[Atomic Robo] On Modes

Wow, I really thought I'd posted once in October! I've had a hack I've wanted to blog about for the past six weeks or more.

Anyway, something more pressing has come up. Jonathan Hobbs asked on Twitter for more guidance regarding the creation and implementation of modes in homebrew Fate games. Specifically, he had these questions:

How do I identify the key areas of competency to represent? 

Well, for ARRPG it was pretty easy, to be honest -- I knew Action and Science had to be in there, because of Action Scientists. Neither of those really covered talking, which is another thing characters in the comic do, seeing as how most of them are human and all. Thus, Banter. And then I had some other standard Fate Core skills left over, like Burglary, Deception, and Stealth -- again, all things humans need to be able to do -- which suggested the need for a fourth mode: Intrigue.

This is a bigger issue than just this, though. You're really asking "What is my game about?" If it weren't a game about scientists, there wouldn't have been a Science mode. 

What is the impact of a larger or smaller number of modes? 

Something Fred Hicks and I realized in the early days of Robo's development was that with four standard modes, you're really deciding "Which one of these isn't important to me?" Which is great for fast character creation, because your range of choices is very manageable. "She's not good with people" translates easily to not having the Banter mode.

So I think four's the practical minimum, or you don't have any real choice at chargen. Too many and you're replacing one problem ("Which skills should I pick from this big list of skills?") with another ("Which modes should I pick from this big list of modes?"). It also depends on how many skills you're working with. If your list is, say, 12 skills long, the more modes you have the less relevant and distinctive they'll be.

How do I determine how many skills should be in these modes, and what is the impact of modes generally having a large number of skills (5-8) vs a small number (3-4)? 

I'm going to make a few ARRPG assumptions: PCs have 30 points to spend on this stuff, skills cost points depending on how many applications they have, and the cost of a mode is the total of its skills' costs.

So assuming all that's in play, the number of skills in a mode is going to be practically limited by their cost. Generally speaking, I think you want to keep the cost of a mode below 10 points. Three 9-point modes still gives you 3 points left over to customize a little bit. Certainly I think it's useful to keep the costs of all of your standard modes at around the same value, so you can pick any given three and not worry about going over your budget.

Three of Robo's four standard modes are 9 points each, and the fourth, Science, is weird -- like, literally weird, not game-term weird. That's intentional. It's totally coincidental that each of those three 9-point modes happens to have six skills.

If you're not working with points and all that jazz, and are just eyeballing them, like the rules for modes in the Fate System Toolkit do, then -- well, actually, just seek out the FST if you haven't already, because it already has advice along these lines in it. 

How do I determine if I should want a skill to be in many modes or few modes? 

I say start with as few skills in each mode as you think it needs, and then fill in from there. If it only needs three, and you can't think of another that absolutely has to be in there, then keep it at three. If it has more than six or seven, ask yourself if the theme of the mode is too broad.

For example, I'm pretty sure the Action mode started with Athletics, Combat, and Physique as its core skills. Those are the things I expect a one-dimensional "action hero" to be able to do. Rambo, Indiana Jones, and Brienne of Tarth are different kinds of people, but I think we can agree they all at least have these three skills rated above Mediocre. Then I was like, wait, Robo's a pilot -- where does that fit in if his three modes are Action, Science, and Robot? Certainly it's not an inherent part of Science or Robot, and operating a vehicle seems pretty action-heroic, so Action acquired Vehicles. I think Notice came next, because only Intrigue had it at the time (before Science got it too) and it didn't make sense that anyone who isn't good at sneaking around is equally ungood at spotting someone sneaking around. Last came Provoke, because being intimidating seems like an action-hero thing, too. (Another skill that Robo definitely has that doesn't seem to have a place in either Science or Robot.) As it happens, these six skills came to 9 points, as did the six for Banter and Intrigue.

Basically, if you can rationalize that everyone with this mode should also have these skills, then that's what skills the mode should have. Can every robot crack wise? Like, does the typical Dalek bother with strong words or witty repartee or really care about people in a social way at all? The answer is obviously EXTERMINATE. So Robot shouldn't contain Provoke, Rapport, or Empathy, even though it isn't unreasonable that a robot could have those skills -- they're just not a product of that robot's robotic nature. But every robot is probably designed in a way that makes at least Athletics, Notice, and Physique relevant to its operation, so those are good candidates for core Robot skills. (I believe I gave the Robot mode in ARRPG Will as well, for two main reasons: to reflect the computer brain it likely has, and also that because I don't like my robots to be easily intimidated.)

What approaches for mode creation work well, and how should I be attempting to draft these up and piece them together?This... is tough. I mean, I've only used the one approach to doing this, really. Even the one in the FST is more or less the above method (so-called) without the mathematical rigor. I dunno, anyone else have any thoughts on different ways to approach modes?

[Atomic Robo] Character Creation Example

A couple days ago, ARRPG layoutist Adam Jury sent me a two isolated pages to review, and after I did that reviewing, it occurred to me that they'd make a pretty good preview snippet for a preview-hungry public. They're not the most art-intensive two pages in the book, but they do a good job of showing you one or two ways in which we're swiping elements of the medium (of comics) for our own gamey purposes.

So here it is: an example of E-Z No-Math Character Creation. Enjoy!

[Atomic Robo] Invaders from Mars Characters

I had fun making these characters for the one-shot tomorrow, so I figured I'd share 'em with you all. Apart from a rare couple of exceptions, I haven't been making full-on pre-gens for these playtests, because I've wanted to see how players handled the E-Z No-Math Character Creation that's the default in Atomic Robo: The Roleplaying Game. But I think I've seen plenty of that thus far, and besides, I have to write up a number of characters from Robo canon anyway.

And you know what? It was a lot of fun. '30s Robo, Jack Tarot, and Helen in particular, because it gave me an excuse to pore over The Deadly Art of Science. Of the other two characters, one's based on Welles'  character in his War of the Worlds radio drama, and the other's wholly invented but a plausible participant in the events of the scenario. (I also enjoyed finding character portraits, which is something I rarely do.) Regardless, they all look fun to play. Here's hoping I'm right about that, eh? Guess we'll find out tomorrow at Dice House Games!

So here they are. If you're in the playtest, check it out! More characters ready-made for you! If you're not, then check it out! Here's what characters look like!

[Atomic Robo] Progress so far...

Note: Progress not to scale.

For the last couple weeks, I've really been pushing to put things together for the upcoming ARRPG playtests at San Diego Comic-Con and Gam3rcon, Connecticon, and [another almost-confirmed convention in Wisconsin] next month.

