is in that scene where they show up and looses access to his magical gear (i.e. a complication above and beyond his enemies just showing up) that Ryan gets the FP...

This doesn't seem that difficult to grasp and honestly I feel the way [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] runs his game is slightly divergent from the game the rules lay out (freeform scene creation. FP"s for enemies just showing up, etc.) so perhaps that is causing you some confusion as well. I'm not sure how to explain it in a more simple way than the examples above.

 

[pemerton]

Given all the threads where historical and pop culture figures are talked abt in terms of what alignment they would have, and given that on those threads most people seem fine using the alignment system as a lens for judgement (though there is certainly debate over whether the behavior of a given character or person falls into L or C or N) I think it is fair to say the probems are not as bad in practice as you paint them in theory.

Whereas my view is that the (practically inevitable) debates over whether someone is L or C or N show that the problems are as bad in practice as they are in theory.

Have a look over the description of alignments in the 2nd ed PHB (as I was this morning) and tell me how the description of CE and NE differ in any meaningful way: they both boil down to "will do anything to get what s/he wants", with the added bit that the CE enjoys bullying people. But enjoying bullying is a personality trait, not a moral judgement. Yet we're told in various places that alignment is not a personality mechanic!

There are other ones that I think aren't meaningfully different either - NG and CG, for instance. And I'm told that the hardworking serf is LG, but what if s/he is hardworking only out of fear and a lack of other choices, and - if the opportunity came up - would really rather live like that CG frontiersman? Which also looks to me like a personality issue rather than a moral issue - the frontiersman, for instance, needn't think that law and order in general are bad. He just doesn't personally want to be subjected to them. But there's no reason to think he's a rebel or an anarchist, and if the call is sent out for soldiers to defend the kingdom, for all we know he'll be the first to respond!

 

[pemerton]

We are talking about the situation as it was first presented and going from there. Everyone else seems to get it not sure why you don't??

Because I'm stupid? I dunno - I'm not sure what sort of answer you're expecting to this question.

what is the player "rescuing" the innocents from?

I was assuming that, in the fiction, it's established that there are some innocents to be rescued (because otherwise why is the PC in the scene at all?). From what? I was imagining that to be up for grabs. Maybe they've been kidnapped. Maybe they've fallen down a pit and have broken ankles.

I was envisaging, as the complication, that instead of being able to simply haul the NPCs out (via a strength check or whatever the relevant FATE mechanic is, or even "say yes" once they've been found, if the interesting challenge was tracking them down), the GM interposes a monster between the PC and the NPCs - and that monster is a snake because, after all, "Why does it have to be snakes?" To my mind that would be a complication - an obstacle between PC and goal that would otherwise be achieved as the resolution to the scene.

denying or avoiding your TROUBLE aspect isn't going to garner you a mechanical benefit. Instead I would say it's about creating an interesting story... a character without a weakness or whose weakness never comes into play doesn't (IMO) make for a good story and begs the question why did you pick that as a TROUBLE aspect if it then is negated, ignored or whatever when a negative situation arises from it? Again you knew that in picking "Why''d it have to be Snakes" as a negative aspect... well negative things surrounding that aspect were going to happen to you in the game.

I don't understand how getting a fate point for the snake being between you and the NPCs you were hoping to rescue is ignoring your trouble.

Presumably the GM, playing the snake, can use your aspect against you to make it harder for you to rescue the NPCs then if it were an ogre between you and them. (I don't know the mechanical details, but I'm assuming that this is how a negative aspect plays out in action resolution.) That's the interesting story that results.

I personally don't see [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s original suggestion - that the GM compels the PC to flee, and hence the NPCs get killed by the snake - as narratively all that satisfying, though I guess that would depend in part upon what had come before, and so where we were in the rising action. But if the player is out of fate points doesn't that tend to suggest that we're getting towards the climax? And resolving the climax via a GM compel strikes me as unsatisfactory. If that's what the game permits, it suggests a flaw in the design.

according to your logic and Ratskinner's view... Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication.

It seems to me that it depends on context, doesn't it? If Ryan's PC has been framed into a scene at the bathhouse, and is currently resolving that scene, and then the Collegia brute squad suddenly turn up, that strikes me as a complication that (if I'm getting event compels right) warrants a fate point.

In the example you give, the GM has already made it clear (and not just in her head - in actual play) that Ryan is being framed into a Collegia brute squad scene. So the complication is "no gear".

Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, and the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, and the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?

I also wonder - is there anything (rule or guideline) which discusses the use of compels to bring a scene to an end? The basic idea seems to be that it's about complicating scenes rather than terminating them.

 

[Cadence]

Whereas my view is that the (practically inevitable) debates over whether someone is L or C or N show that the problems are as bad in practice as they are in theory.

