>From: Iago <iago@...>
>
> 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.

This is why I like augmenting rules. The elf forged augments the "goblin
foe," which augments the user's ability... but that's my own vision.

> > 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).

Yeah, the "points" were "spent" to make the character more interesting. The
character should never become less interesting as a result of play
thereafter. "Differently Interesting" is cool, however. Basically, what's
bad for the character becomes a chance for the player to alter the
character. Maybe he gets a "Hates Theives," as recompense. In any case, the
character becomes statistically indicative of his past. Even a replacement
item will remind the character about the one he once lost (that replacement
puppy is never quite the same, y'know?).

> > 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.

I'm glad to hear that ruling. I completely agree that this is the way to go.
Keep this in mind, don't make it dissapear in "mysterious and improbably
circumstances," do it well. In fact, ask the player why thier character
isn't keeping it. "Bob, if you're not spending the points to keep that
extra, then how would your character end up losing it?" The result will be
the most probable for the player.

Another good method is to actually make the loss part of play. "The sword
turns out to be from Sir Goddrick's family, and he's come to reclaim it. He
thanks you for it, and says he has a job he needs some competent people to
perform for him; one with much greater potential rewards."

> > 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.)

Fred's answer is good, but consider this - if they don't spend the points,
because they don't like the power, they don't get the power. Simple as that.
"Ragnar becomes aware that the bow is blessed by the goddess, but he somehow
doesn't seem to be able to forge the connection to her that's required to
make this ability work.

Is it "unfair" to "force" an ability on the player? Well, basically, I see
two angles on this. First, the question is whether or not you're allowing
them to create the things overall. If you're allowing this, then I don't see
why you can't allow them to "discover" all of the abilities along the way.
OTOH, if this is something that you've created, then how is it any different
to "force" them to decide if they want to keep something that you've
basically offered them from the start? Starting with the fact that it's a
bow (or whatever)? That is, if you have any hand in the original form of the
item, then it's a negotiating process on down the line as to extra
abilities.

Now, if you're going with the Earthdawn idea, then you have to decide if the
player not taking the thing in question is a "block" to them learning things
further down. Been a while, but, IIRC, I think all you had to do was to
learn the of the power in question before you could learn the next - I don't
think you had to master it. Maybe I have that wrong, but consider it as an
option. Anyhow, even if you do call this a block, that just makes taking the
odd ability more attractive to the player.

> > 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?

In addition to Fred's method, there's another that may be appropriate. If
the character is theoretically capable of producing the thing themselves
(they're an alchemist, or they know where the acorns grow, or can forge new
links), then the fact that they're "charges" is just like other extras that
can be lost. Magic arrows would eventually run out, in theory, but can be
picked up again later.

Basically always let them run back to wherever to get "refils" so that
they're not disadvantaged by the description of the item. If you really want
to compensate for the relative unavailability of such things (potions that
one can only carry one of at a time, or something), then bump it up one
level on the ladder for free.

Otherwise, don't charge for actual one-shot items. If it's not something
that the player will ever be able to get again, then how is it any different
than that sword that they're going to lose when they fail to pay points for
the thing. Basically, it's allowable to use an ability a very few times
before it vanishes without spending any points. Making potions free. Of
course that means that a player can't buy them, either. Alternately, if they
want to permenantly burn a point on a potion that can only be used once, I
can't see a reason to say no...

Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/