(BTW, have you seen the gaming schedule for Connecticon? Swords Without Master! Misspent Youth! Fiasco! Shock! Dresden Files! Damn, that looks like a pretty great con.)

(Also remember that, at this point, we expect Brian Clevinger, Scott Wegener, and Zack Finfrock to be in attendance at Connecticon, possibly playing ARRPG, possibly just hanging around the table and pointing out everything that's wrong about it. Either way!)

As for the game itself, I'm really pleased with where things are so far. I sent the GMs in question four PDFs, entitled Skills and Stunts, Making Characters, Other Rules, and Sample Characters. I'll give you three guesses what they're about!

There are a lot of new twists and turns to the FATE you know and (hopefully) love, and more than a few to Fate Core, but you haven't even seen that yet so there's almost no point bringing it up. If you're a Strange FATE fan, you'll find some familiar tidbits in there as well. As I've said before, a major design goal for ARRPG is the versatility of Strange FATE in a more streamlined package.

I'm happy -- almost pleasantly surprised, even -- with how easy and fun those sample characters were to make, even if Robo's is likely to draw some criticism. I mean, I think it looks good, but it's a given that when you make a character sheet for a comic-book character, someone's going to point out that you've done it wrong, right? I have nothing but respect for those people. Keep me honest, pointer-out people.

In an odd way, the thing that might stand out the most as a big deal about these new rules is the elimination of Refresh as a character-specific stat or measure of power. It's something that's been in every FATE-based game I've ever played or seen, as far as I can recall, so for that reason alone it feels kinda cool to cut it out. That was another early design decision, too. This way is better, at least for Atomic Robo. You'll see for yourself soon enough.

Anyway. That's the update. I'll post another after Comic-Con, when there's something new to report. Until then, remain calm and trust in Science!

[Greyhawk] Attributes as Stunts, Skills, & Aspects

One of the interesting design decisions about Fate is the idea that practically everything is a skill. I happen to really like the concept that “Strength is a skill” and so forth.

However in AD&D, you have the concept of attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Charisma) as being established at character creation and then generally not changing too much through a character’s progression through levels.

When translating attributes into skills for Fate this also means the player now has the ability to increase a character’s attributes (as skills) throughout that character’s class progression.

Some attributes are pretty easy translations into Fate skills while others might require some additional consideration.

AD&D Attributes and SotC Skills

So most attributes translate pretty easily into existing skills in Spirit of the Century...

• STRength = Might Skill
• INTelligence = <None>
• DEXterity = Athletics Skill
• CONstitution = Toughness Skill
• WISdom = <None>
• CHArisma = Rapport Skill (probably)

...so we’re left with what to do about Intelligence and Wisdom attributes?

You could always just discard Intelligence and Wisdom attributes, but there's plenty of things in the AD&D gameworld that do depend on high intelligence and wisdom.

There’s always the idea that you could “just create new skills” to be 1:1 parallels. However, from a roleplaying perspective I happen to like with the idea that those skills DON’T exist as such. Additionally in Fate, I think there's some interesting things in place around the “meta” of things like intelligence and wisdom that I didn't want to mess with. So what to do?

Perhaps asking the question in a more “actionable” way... what are some other options for Fate about characters and rules that deal with very HIGH or very LOW intelligence or wisdom?

Attributes that Have No Fate Skill

I've started from an assumption where the middle range of an attribute typically has little if any effect on modifying the game. So then we'd just need to worry about the lower and upper range of character potential.

Translating LOW Attributes

Fate makes this pretty easy, by having more overtly negative Aspects to represent a character with low attributes.

So, low intelligence might be replaced with an aspect of something like:

• “...Whaaaaat?”
• “Tetched in the Haid”
• “See, it’s on account of this plate in my skull...”

Translating HIGH Attributes

When translating the effect of higher attributes, I think you need to consider what the higher attribute grants the character within the gameworld.

In the case of the Intelligence attribute, one feature requiring high intelligence is that it allows the character to access the higher levels of Magic-User spells (7th through 9th level, specifically).

So, it would be possible to create Stunts like “Exceptional Intelligence” and “Epic Intelligence” for the Wizard class that act as an additional requirement to access higher spell levels. Gametesting would help determine if those stunts would be progressive (one replaces the other), or if one requires another (eg., the stunt to access 9th level spells requires having the stunts to access 8th and 7th level spells).

Gameworld Impact of Translations

With those ideas as a test, then consider the gameworld’s assumptions that are placed on that attribute.

For example, AD&D has Race / Class Restrictions for "Low Intelligence" (9 or less). Working with the idea that a negative aspect about a character’s intelligence could represent low intellect, you could implement that the following races or classes CANNOT have a negative intelligence aspect:

• Paladins
• Rangers
• Assassins
• Wizards
• Elves
• Gnomes
• Halflings
• Half-Elves
• Illusionist

Depending upon how you translate the impact of acquiring a negative intelligence aspect, it might be appropriate to say that the player cannot advance in a class until the aspect is cleared (similar to a curse), or perhaps cannot actively access a race or class’ stunts until the aspect is cleared.

If you follow the Intelligence table in AD&D by rote, then you might also have the following requirements upon a character that reflect having higher intelligence:

• Illusionist class require stunt "Exceptional Intelligence".
• 7th level spells require stunt "Fantastic Intelligence"
• 8th level spells require stunt "Epic Intelligence"
• 9th level spells require stunt "Legendary Intelligence"

Additionally on the other end of the Intelligence stat spectrum, if you were following Race / Class Restrictions “as is” for high intelligence, you would also need this restriction:

• Half-orc characters can only get as high as Intelligence stunt "Fantastic Intelligence"

Attributes that Have Skills

Depending upon how particular you want to get, even those skills have direct parallels might need some review. My previous translation method of looking for a metric that can be compared could apply here.

So for example, when comparing the AD&D attribute “Strength” to SotC’s skill “Might”, you could compare the following passage from the DMG, p.15:

Exceptional Strength: Assume further that a strength of 18 indicates that the creature can lift weight equal to its own body weight, or 180 pounds, whichever is the greater, above its head.

A human with an 18 strength and an additional percentile dice roll is able to lift 1 additional pound for every percentage point up to and including 50%, 4 pounds for every percentage point from 51% to 90%, and 8 pounds for each percentage point from 91 % to 00%.

...against SotC’s “Lifting Things” (p. 258)...

Characters have a default amount of weight they can lift and still do something with that weight (like moving slowly, or trying to place it carefully), shown on this page in pounds. If purely lifting without moving – like, say, a heavy portcullis so others can scurry through – they can roughly double that capacity.

