Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6473447" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Folks in the Fate community (particularly the Accelerated part) are very fond of using aspects in the way you are saying they shouldn't. The buzzword is &quot;narrative permission&quot;. There's a blog post out there where a guy describes how you don't need any special rules beyond aspects to emulate physical invulnerability a là superman.&nbsp; However, they also wouldn't consider it to grant auto success as you fear. So, while a Kryptonian aspect might grant you a shot at tossing that battleship at the baddie, the roll would still determine whether it hits. Its definitely not for every group or player. Some folks just can't deal with the lack of simulation involved.The &quot;pitch black&quot; part of your post, IME, plays along this line as well. Depending on the fiction and table/genre expectations, the GM might rule anything from &quot;you can't see him, no&quot; to &quot;go ahead at -2&quot;. Certainly modifying difficulties should take such things into account, that's described pretty plainly in the rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6473447, member: 6688937"] Folks in the Fate community (particularly the Accelerated part) are very fond of using aspects in the way you are saying they shouldn't. The buzzword is "narrative permission". There's a blog post out there where a guy describes how you don't need any special rules beyond aspects to emulate physical invulnerability a là superman. However, they also wouldn't consider it to grant auto success as you fear. So, while a Kryptonian aspect might grant you a shot at tossing that battleship at the baddie, the roll would still determine whether it hits. Its definitely not for every group or player. Some folks just can't deal with the lack of simulation involved. The "pitch black" part of your post, IME, plays along this line as well. Depending on the fiction and table/genre expectations, the GM might rule anything from "you can't see him, no" to "go ahead at -2". Certainly modifying difficulties should take such things into account, that's described pretty plainly in the rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification