I certainty do agree that D&D 4E is onto something with its universal “skill block” for its abilities, even though I personally think it is more suited for MMORPGs and computer games. (Can’t wait for Bioware or Obsidian to come up with Neverwinter Nights 3 with it! I think it’ll be awesome). However, I also sense that it would take away lot of spontaneity for my game.

Fate 3.0′s Aspects are all-purpose ‘properties’ which definition is meaning up to the GM and the group. However, sometimes when attempting to create interesting items with just Aspects, I run into a need for a more specific version of Aspects. First, all the Aspects in Fate 3.0 have the same effect. Second, you could narrow down the scope but it’s usually something between the players and GM, not concrete.

I tried to come up with various ways to give scope and magnitude to Aspects. Here’s the earliest example:

Causes Less Damage (Fact, -1, Physical Damage), Petrifying Curse (Uncommon, +3 vs. Aura, Debuff)

This comes from the weapon Dreadwood Spike. It is supposed to do less damage but has a chance to turn its victim to stone. The first thing I’ve tried to do is to come up with a frequency for Aspects. Usually, in Fate 3.0, you spend Fate Points to tag an enemy’s or your own Aspect (if it is relevant) for a re-roll or a straight +2 bonus (which is quite hefty considering the curve of the Fudge roll).

One the things I have trouble with Aspects and Fate 3.0 is that there are certain properties which holds true all the time. For example, a blade which is super-sharp, an arrow which never missed once fired and so on. Why should the player spend Fate Points for something that is a fact? However, by defining something as a Fact I run into some troubles. For a given item, there could be lots of other facts. Do I have to list them down?

In the end, I decide to just have a Damage skill (or stat) for weapons. It’s up to GM to interpret what does that skill means. For example, a weapon with damage +1 is average. So what’s average? It depends on the world and setting.

However I would still like to retain different magnitude and scope of Aspects. Here’s the chart I come up with

Adding a Fact which just require 0 Fate Points to tag feels kind of nonsensical at this point.  Another difficulty is that I do not wish all Aspects to bestow a +2 all the time. So I came up with three tiers of Aspects. In the end, I did add in an Always but I rarely used it. Should it be there? At this point I have no idea yet. The thing with Aspects it they are only important when the situation demands it, hence the spending of a Fate Point. I believe I may use Always for an Aspect that is always a weakness, or its first tag is free and after that it becomes a Frequent Aspect.

One of the thing that I am still considering to tweak is this is not the usual Fudge ladder. I could have use the Fudge ladder to describe the Aspects, such as Average, Good and Superb – but I feel that the terms Minor, Significant and Major gives a different feel. In the end, I drop the Magnitude terms all together, and just tag a number to the end of the Aspect.

Another issue is when do the aspect apply. For example, the Dreadwood Spike puts a Petrifying Curse on its victim if he fails on an Aura roll (think of it as the spell resistance skill for Fate Fantasy) against +3. However, as times go by and I try to putting out magical items using this syntax, something dawns on me.

Aspects are “properties” of an object, not its “function”. In an object-oriented programming parallel, Aspects are the properties of a character, an item or a scene. Using that parallel, then what is the function (or method) of the class? Skills

As such, I simplify the “syntax” used to describe Aspects (from the Skysplitter Axe)

Lethality: +2, Breaks through Magical Barrier (Frequent Significant), Long Reach, Heavy

At this point I still haven’t settle for using “Damage” to describe damage, but stick to Lethality (hey it sounds cooler then). Also note the removal that instead of using number, I have returned to using the descriptors (“Significant”, instead of +2). Honestly, I was just playing around to see which format is the best.

I think I finally settle on a format which I like when trying to come up with the Winter’s Fang

Aspects: Long Reach, Piercing, Winter’s Fury
Skills: Icy Blast +3 (form: projectile, function: direct damage, affinity: ice)

An Aspect, if not defined with a magnitude and frequency tags, is always assumed to be a Common Significant (or Common +2).  At this point, I stumble upon an idea of defining the various abilities of enchanted items (and perhaps for Fate 3.0 stunts as well). The template is form, function and affinity. Form is a general description of how the ability is manifested, function is what it does, and affinity is just a “tag” of sort to give reader an idea what elements or concept is related with the effects of the skill. I could easily define a poison spray this way:

Skill: Poison Spray (form: spray [1 zone], function: poisons, affinity: snake venom)

I still have no idea how solid this idea is and would be able to hold up to the different tasks I have in mind. However, Ican see a light at the end of the tunnel…

• Frequency (rare, common, frequent)
• Magnitude (minor, significant, major)

The default Aspect has a frequency of common (2 Fate Points to tag/invoke) and a Magnitude of Significant (+2 to dice rolls).

Permanent Aspects or Facts

Some aspects are permanent. They always exist. For example, a wall is hard. That’s a permanent aspect. Tagging a permanent aspect still costs 1 Fate Point – the advantage is that you have to remember that when you tag, it becomes significant. A man can be a drunk and imparied, and normally, he would take a penalty to all his shots. Yet Fate is not a fine-grained system – so the system of tagging Aspects are is used to represent the moment when the fact that the man is drunk is important.

The biggest advantage about permanent Aspect is that they are i) obivous and ii) you don’t need to discover or place them on your targets.

What the GM can change now is how important the aspect is. A +2 or a re-roll is a significant impact; hence if the GM thinks the reason is too contrived, he can instead change it to a minor magnitude (+1 to roll and no re-rolls).