...and then decide those descriptions are close enough to equate to roughly the same measure of strength and from this you could find some common metrics. Comparing the numbers, you would end up with the following:

Max overhead lift (STR Attribute)	SotC Weight Capacity (Might Skill)
9 = 90 lbs
10 = 100 lbs	Poor (-1) = 100 lbs
15 = 150 lbs	Mediocre (+0) = 150 lbs
18 = 180 lbs
18/20 = 200 lbs	Average (+1) = 200 lbs
18/50 = 230 lbs
18/60 = 270 lbs	Fair (+2) = 250 lbs
18/70 = 310 lbs	Good (+3) = 300 lbs
18/80 = 350 lbs	Great (+4) = 350 lbs
18/90 = 390 lbs	Superb (+5) = 400 lbs
	Fantastic (+6) = 450 lbs
18/00 = 470 lbs
	Epic (+7) = 500 lbs

It appears that the functional difference between an average attribute of 9-12 and the human maximum attribute of 18 is not terribly significant in terms of the Fate scale--it’s the difference between Poor (-1) and Average (+1). This means that generally speaking, there probably isn’t enough granularity within the range of "average human" to "human maximum" in the gameworld to really allow more than just a few stunts (2 or 3) in order to simulate the bonuses associated with high attributes.

[Greyhawk] Weapon Proficiencies

Spirit of Greyhawk has characters define themselves according to a Class, consistent with the source material. A character's "level" is then determined as the skill level of what the character has selected as his apex skill--the skill at the top of the pyramid.

The source material places an importance upon the selection of what weapons the character is considered "proficient". Early on, I hadn't intended to bring Weapon Proficiencies over into SoG, but I've realized that by keeping them, it avoids a few problems / concerns:

Weapon Proficiencies are one way to address the concern of how do you keep EVERYONE from wanting to take Melee or Missile as their Apex Skill, to increase chances of survival at low levels.

By allowing Weapon Proficiency at the character's Class Inception, a +1 in combat skill rolls is granted, when using only that weapon.

This would then remove a certain amount of temptation to take Melee / Missile as the Apex skill. Especially for clerics/druids! Also, it gives fighter sub-classes the opportunity to take something else as their Apex Skill (notably, a Ranger could now take Survival as his Apex skill).

Additionally, Weapon Proficiencies also tend to address the question, "Why would anyone choose to be a 'pure' Fighter?" Now, we have a currency with which express a Fighter's ability to use a wide variety of weapons in an effective manner.

Implementing Weapon Proficiencies
I currently consider that a Weapon Proficiency is a Stunt--because it offers a broad +1 benefit (combat) for a weapon you probably already have.

By considering it a Stunt, a player could also elect to expend one of their open Stunt slots on a Weapon Proficiency.

While Weapon Proficiencies stack with skills and aspects, I am uncertain as to whether allow a character to take multiple proficiencies of the same weapon:

• This is in conflict with the source material.
• But if a character really wants to become a true specialist in one weapon only (see below about proficiency "granularity"), and wants to spend multiple stunt slots to do it, I don't know that it's really breaking the Fate mechanic. In other words if someone wants to spend 3 Stunt slots to achieve a +3 in "just" the Dagger, I don't know that it's really wrong.
  

Weapon Proficiency Variables
When considering how many Proficiencies are "granted" (i.e., freebies just for achieving particular apex skill level), there are the following variables:

How Many At Character Creation
Translating the PHB "as is", each class would start with a distinct number of proficiencies the character has at its creation (being defined as your Apex skill at +1):

• Cleric: 2
• Druid: 2
• Fighter: 4
• Paladin: 3
• Ranger: 3
• Wizard: 1
• Thief: 2
• Assassin: 3
• Monk: 1

OPTION: It might be simpler to also do something like: non-Fighters get 1 at inception, Fighter sub-class get 2, and the "pure" Fighter class gets 3, but this tends to flatten things out a bit.


How Often Classes Earn New Proficiencies
Again, translating the PHB "as is", and with the assumption that each Skill level of the Apex skill counts as 2 levels in the source material, we can determine New Proficiencies earned by each class. These proficiencies granted do not count against Stunt slots earned due to regular advancement.

Every class gains a single extra proficiency at the following Apex Skill values:

• Cleric: (+2, +4, +6, +8)
• Druid: (+3, +5, +7, +9)
• Fighter: (+2, +3, +4, +6, +7, +9)
• Paladin: (+2, +3, +4, +6, +7, +9)
• Ranger: (+2, +3, +4, +6, +7, +9)
• Wizard: (+3, +6, +9)
• Thief: (+2, +4, +6, +8, +9)
• Assassin: (+2, +4, +6, +8, +9)
• Monk: (+2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9)

Proficiency Granularity
Consistent with the source material, SoG takes a very granular (focused) definition of what a proficiency allows. In other words, there is not just a "Sword" proficiency. "Long Sword", "Short Sword", "Broad Sword", "Bastard Sword" are all separate proficiency selections.

[Greyhawk] Fantasy Race Packages

As part of writing up Spirit of Greyhawk's Class Packages (Fighter, Thief, et al) I thought it made sense to do some proof-of-concept writeups on Fantasy Race Packages first.

This turned out to be a good decision (for once!) because it did highlight a few things that the Class Packages are going to need to keep in mind.

Here's some highlights on those "few things":

Skills Starting at Different Places on the Ladder

There's a general assumption in Fate that the default level for any unimproved skill is Mediocre (+0). Scattered throughout But there's a caveat that certain skills can only be learned with very specialized training and might default to a number lower than (+0). Expanding upon that, fantasy race packages will have certain starting skill levels that default to a number other than zero, whether negative or positive.

For a while, I thought this posed a problem to the Skill Pyramid and Class Advancement. If you recall from my last article, the level of characters' classes is determined by their Apex Skill. Once you start throwing in the potential for skills starting at levels other than zero, this can pose some confusion to the pyramid.

In other words, if you have an "2nd Level" Elf Fighter that has an Apex Skill of Missile at +2, along with race package skills of Agility (+1), Endurance (-1), Stealth (+1), what does that do for the pyramid?

The traditional (SotC) view of the Pyramid with respect to the example mentioned above might look like this for a 2nd Level Elven Fighter:

• Missile (+2)
• Melee (+1), Alertness (+1), Stealth (+1), Agility (+1)
• Endurance (-1)

So Missile, Melee and Alertness skills were purchased via normal Skill point acquisition during the course of advancing to 2nd level Fighter, but Stealth, Endurance and Agility were received as part of the Race Package.

While on the surface there's nothing really wrong with this view of skills, once you get into advancement, I think there's a couple issues to be dealt with:

• The character wouldn't really gain any credit in his pyramid for using acquired Skill Points to buy off negative skills.
• At lower levels, there can be some confusion as to what a player's Apex Skill is going to be.