But debates about players having more control over the shared fiction only shows problems in theory with no reason to believe they're bad in practice? It would be neat to have a couple mirrors of scrying and a hoard of obedient servants to scan around to see how often either of these are actually problems at specific tables or tables in general.

Going by some conversation in the "try PF again thread", I'm also pondering the power that disliking a system element (for whatever reason) has to cause unhappiness in actual play. If a player doesn't like system A from but likes system B, will they be much more likely to grumble about things that are common in both rule sets only when system A is being played? If the system has element A that the player doesn't like, will their be a temptation to insert situations into the game to show how bad that element is?

Have a look over the description of alignments in the 2nd ed PHB (as I was this morning) and tell me how the description of CE and NE differ in any meaningful way:

Rereading 2e again, they could definitely be clearer! There seems a general vibe that the chaotic character actively chafes against any order (and so can only be part of an organization for the short term), while the neutral can take it or leave it as it serves there goals.

So the lawful privateer crew will obey their captain as long as he follows the unwritten rules of the occupation, the neutral pirate crew that is raking in the dough is likely to keep their captain as long as the money keeps coming in or seems likely to, and the chaotic pirate crew will probably be able to justify a mutiny at some point even when things are going well.

PF almost does a nice job of laying that out... and then keeps adding more words or trying to put in specific examples without enough discussion. So you get the possible overlap between CG and LN and that LN seems to contradict some of the example up in the general law versus chaos section. (Now I'm getting tempted to give writing something up a try.)

In any case, like every game element, the alignment rules are just a projection of something very complicated in the real world down to a game element that seems manageable and useful to most people. If people have all kinds of house rules about initiative and hit points and healing and etc... I don't see any reason alignment needs to be any more sacrosanct.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think applies to some of what @Umbran is objecting to in my formulation as well.

Makes sense too. In particular I agree about the functional equivalence. From the player's point of view, why should it make a difference when the GM decides that the innocent NPCs are threatened by a giant snake.

It's not functionally the same. It's not about when or if the GM decides the innocents are in danger... it's about whether that ....

The existences of retroactive compels effectively makes Fate Core a highly functional "No Myth" narrativist game, AFAICT. The text on p.74 makes no distinction between "Event" or "Decision" compels and their use in retroactive compels. It also explicitly encourages GMs to hand out Fate points rather liberally for such things; "-just look at the guidelines for event and decision compels above, and see if you can summarize what happened in the game according to those guidelines. If you can, award a fate point." (Fate Core, p. 74, emphasis added)

There are a few things wrong with your example above...

1. this isn't the situation we discussed.

No, but it demonstrates that Fate Core expects players to be proposing "Event" compels before Narrative Action is even taking place in a scene, that is, during framing. The GM proposes his first "hook" and the players suggest modifications that are effectively retroactive "event" compels. Earning FP without complicating any existing situation, but by creating one. The GMs suggestion for the opening scene (if he has one) isn't established until its effectively agreed upon at the table. Since this can also happen retroactively via retroactive compels, the framing of the scene is always available for FP mining. This means that the nature of the opposition is a viable source for Event compels. It is not, as in traditional games, merely the province of GM decision/design and beyond the players' reach.

Consider the example text immediately below the quote I gave (Fate Core, p.239). The PC wizard Zird is in the public bath, and his Rivals in the Collegia Arcana divine that it is the perfect time to catch him without his magical gear. Zird has no other established goal (this is the first scene of play) for this to complicate. The compel is completed (and the Fate point given) before any action is taken, and Zird is not required to do anything to receive said FP. He is caught without his magical gear and whatnot, but that is merely flavor with no mechanical weight (the magic system he is using is conveniently on p. 275 and mentions no gear requirements.) If I understand your thinking @Imaro (and possibly Umbran), Zird shouldn't get the Fate points, because the GM was planning on pestering him anyway (he is a PC, after all), yet the text says he does.

2. this still isn't creating an actual complication for the character, all he is doing is switching one monster out for another... How does this in and of itself complicate the situation?? (This is what is necessary, as so many have tried to explain in this thread, for a FP to be given).

3. Whether it's a big or little snake again doesn't matter unless it creates a tangible complication that wasn't in the situation as it stood before.

Complications to the characters life don't have to be the result of compels, they can just happen. Changing it to the snake makes it a viable compel on the snakes aspect:


You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, you find them and an Ogre/Bandit/not-snake is threatening them. Damn your luck.

vs.

You have Why did it have to be snakes? as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, you find them and a giant snake is threatening them. Damn your luck.

(If the family and Defender aspect both aren't present, it might not matter, anyway, because that would remove the need to confront the snake. Simply finding a huge snake by itself, wouldn't, IMO, be enough. If the character has other motivation/need to get past the snake, we don't know that from the scenario presented.)

