On Tue, 05 Oct 2004, Kirk Huff wrote:

> I think I got that a player (with GM consult) can develop a
> magical item's properties by spending skill points, i.e. an
> elf-forged rapier of frost may take two skill points (elf
> forged: glows when around goblinoids, +1 vs goblinoids; and
> frost: +1 due to frost, can reroll attack against fire-based
> monsters or fire mages). Let me know if I've messed up that
> idea! :)

That's certainly compatible.

I don't know that I ever really 'bake in' the idea of a +1
quite that solidly in my own interpretation of extras, but
at the same time, I'd probably look at 'elf forged' as
providing a set of circumstances where the wielder could
easily take the 'Superior Weaponry' bonus in combat.

> I like keeping magic items precious, and also like the
> Earthdawn-esqe system of making the players pay skill points
> (and maybe accomplish something in-character) to access
> additional powers, so keeping the level of magic down
> through extra-ing is not an issue for me at all.

Earthdawn is definitely a good influence to take that sort
of notion from, yeah. :)

> Some things
> I'm unsure about:
>
> 1) Does an extra-ed item have the same plot invulnerability
> as an aspected item, only without the Fate point bonus for
> involuntary invocation? Is there another difference?

More or less. If I deprived someone of an extra-ed item
long term, I'd be inclined to let them get the points
refunded and use them to buy another extra (or skills).

> For example: If a character wearing an extra-ed Gauzy Shawl
> of Seduction is a hit by a fireball is the shawl always
> assumed to be unsinged?

No, though that seems a little cheap. I'd set the edge on
fire, and let the character spend a round frantically
trying to stamp the flames out. :)

> If it's destroyed, what happens to
> the skill points?

See above.

> 2) It seems that the discovery of a magical item always
> requires GM-player consultation. Either the GM tells the
> players at an appropriate point (after slaying the dragon,
> etc) that magical items may be discovered if the players
> wish to pay aspect/skill points and the GM can then propose
> the types of magical treasure available OR a player tells
> the GM that his character wants a specific kind of magical
> item and has a quest set up to provide it after which he
> pays his points. I like that this as well when coupled with
> a "let's figure out what this thingy does" mechanic using
> skill points, but...
>
> How do you handle the introduction of a magical item that
> would logically enter the game even if nobody pays for it?
> For example, the antagonist of the adventure, who has always
> been described as wielding a Poisoned Axe of Darkness, is
> finally slain. A PC takes the sword but the player refuses
> to pay any points. Should the sword still have its special
> properties? Backfire on the ignorant PC by slowly poisoning
> him? Work, but disappear in mysterious and improbable
> circumstances at the nearest opportunity?

I'd lean towards your latter two options. I find it useful
to take this perspective:

*Somebody* out there, somewhere, paid points for the item
as an extra. The fact that the character wielding the item
didn't pay for it, mainly means that, in a "meta" sense,
the player is not truly in control of that item. Which
opens the door for all kinds of GM mischief, including,
figuring out who _did_ pay for the thing.

> 3) How much say should a player have over the powers of an
> item? Should all the powers be stated up front when offering
> the player an item, or develop one at a time? Should the
> player have veto power over a proposed power - "No, I'm not
> going to spend a third skill point to discover that my
> longbow Spleen-Piercer is Blessed by the Goddess of
> Twilight! I want it to be an Imp-Banisher!"- or can the GM
> force the issue? (I would try to negotiate of course, but I
> could see how some nasty arguments could pop up.)

Well, look at how to make this something attractive to the
player, to incent them to yield control of defining the
item to you -- give them a two for one deal. "Spend one
skill point, and I'll define two qualities on the Extra."

Is this unbalancing? Yes and no. Sure, they're getting a
more "powerful" item for their 'dollar', but as a GM
you're likely to be defining plot-relevant and/or
non-"optimized" qualities on the item. Think of it as
similar to the 'plot hook bonus' that comes along with
taking a GM-offered plot Aspect.

> 4) It seems a little strict to require a skill point for
> consumable items, i.e. potions, acorns that grow into
> sheltering trees in a few minutes, a gold chain the links of
> which turn into cages of energy, etc. I assume that because
> they are are sort of limited by definition, they normally do
> not last long enough for plot vulnerability to become an
> issue and are left alone...
>
> Is there some other neat way of handling consumables using
> aspects/extras?

Sure. Every potion is an 'effect in a bottle', right? Have
the creator/user check off an extra (alchemical
ingredients) or Aspect (invested energy) in advance, when
the item is acquired, and assume it to represent the
item's eventual use.

--
Fred Hicks * "Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Co-Author of Fate - Managing Editor of Fudge Factor - The 'fan' in fanatic
Fate RPG * http://www.faterpg.com/ Fudge Factor * http://www.fudgefactor.org/
Plink * http://www.rainlikely.com/ Jim Butcher * http://www.jim-butcher.com/