One way to resolve this issue is by looking at the Pyramid and what it represents in a slightly different manner. Rather than consider the Skill Pyramid as showing the net skill LEVEL, the pyramid could instead reflect skill INCREASES that have been purchased for that character.

Restated: you have the same net skill levels, but the skill pyramid would now look like this...

• Missile (+2 levels purchased)
• Melee (+1 level purchased), Alertness (+1 level purchased)
• Stealth (+0 level purchased), Agility (+0 level purchased), Endurance (+0 level purchased)

...and the pyramid becomes clearer with respect to Class Advancement.

This change in focus also helps when addressing situations where a player would instead chose to instead buy off the negative Endurance skill level (instead of increasing Alertness).

Using the new example, the pyramid would go from this (under SotC)...

• Missile (+2)
• Melee (+1), Stealth (+1), Agility (+1)
• Endurance (+0)

To now look like this...

• Missile (+2 levels purchased)
• Melee (+1 level purchased), Endurance (+1 level purchased)
• Stealth (+0 level purchased), Agility (+0 level purchased)

This is one way to address that +1 skill level on Endurance the character purchased (to get it out of the negative part of the ladder) goes toward supporting the Pyramid.

So now the Pyramid becomes more a matter of what the character's advancement and keeps the accounting on advancement clear and consistent without having to get too fiddly. For future reference: this may have an impact on what a SoG character sheet might look like. :)

Aspects with Stated Benefits / Limitations

Note also that certain fantasy race aspects come with listings of what the potential benefits/limitations of the aspect might be, consistent with the source material. They are listed for those who might not be entirely familiar with how they were originally written in the source material. Consistent with other Aspects, their application in a particular situation is subjective and open to interpretation. However with respect to a character's race, these aspects cannot be bought off using Experience and don't count towards a character's maximum aspects.

With that out of the way, here's a couple Race Packages--I've included the two that have the most moving parts.

Fantasy Race Package "Elf"

(Net Cost to Character Fate Point Refresh: -5)

Class Restrictions (+1 to Refresh)
An elf cannot select the following class packages: Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Illusionist, Monk

Class Limitations (+1 to Refresh)
For the following Classes, an elf has these maximums for that class' Apex Skill:
Cleric (+4), Fighter (+4), Wizard (+6), Assassin (+5)

Skill Modifications (-1 to Refresh)
Agility (+1), Endurance (-1), Stealth (+1)

Race Stunt "A State of Grace" (-1 to Refresh)
Elves take no penalty to Magic Skills when wearing armor or wielding weapons. Keep in mind that the restriction on Magic when combined with weapons / armor as it exists in this particular gameworld is tied to the cumbersome nature of those things, not an aversion to metal by magical forces.

Race Stunt "A Mind Apart" (-1 to Refresh)
When dealing with Sleep and Charm magic effects, elves have two significant benefits:

• +2 to the elf's opposed skill roll. This is a passive effect.
• If the casting is successful and the elf is affected by either a Sleep or Charm spell, the effect lasts 2 shifts less on the time chart, if the elf spends a Fate Point.

Race Stunt "Race Weapon Proficiencies" (-1 to Refresh)
When wielding the following weapons, elves are considered as having one skill level higher than their normal Melee or Missile Skill:

• Short Sword (i.e., +1 to Melee Skill)
• Long Sword (i.e., +1 to Melee Skill)
• Any Bow but a Crossbow (i.e., +1 to Missle Skill)

This is a stackable bonus, but for game purposes consider this advantage as being due to the benefit of accuracy/dexterity, not strength.

Race Stunt "Infravision" (-1 Refresh)
This race can see in the dark and take no penalties to Alertness when in mundane (non-magical) darkness.

Race Stunt "To See the Way" (-1 to Refresh)
Elves have a +1 skill bonus to passive Alertness for purposes of detecting secret doors. This can be upgraded to +2 to active Alertness for the cost of a Fate Point, and the elf is considered to be actively seeking for such things.

Extra Languages (6 Languages, -1 Refresh)
Elvish (native), gnome, halfling, goblin, hobgoblin, orcish, Common

Race Aspect "Interaction with other Races"

• Tagged for positive social reaction against: Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling
• Compelled for negative social reaction against: Dwarf, Half-orc

There is no cost for the Aspect and the character can neither "buy off" this aspect nor does it count any against any maximum number of aspects.

Dealing with a Negative Refresh Total

The elf package is definitely the race package with the highest cost to a character's Net Refresh Total and would imply that most elven characters will have a negative Refresh until they are significantly advanced where their class-based Refresh would increase to offset the Race negative.

This means that SoG will have to allow for characters playing with a Negative Refresh. In practice, the player of that character is going to have to rely entirely upon free tags or compels in order to accumulate/use Fate Points.

Upon getting to a Refresh, a character with a negative refresh is going to lose that many Fate Points, but never going below zero. So if an elf character had accumulated 3 Fate Points but has a Refresh of -4, then at Refresh the elf character loses all 3 Fate points for a count of 0, not -1.

The end result of this is that until an elven character reached a sufficient class level to have a positive refresh, he would be pretty motivated (forced) to be at the whims of his compels. Indirectly (but in a very real sense), this is likely the true benefit to playing a human: at the low end of the scale, you really do have "free will" compared to your non-human counterparts.

I also feel that this serves as something of a reinforcement of the relatively rarity of elves in the world, along with reinforcing the general feel of elves as a somewhat "brittle" and "static" race.

From the players' side, the extra challenge of a negative Refresh might also serve as a barrier for some folks, especially those who might not be the most efficient at leveraging aspects of scenes and opponents.

NOTE TO LONG-TIME READERS: Some of you might remember that SoG spellcasting is planning to use a "Fate Point commit" mechanic. In other words, you must commit (not necessarily spend) a Fate point to cast a spell. I still plan to use that, but haven't yet figured out how that works with respect to characters with a negative refresh value. Maybe make it cost a Consequence of some kind?

Fantasy Race Package "Dwarf"

(Net Cost to Character Fate Point Refresh: -3)

Class Restrictions (+1 to Refresh)
Dwarf cannot select the following class packages: Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard, Sorcerer, Monk

Class Limitations (+1 to Refresh)
For the following Classes, the dwarf has these maximums for that class' Apex Skill:
Cleric (+4), Fighter (+5), Assassin (+5)

Skill Modifications (No Effect to Refresh)
Toughness (+1), Empathy (-1)

Race Stunt "Magic Resistance" (-2 to Refresh)
Whenever any Magic effect is cast against a dwarf, the spell caster must roll a +1 or better to succeed, instead of a 0 or better. However if the roll succeeds, the shifts still count as if the caster rolled normally. Important distinction: Magic Resistance in this gameworld is only of use to AVOID being hit by magic, not as a reduction in the shifts of effect.