More to the point, there is no monster to "switch out." The character rounds the corner and voila, there it is; snake, ogre, bandit, bandersnatch is undetermined until all the possible compels and whatnot are shaken out and the scene framing is complete. The existence of any opponent at all is (presumably) a bit of complication to <whatever motivation brought the character to wherever he his and what he's doing there>. However, the fact that its a large snake now means that it fits the "event" compel formulation for the character. Whether the GM had planned the encounter before and modified it, made it up on the spot, or it was suggested by the player is irrelevant.

To be clear, I think this kind of thing has evolved in Fate over time. The earliest versions were fairly straightforward with scene framing happening in a much more traditional manner. Some of the non-Evil Hat versions have impacted this as well. Its also not for everyone, to be sure, and Fate still works in that traditional manner.

I'm also not 100% certain that this means that a Fate GM can't ever force a character to accept a compel when he has no FP. But forcing a particular de-protagonizing action on a character seems against the spirit, if not letter of the rules as presented in Fate Core:

In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is. You can negotiate the terms of the complication a bit, until you reach a reasonable consensus.

 

[Imaro]

Because I'm stupid? I dunno - I'm not sure what sort of answer you're expecting to this question.

No, I'm starting to think (and I could be off here...) that you already have made up your mind about how compels should work and that along with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] 's examples (which again I believe are slightly divergent to how the game is presented purely by reading the books) are combining to make it very hard for you to be open to the possibility that your assumptions about the game are wrong.

I was assuming that, in the fiction, it's established that there are some innocents to be rescued (because otherwise why is the PC in the scene at all?). From what? I was imagining that to be up for grabs. Maybe they've been kidnapped. Maybe they've fallen down a pit and have broken ankles.

No the original scene as @N'racc presented it is that they were being rescued from the monster... then said monster was turned into a snake further along in the conversation. No mention of rescuing the NPC's from a pit or anything else, and I'm not sure why you assumed that when no one else in the discussion including [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] did.

I was envisaging, as the complication, that instead of being able to simply haul the NPCs out (via a strength check or whatever the relevant FATE mechanic is, or even "say yes" once they've been found, if the interesting challenge was tracking them down), the GM interposes a monster between the PC and the NPCs - and that monster is a snake because, after all, "Why does it have to be snakes?" To my mind that would be a complication - an obstacle between PC and goal that would otherwise be achieved as the resolution to the scene.

Yes and I already stated that if the character were fighting another monster and the snake showed up during the battle it would be a complication. Even the situation above could rank as a complication but none of that was presented in the example... you're now changing the example to fit your own desires for the snake to be a complication.

I don't understand how getting a fate point for the snake being between you and the NPCs you were hoping to rescue is ignoring your trouble.

First this wasn't what the "ignoring your trouble" comment was referring to, please go back and re-read the posts... I was commenting on your "awesome" philosophy where it wouldn't be "awesome" if the character ran from the snake... Second again you don't get a FP unless the snake is complicating the situation, as originally outlined by @N'racc this is not the case.

Presumably the GM, playing the snake, can use your aspect against you to make it harder for you to rescue the NPCs then if it were an ogre between you and them. (I don't know the mechanical details, but I'm assuming that this is how a negative aspect plays out in action resolution.) That's the interesting story that results.

Yes, but you are dictating how it should or shouldn't be used against him which is a purely pemerton thing. For some him having to run away and redeem himself or overcome his fear later would be an awesome story... in fact it's a staple of fantasy fiction. The fact that the GM can use the snake against you (through compels, invokes, etc.) doesn't get you a FP... you only get one when this actually becomes the case.

I personally don't see @N'raac's original suggestion - that the GM compels the PC to flee, and hence the NPCs get killed by the snake - as narratively all that satisfying, though I guess that would depend in part upon what had come before, and so where we were in the rising action. But if the player is out of fate points doesn't that tend to suggest that we're getting towards the climax? And resolving the climax via a GM compel strikes me as unsatisfactory. If that's what the game permits, it suggests a flaw in the design.

Why would a player being out of Fate points necessarily signal that to you? Since there is no constraints on expenditure of Fate points that coincides with where you are in the story I think your drawing of a connection between the two is mistaken. Just as an example, a series of bad rolls in a single scene could leave a character with no FP's.

As far as it being narratively satisfying... I could certainly see a Moby Dick like story arising from the character having allowed this gigantic snake to devour the PC's in his moment of fear and weakness. I could see him redeeming himself by hunting the beast down at a later date or even this being the catalyst that causes him to overcome his fear of snakes (i.e. change his trouble aspect) upon reflection of what it cost him... and to me those are awesome stories... the kind you don't get if you always succeed.

It seems to me that it depends on context, doesn't it? If Ryan's PC has been framed into a scene at the bathhouse, and is currently resolving that scene, and then the Collegia brute squad suddenly turn up, that strikes me as a complication that (if I'm getting event compels right) warrants a fate point.