Extra Languages (5 extra languages, -1 to Refresh)
Dwarven (Native), Gnome, Goblin, Kobold, Orcish, Common

Race Stunt "Infravision" (-1 Refresh)
This race can see in the dark and take no penalties to Alertness when in mundane (non-magical) darkness.

Race Stunt "Humanoid Combat Proficiency" (-1 Refresh)
Add +1 to combat rolls when fighting half-orcs, orcs, goblins, or hobgoblins. This bonus is an expression of the knowledge of tactics, fighting styles and the weak points of these humanoid races.

Race Aspect "Short & Stocky"
There is no cost for the Aspect and the character can neither "buy off" this aspect nor does it count any against any maximum number of aspects, consistent with Consequences.
There is also the possibility that a more crunchy version of this could be implemented when a size/scale chart is nailed down.

Race Aspect "A Life Spent Underground"
Benefits:

• Detect grade or slope up or down.
• Detect new construction, passage, or tunnel.
• Detect sliding / shifting walls or rooms.
• Detecting traps involving stonework
• Determine approximate depth underground

Limitations:
Agoraphobic, Bright lights bother you, you lose your way in the woods, other negatives that come from a life lived away from the light of day.

There is no cost for the Aspect and the character can neither "buy off" this aspect nor does it count any against any maximum number of aspects, consistent with Consequences.

Race Aspect "Interaction with other Races"

• Tagged for positive social reaction against: Gnome, Halfling, Dwarven
• Compelled for negative social reaction against: Elven, Half-orc

There is no cost for the Aspect and the character can neither "buy off" this aspect nor does it count any against any maximum number of aspects, consistent with Consequences.

[Greyhawk] Experience & Advancement, Part the Second

Old Business Before New Business
Progressive Skill Cost Method
In the course of writing the prior article on Experience, I had a thought that my previously determined flat rate of 1 XP per +1 skill might need an alternative. I am considering that each +1 of skill upgrade costs that same number of XP as the desired skill level. This means that to get a +4 skill to now be a +5 skill costs 5 XP.

Stated differently, my previous article suggested that to get a +0 Skill to be +5 would cost a player 5 XP. To do the same thing under this new "progression method" would be: 1+2+3+4+5 = 15 XP.

Using the progression method appeals to me it addresses a couple things that had been bugging me:

• It makes the higher levels of skill proficiency MUCH more difficult to achieve. Legendary really is legendary now.
• It reduces the chances of a character being able to add new skills that "leapfrog" lower level skills that they previously had. This promotes a more natural progression within the Skill pyramid.

Additional Stress Box on Level-Up
I had forgotten to mention that up achieving a new level (creation phase), you also receive an additional "base" stress box (in addition to aspects, stunts, etc). So a 1 phase character has a single stress box and for each phase gains an additional stress box.

Note that stress boxes are still adjusted by skills, etc.

Onward to New Business
So last article, I talked about a process by which players can accumulate experience points. This time, I'm focusing on players spending those experience points on their characters.

To start with, I will lay some brief groundwork for the basis of how Advancement might work in Spirit of Greyhawk.

Advancement Method
Based upon some number crunching, I have decided to stay with the SotC standard "Pyramid Method" of character building and advancement. Originally I was planning on going with the "Column" or "Tower Method" of advancement, but decided against it for the time being.

This post was getting way too long, so I've edited this section down to just show the bottom lines of Total XP expenditures.

Using the most efficient method possible (least amount of experience) to get a single skill from +0 to a +5:

• Tower Method (Linear Cost): 15 total XP
• Pyramid Method (Linear Cost): 35 total XP
• Tower Method (Progressive Cost): 35 total XP
• Pyramid Method (Progressive Cost): 75 total XP

So I like the Pyramid Method of structuring skills because it gives a very clear "apex skill" which will become important later in the article. I also like costing the skills in a Progressive Cost method, because it makes the higher end of the skill ladder much harder to achieve.

However, that now means the XP thresholds increase dramatically.

...Any opinions on this?

Class & Level Advancement
Every character class must have both of the following:

• Class Aspect
• Apex Skill

Class Aspect
Basically the player decides what class their character should be (again, just sticking with the generic "Fighter", "Wizard", "Thief" and "Cleric" for the time being), the player then must decide (with GM approval) upon an Aspect that reflects (or defines) that character's class.

Examples of Class Aspects:

• FIGHTER: Guild Grunt, Trusted Retainer, High Lord's Shield Bearer, Duellist, Sargent of the City Garrison, Thug for the Thieves' Guild, Ranger of the North Woods
• WIZARD: Sorceror's Apprentice, Alchemist, Master of the Lost Library, Battlemage
• THIEF: Footpad, Locksmith gone Bad, Master Thief, Guild Master of Undercity
• CLERIC: Acolyte of the Dark One, Gom's Healer, The Voice of Justice, High Priest of the Order of G'nirwob.

While you can be as generic or as dramatic as you wish, I believe that the Class Aspect should also contain some clue as to the general power-level of the character.

As the character progresses, the Class Aspect is going to change somewhat. It's possible that it could be totally redefined I suppose, but I would suspect that's probably more story-driven.

Apex Skill
As I mentioned above, the character's Class Aspect must be supported by single skill at the apex of that classes' skill pyramid. It doesn't always have to be as simple as a character with a Class Aspect of something Fighter-related, the Apex skill is "Melee". It could be something else such as "Might", or "Leadership". The character's Apex skill could be anything the player can "sell" to the GM.

Some ideas could be:

• FIGHTER: Leadership, Melee, Missile, Intimidation, Survival
• CLERIC: Magic (clerical), Leadership, Medical
• THIEF: Burglary, Sleight of Hand, Deceit, Stealth
• WIZARD: Research, Magic, Crafting, Resolve

...you start to see the possibilities.


Spending XP
The player may spend the XP as they are earned to increase the character's skills. Typically increases would occur at the end or start of sessions.

How to address the idea that a player may not follow an "optimized" pyramid progression? If you consider the progression from a 2nd phase character to a 3rd phase character (requires 6 XP), the "normal" track might be starting from this:

1 Skill at Fair (+2)
2 Skills at Average (+1)

So, the first increase would give this:

1 Skill at Fair (+2)
3 Skills at Average (+1)

Next increase to get:

2 Skills at Fair (+2)
3 Skills at Average (+1)

Finally one last increase to get:

1 Skill at Good (+3)
2 Skills at Fair (+2)
3 Skills at Average (+1)

...and the character is now considered a 3rd phase character, and gets the extra 2 Aspects, 1 Stunt and +2 Fate points on the Refresh.

So this is only the "basic" progression and probably the most efficient one for the fastest advancement of the Apex Skill under the Pyramid Method. However there's a few wrinkles that could happen to complicate things:


Picking A Non-Standard Pyramid
It's entirely possible that a player might select a skill pyramid that doesn't allow for that next apex at the soonest available "threshold":
If you consider the basic example of a second phase character:
1 Skill at Fair (+2)
2 Skills at Average (+1)

The player could allocate similar increases as listed above and end up here:
3 Skills at Fair (+2)
4 Skills at Average (+1)

...So you might have spent the almost the same XP, but have not yet achieved a Good (+3) skill. Should that character still be considered a 3rd phase character?

I say no, that character is not a 3rd phase character until a Good (+3) skill has been achieved, regardless of many XP are used. I consider the phrase "Jack of All Trades, Master of None", to be very applicable here.

So there's nothing wrong with creating a pyramid like this, just understand the impact (or lack thereof) to class.

In essence, the XP thresholds from the prior article represent the minimum Experience needed to achieve that level of "mastery". Additionally, by doing it this way, there's no need to adjust any thresholds if you chose to use different Skill architectures or costs.


Levelling & Aspects
The +2 Aspects acquired by a player at the achievement of a new level could be used to either:

• Add a new aspect
• Modify an existing aspect (important with redefining the Class Aspect)
• Remove a character aspect

...at a cost of 1 earned aspect per transaction. In other words, each one of those three options costs one of the Aspects.

Whether existing Aspects were attached to the character during the course of play or from the player's prior decisions is not important.

I have considered the impact to the Advancement economy with respect to using XP to do the three things above, but at the moment I don't have a clear sense of how much currency those things cost. I had considered something on the range of 5 XP to add / modify / remove an aspect but it's not dancing and singing for me at the moment. I currently like the idea of tying a player modifying aspects based upon their level and it also reinforces the importance of a character's level in SoG.

Side Note on Epic Play: Too Many Aspects?
In my research there's plenty of mentions about folks having concerns about too many Aspects and being too much to keep track of at the high end.

I think that's a valid concern for some people, and while I have no plans to limit the number of aspects on characters, I think it's entirely reasonable for a GM to have a house rule capping the total number of aspects available on characters. In that case, you could still take the Aspect piece of the advancement and simply state that if a character's cap has been reached, their aspect modifications must be used within that capped amount.


Levelling & Stunts
Consistent with Aspects, Stunts are tied to levelling and not to XP. With that extra Stunt, the player can choose to either:

• Add a New Stunt
• Replace an Existing Stunt with Another Stunt

I'm not entirely certain about the concept of replacing a Stunt with another one, but I'm allowing for the idea that a player should be able to "focus" or "redefine" the character. Note that replacing a Stunt that is a requirement for other stunts, will essentially "liquidate" that related Stunt also. I'm currently going to side with the player and allow them to keep that empty slot and redefine that Stunt as well.


Multi-Class / Split Class
A player can have choose to effectively have multiple classes for their character, and spend Skill points as they wish, but they are working with two separate skill pyramids. I currently don't see that SoG is served by making a distinction between Split Classes and Multi-Classes, and the model appears to cover them both, so I'm going to leave this "as is".

For each class of the character (however many a character has), there would need to be:

• A Class Aspect
• A Skill Pyramid associated with the class, and by extension, an Apex Skill that supports the Class Aspect.

Plus looking back at the records of the old school gameplay experience and character advancement, it was quite common to have higher-level characters with two or three classes anyway--certainly at the higher levels of play.

Character Creation - Pre-requisites for Magic Use (Part III) - Magic Stunt

Faithful readers of this blog may see that much of the following information looks kind of familiar. That's because the basis for much of SoG's Magic Stunt is based upon what Mike has already written elsewhere in this blog:

http://spiritoftheblank.blogspot.com/2008/04/fantasy-magic-basics.html
http://spiritoftheblank.blogspot.com/2009/03/fantasy-incantation-magic.html

This entry will focus more specifically on the following:

• What differentiates the Magic Stunt from the Magic Skill
• Applications of the Magic Stunt within SoG

First off, within SoG I generically use the term "Sorcery" to describe the generation of magical effects via the use of the Magic Stunt. "Wizardry" is the skill-based generation of magical effects.

In my opinion, the term "sorcery" is probably most used by Wizards as a derogatory term. Sorcerors would likely consider that stunt-based magic is perhaps the purest expression of magic: the instinctual ability to generate magical effects at a moment’s notice, with little or no prior preparation. Wizards would probably scoff at the notion, considering the (ab)use of Magic (with a capital M) without sufficient study as ignorant folly... ;)

Magic Stunt Overview

• The Magic Stunt and the Magic Skill are not mutually exclusive. Someone could choose to take both. In fact, I suspect many of the REALLY powerful Wizards probably do have both, in order to allow them the maximum flexibility in generating magical effects. This would be akin to a "Master" craftsman saying something like, "You have to KNOW the rules, before you can BREAK them..."
  
• The character must still have a Magic-related Aspect in order to generate magical effects.
  
• The Magic Stunt allows the user to create magical effects on the fly, without having to memorize spells.
• Generating magical effects via the Magic Stunt requires the user to roll the normal 4dF (versus the 2dF+2 of the Magic Skill). This also means that Stunt-based magic is also more prone to failure.
• When using the Magic Stunt to generate Magical effects, the user can elect to expend as many FATE points as desired (up to what they have available) per casting to gain the necessary effect. Obviously, this can make things rather easy for a Sorceror to get in over his head in a tough situation.
  

OPEN ISSUE/VARIANT: Should the Magic Stunt require a FATE point to activate the Stunt? Many powerful stunts in SotC RAW require the expenditure of a FATE point to activate them--should the Magic Stunt? My current feeling is NO, the Magic stunt should not require a FATE point to activate it.

• Based upon what little play we've done with SoG and reading other people's experiences, I think I would rather players use FATE points to have fun and bring the awesome, not as the basis of how many spells their character can cast.
• Even if it was a requirement, I would be inclined to give the player the benefit of having expended that FATE point as if they had elected to spend it in the normal fashion.
• This decision might also be dependent upon the realm where this is being applied. In a realm where magic is rarer (or the ability to cast it is rare), it might be more appropriate.
  