Yes but that is not what happened...

In the example you give, the GM has already made it clear (and not just in her head - in actual play) that Ryan is being framed into a Collegia brute squad scene. So the complication is "no gear".

Yes and our example framed the character into a scene where a monster was already threatening the NPC's...

Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, and the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, and the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?

Because PC's do actually fail, because it could add to the story, as I outlined above in numerous ways. Because failure is sometimes part of the trouble aspect... because the player may be about to face something else that he will need the FP's for, and so on... I don't think it's bad GM'ing at all but then I suspect we have pretty big differences in how we look at failure in our games.

I also wonder - is there anything (rule or guideline) which discusses the use of compels to bring a scene to an end? The basic idea seems to be that it's about complicating scenes rather than terminating them.

Here's what it says about scenes...

A scene is a unit of game time lasting anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour or more, during which the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario...


Whenever you’re trying to come up with ideas for what should happen in a scene, you should think about the basic ideas of Fate that were talked about in The Basics—competence, proactivity, and drama.
In other words, ask yourself if your scene is doing at least one of the following things:

• Giving your PCs the chance to show off what they’re good at, whether by going up against people who don’t hold a candle to them or by holding their own against worthy opponents.
• Giving your PCs the chance to do something you can describe with a simple action verb. “Trying to find out information” is too muddy, for example. “Breaking into the mayor’s office” is actionable and specific. Not that it has to be physical—“convince the snitch to talk” is also a clear action.
• Creating some kind of difficult choice or complication for the PCs. Your best tool to do this with is a compel, but if the situation is problematic enough, you might not need one.

Emphasis mine... This scene clearly meets the last requirement and since a scene only needs to meet one of these goals, by the book a scene like this is valid. We have created a difficult complication for the PC that could/would (in the hands of a good GM & player) both come back to haunt the player and possibly cause character growth or development. Always succeeding is not a requirement for a scene.

 

[Imaro]

Snip...

Please o read the example I provided to @pemerton where a character is threatened by the Collegia but doesn;t get a FP until the complication of him not having his magical instruments arises... it pretty much supports everything I, and @Umbran have been saying about situations and compels up to this point... unless of course like pemerton, you assumed the NPC's were in a pit with a broken foot or something along those lines... in which case my reply is that the scene wasn't set up like that.

EDIT: Here's the post so you don't have to go looking for it...

Zird has Rivals in the Collegia Arcana, which implies that some or many of them are scheming against him constantly. Because of that, a series of concentrated assassination attempts from someone or several people who know how to get past all his magical defenses would probably be a big problem for him.

The scene set up...

An Arcane Conspiracy: The Opening Scene
Amanda mulls over her questions and thinks about what she wants as her opening scene. A couple of obvious suggestions come to mind:

• Enforcers from the Collegia show up at Zird’s door and serve him papers, demanding he come with them.
• Cynere receives the contract and job details from a mysterious employer, and must decide whether or not to sign.

She decides to go with the latter scene, because she figures that if Cynere rebuffs the contract and then finds out that Zird’s going to the Collegia anyway, it might create a fun scene where she tries to get the mysterious employer to reconsider. And even if she sticks to her guns, it’ll establish whether or not they’ll have to deal with any drama on the way there, as the mysterious employer’s lackeys harass them on the way.
That doesn’t mean she’s going to just toss the scene with Zird aside—she’s just going to save it for a follow-up to the first scene.

Now here is the suggestion from a player that garners him a Fate point...

Let’s look at our example scenes above. The prompts don’t specify where the PCs are when they get confronted with their first choices. So, Amanda might start the session by asking Ryan, “Where exactly is Zird when the brute squad from the Collegia comes looking for him?”
Now, even if Ryan just replies with “in his sanctuary,” you’ve solicited his participation and helped him set the scene. But Ryan is awesome, so what he says instead is, “Oh, probably at the public baths, soaking after a long day of research.”
“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear, right?”
Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

Now according to your logic and @Ratskinner 's view... Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication. Even Ryan suggesting the bath house isn't in and of itself a complication both of these are just scenery. It's only when Ryan is in that scene where they show up and looses access to his magical gear (i.e. a complication above and beyond his enemies just showing up) that Ryan gets the FP...

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

In answer to the OP:

It improves "my" gaming experience.

 

[Ratskinner]

Please o read the example I provided to @pemerton where a character is threatened by the Collegia but doesn;t get a FP until the complication of him not having his magical instruments arises... it pretty much supports everything I, and @Umbran have been saying about situations and compels up to this point... unless of course like pemerton, you assumed the NPC's were in a pit with a broken foot or something along those lines... in which case my reply is that the scene wasn't set up like that.

Just read it.

Let me pose you the opposite question: Same scene as in the example from the book, but its street thugs that are unrelated to Zird's aspects at all. Does Zird get the Fate Point?