Important Difference between the Magic Stunt versus other SotC Stunts
Within SotC RAW, most (if not all) other Stunts are tied to a pre-set Skill requirement. However within the High Fantasy realm of Greyhawk, the PLAYER will determine what skill is tied to the Magical Stunt. Some examples are:

• A Bard capable of generating magic effects via his song would tie his Art Skill to the Magic Stunt.
• A dwarven blacksmith creating magic armor or weapons would tie her Art Skill (broken out as the "Craft" skill in SoG) to her Magic Stunt.
• Healers or Alchemists could generate magical healing effects by combining the Science (known as the "Physick" skill in SoG) to their Magic Stunt.
  
• High "level" thieves with the Magic Stunt could combine the Magic Stunt with Stealth or Burglary
• Rangers could combine the Survival skill with the Magic Stunt.
  
• A "pure" Sorceror would likely combine the Magic Stunt with the Resolve skill--the gift/curse to generate magic effects purely by willpower.
  
• Many powers of the Monk class might be translated by combining the Magic Stunt with Athletics or Fists skills.
  

So I think this provides a convenient method by which we can translate the magical effects attributed to higher levels of a particular class in the source material, without having to get too rule-crunchy.

DESIGN CONSIDERATION: Can a player tie the Magic Stunt to more than one skill? In other words, could a player have a character with both Art Skill and the Craft Skill be able to sing magical songs AND create magic weapons? On the surface, I don't see why not. At least in the High Fantasy realm of common magic. I think it might present some challenges to the player as to having a clear picture of the character--but that would be common to any sort of "multi-class" type.


Gameplay Implications
A Sorceror (or someone using the Magic Stunt as their primary method of surviving combat) could find himself running out of FATE points pretty quick in a conflict.

This was on purpose. Sorcerors (and Wizards) are supposed to be smart folks: whether that's expressed as "book smart" or "street smart" or "crazy to tamper with forces beyond their reckoning" is up to the player.

So if a player is to effectively run this kind of character, this setup encourages a player to really pay attention to Aspects (whether in their opponents, themselves or in the scene) and work to tag them as much as possible and thus avoid having to tap into their own FATE points.

Literary Example: The Dresden Files. Consider how much more effective magic users are in a conflict when they have the opportunity to research their opponent, dictate the conditions, or otherwise are able to "tag the aspects"!

Character Creation - Pre-requisites for Magic Use (Part I) - Aspects

[Editorial Note: I'm still getting the hang of blog publishing. I'd SWEAR I published this entry right before Christmas, but now it's not there. Anyhoo, this should have appeared BEFORE the "Magic Skill" write-up]

In order for a creature to cast a spell without otherwise being assisted (via a potion, or magic item), the following MUST exist:

• At least ONE Aspect devoted to Magic of some kind.

From there, the caster must have either:

• The Magic Skill (Wizardry)
• A Magic Stunt (Sorcery, Alchemy, Artifice)

NOTE: A Magic stunt and the Magic Skill are not mutually exclusive. A character may have BOTH the Magic Skill and one or more Magic stunts. In a similar vein, it's certainly possible that a character (most likely an NPC) could have the Magic Skill and NOT have an Magic Aspect. However that would mean that character could not generate magical effects (or at least not without some "replacement" for the Magic-related Aspect). I would envision someone like this as perhaps a librarian, scribe, or researcher. Upon further thought, J.K. Rowling's character of "Argus Filch" (the Hogwarts' care-taker) might be a good literary example.

Aspect "Magical Talent of Some Kind"
A character must devote at least one aspect to a Magical Talent. The player can call it whatever they want (remember the "BAM!")

• Elven Magic
• High Arcana
• Spellsword
• Illusionry
• Blessed Magic of the "High Light"
• Black Magic
• Necromancy

Positive Aspects: Access to magic, sensitivities to magic, etc.

Negative Aspects: Susceptability to magic-specific maladies or other negative impacts. Being "visible" to people trying to sense those with this aspect. Whatever else the GM happens to come up with...

Clerical Magic Aspects
AD&D dogma implies / states that although the same "energy" is used to create all spell effects, the mechanism by which they are created is different. Magic-Users manipulate the energy themselves to create the effect whereas Cleric-types cast spells are actually generated by their deity's servants in answer to the prayers of the Cleric.

So, Clerical / Druidical Aspects could be something like:

• Granted [Deity]'s Favor
• Hand of [Deity]
• State of Grace
• Nature's Gift

Split Classes
Based upon the above, my current feeling is that if someone was trying to recreate a "split class" (specifically where Clerical and Magic Use are available) they would need two aspects, in order to cast each group of spells.

Quick Clarification
The requirement of having an Aspect devoted to Magic does not mean that casting a spell requires the use of a Fate point. IMO, Fate points are not measures of a particular character's ability to generate magical effects. Rather, they are the PLAYER's (not the character's) ability to modify the character's reality for story purposes.

The idea of the Aspect requirement was more a way to handle the concept that although magic is common in High Fantasy, in SoG there is something inherently different about the caster from normal folk that allows them to manipulate magical forces.

Character Creation - Pre-requisites for Magic Use (Part II) - Magic Skill

Hope everyone had a good holiday. Let's take advantage of the brief lull between now and New Years' and get some postings in! So, ya wanna be a Wizard, eh?

Before we get too far into the skills of Magic (known as Wizardry in the SoG), I'll take a minute to provide some "game play experience" insight. The Spirit of Greyhawk (SoG) implementation of FATE takes a viewpoint that represents something of a different direction from pure Greyhawk canon.

The realm of Greyhawk represents high-fantasy, and as such magic is considered a relatively common occurance, like gravity. It's just a fact of life. And so in making a set of rules that supported the stories I wanted to tell, I decided to make a distinction between skill-based magic (Wizardry) and stunt-based magic (Sorcery). Both exist within SoG:

• Wizards are the more "ivory tower" users of magic, something similar to our world's scientists. They are skilled in the use and principles of Magic.
• Sorcerors represent the most "pure" use of stunt-based magic. While they might be capable of generating very powerful magical effects through their given abilities (within a realm that provides that magic is common), they have little or no training in the priniciples of the forces they manipulate. I also expect that the more common useage of magic among non-wizard types fall into this category.

Maybe there will be an opportunity later to lay out some design themes and considerations but to keep this blog entry focused on rules, I'll summarize it like this:

• Skill-based magic represents an empirically-oriented study of magic and the practice of documented principles and applications (i.e., pre-made spells). As such, magical effects are much more predictable and not prone to failure as long as the caster works within his or her skill level.
  
• Stunt-based magic represents a more ad hoc study of magic in a less principled environment than wizardry. Magical effects are much less predictable and are prone to failures.
  

So without any more stalling, here's the Magic Skill...

Magic Skill
This skill would directly correspond to the user's overall skill level with regards to casting increasingly difficult Magic spells.

Wizard spells run from levels 0 (cantrips) through 9. For Spirit of Greyhawk, Level 1 spells are considered Average (+1) difficulty.

Translated, this means that if you have only the Aspect of magic but no skill level, than you can cast level 0 spells (difficulty Mediocre) before you incur an negative modifier.

Fate Difficulty	AD&D Spell Level
+9 (Mythical?)	Level 9
+8 (Legendary)	Level 8
+7 (Epic)	Level 7
+6 (Fantastic)	Level 6
+5 (Superb)	Level 5
+4 (Great)	Level 4
+3 (Good)	Level 3
+2 (Fair)	Level 2
+1 (Average)	Level 1
0 (Mediocre)	Level 0

(The adding of level 9 to the Difficulty Ladder is a departure from normal FATE, but I honestly don't expect to spend much time up there! Level 9 spells tend to be something closer to deus ex machina grade spells anyway.)

Casting Spells BELOW your Skill Level
As per normal FATE, this would allow for the opportunity of a greater number of positive shifts (margin of success) when casting is a success.

Casting Spells ABOVE your Skill Level
If we were using pure canon, there would be NO opportunity for casting spells above your skill level. However using Fate 3.0, this now becomes available. Whether or not it’s advisable for a caster to attempt it is another story…

OPEN ISSUE: What would the implication be of failing a spell that was ABOVE your skill level? I think there ought to be SOME sort of impact to failure—otherwise people would be doing it all the time. Would the caster receive damage (physical or emotional, up to the GM) for the same amount of shifts equal to failure? I'm open to suggestions. Although my undocumented preference is that the implications are still up to the GM, perhaps within certain guidelines.

IMPORTANT DICE ROLLING DIFFERENCE
When using the Magic Skill to cast a premade spell in SoG, the caster doesn't roll the usual 4dF which gives a potential range of -4 to +4.

Instead, use 2dF+2 to give a potential range of 0 to +4.

This is to reflect the benefit of the wizard's extensive study in the casting of "preset" spells. By using that preset spell, the caster is reducing the randomness in the outcome of the casting. This also allows for a more consistent feel with the Greyhawk source material.

This benefit DOES NOT apply to Sorcery, or if the Wizard decides to "change the formula" of a preset spell (more on this later).

In Summary
A caster may use the 2dF+2 roll only if all of the following are in force:

1. User is casting a Preset Spell.
2. User's Skill (or related Skill?) is at least the equal of the spell's difficulty. Example: A Good (+3) spell being cast by someone with a Magic Skill of Good or better.
3. The preset spell is being cast "as is" — no modifications are being made.

Fantasy: Phases and Aspects

In SotC RAW, as you probably know, character creation happens in five Phases: Background, The Great War, Your Novel, and two "guest-starring" roles in two other characters' novels. That works well for a game built around human characters all born on the same day and adventuring in the pulp era, but taken out of the 20th-century context I think it can feel a little forced.

For one thing, putting it in a different time necessitates coming up with another "Great War" to fill that second phase, which can come off as arbitrary unless you're working with a specific timeline and setting. Second, while the idea of "starring" in "novels" is absolutely perfect for pulp, with the fantasy genre it rubs me the wrong way. There's a deeper layer of metagaming going on when you talk about your character having starred in a novel, and the implication that he or she is merely a protagonist in a book instead of a living, breathing person. Third, if you're taking out the idea of a novel for the third phase, then the fourth and fifth phases have to be revamped, as well, just to be consistent. Fourth, when I think about all the things that would be important to a character, following a fairly strict chronology seems overly restrictive.

Instead, "Spirit of the Sword," for such is the poor working title of this project, uses conceptual Phases. This is hardly my invention; I've seen this, or a variation of it, as a house rule here and there, and I like it so much it's going in.

The five Phases, then, consist of Origins, Profession, Goals, People, and Adventure.

Origins: Where are you from? What's your race? How were you raised, and with what values?

Profession: Do you (or did you) have a "day job"? What trade(s) do you know, and where did you learn it/them? Are you a mercenary? A pickpocket? A sorcerer's apprentice (or the sorcerer himself)? A Jack-of-all-trades?

Goals: What do you hope to accomplish in life? Where do you see yourself going? Do you want to rid the world of evil, or merely rule it? This can be as specific or as general as you'd like.

People: Who are the important people in your life, if any? Friends, enemies, superiors, lackeys, secret admirers, the secretly admired... who and where are they?

Adventure: Briefly recount an adventure you've already had. Did you ransack some ancient ruins? Escape from the city guard with a purloined loaf of bread? Conduct a magical experiment gone awry? It doesn't have to be life-threatening, but it does have to be exciting.

Instead of waiting for the final two Phases to establish connections, players are encouraged to cross-pollinate with other players at any time. All Phases are game for this. For example, two characters raised in the same village could appear in one another's Origins phase; if they've remained life-long friends (or enemies) and helped defend their village from a bandit raid, they might also appear in each other's People and Adventure phases. Or, given the propensity for PCs in fantasy games to start out as total strangers, they might not cross-pollinate at all.

Aspects represent a slight change as well. Under normal circumstances, each Phase comes with two attendant Aspects. In "SotS," they aren't as evenly distributed.

Every character begins with seven Aspects to spread between his five Phases, with a minimum of one Aspect per Phase.

Why the change? "SotS" characters will end up with a few more Aspects to deal with than their SotC cousins, via equipment and magic (more on those later). Keeping the number of "personal" Aspects down to seven makes things a little more manageable. Aspects are fun, but if you're dealing with 15 at once they lose some of what makes them interesting. If you ask me, the most interesting part about using Aspects is finding ways to apply what you have to the situation at hand. Limitations encourage creativity, and limiting the number of Aspects a character has encourages the player to come up with interesting, colorful ideas. To paraphrase SotC, "Trained Fencer" is one thing, but "Trained By Montcharles" is quite another. The first is only likely to come into play during combat, but the second could apply equally to social situations (Rapport or Contacting) in which being the student of Montcharles makes a difference.

In addition, I often see players struggle a bit to come up with the last two or three Aspects. Cutting them down to seven seems an efficient way to alleviate that. Besides, when it comes to actual utility, seven's plenty. Rarely do I see a character or GM make use of every last Aspect on the sheet. Speaking of GMs, fewer Aspects makes the GM's job a bit easier in terms of compels and simply keeping track of the PCs. Giving the player the opportunity to have, say, two Origins Aspects over two People Aspects is a good way of letting the GM see at a glance that the character's origin story might be more fertile ground for the plot than the character's interpersonal relationships.

Next time: Skills.