FATEWorld… bringing Fate Aspects into Dungeon World.

FATEWorld… bringing Fate Aspects into Dungeon World.

FATEWorld… bringing Fate Aspects into Dungeon World.

When I first got into Fate, I wanted to put Aspects into every other game I played.  While that urge has diminished a bit over time, I can’t help thinking that expanding the Bonds into full-fledged Aspects would be very cool.

Here’s how I’d do it:  You get a number of Aspects equal to your number of Bonds.  You may choose a phrase naming a relationship with another character if you wish, but you may also choose statements about your character’s background, hobbies, catch-phrases, enemies, and so on.  “Dumb as an ox and twice as strong” might be an Aspect, or “I can always spot a liar, because it takes one to know one.” 

Players get a number of Fate points equal to 1/2 their number of Aspects (So 2 points for most characters).  I like to use poker chips to represent them.  Whenever you think an Aspect can help you in a situation, you may spend one of your Fate points for a bonus.  If you spend it BEFORE you roll the dice, it’s worth +2 on your roll (or -2 on someone else’s, if appropriate).  If you spend the point AFTER you roll the dice, it’s either worth +1 (or -1) or you may reroll the dice, keeping the new result, even if it’s worse.

The GM can also declare situations when your Aspects can hinder you or cause trouble, giving the enemies similar bonuses or compelling you to follow your Aspect.  If you agree, you receive a Fate point to add to your supply.

What do you think?

19 thoughts on “FATEWorld… bringing Fate Aspects into Dungeon World.”

  1. Yup, this is the next logical step for my play style of allowing players to make bonds with NPCs, groups, and causes. It does squash some XP oppertunities, slowing the game down but it also lets them succeed more early on so its a tradeoff.

  2. I’m cross-pollinating the 2… I use DW style spellcasting in my Fate game (“pick what goes wrong”), and now Aspects into DW!  Next game I’ll see if I can get people to go for it…

  3. Tom Miskey I’m still reading through the Fate rules and familiarizing myself more with Aspects and such, but that definitely sounds like an interesting experiment for DW. I concur with Tim Jensen — you should run a Hangout game. I feel that’s the best way to figure out if it works well or not. Oh, and I totally call a spot in the game! 😀

  4. Josh Mannon: I’d guess it will slow down XP a lot, both because they won’t be getting any from bonds AND because they will be succeeding more often.

  5. True, but between all my bad rolls and the end of session XP, my Cleric leveled up after just 1 session! 

    2nd, you have the option of choosing not to spend the point and take the failure in order to get the XP if you want it.

    Finally, the GM can use your Aspects against you too, causing you to suffer penalties on rolls or act in accordance with your Aspect in return for a Fate point.  Those penalties might mean more failures, and thus more XP! 

  6. I have it on good authority that Fate Core draws a lot of inspiration from Apocalypse World. So, you know, this kind of cross-pollination is not totally without precedent. 😉

  7. I have played Fate Core and I own DW. I have not had a chance to play DW yet. Which system runs combat faster? Fate is pretty streamlined yet it can slow down a bit when initially working out the fiddly bits. How does DW compare?

  8. I think DW combat is a bit faster than Fate if only because there isn’t much you can do to modify your roll afterwards.  Fate allows you to invoke Aspects and change the results of your roll, and deciding if you should do it, and what Aspects (if any) could be relevant to the task at hand in order to do it could take a bit longer than RAW DW. 

    And that’d be a possible issue with bringing Aspects into DW too, though IMO it’s worth it because I like Aspects.  Still, it’s something to consider, and we’ll see if it has any effect when we playtest it.  I think if the number of Aspects and Fate pts are kept low it shouldn’t have too great an effect. 

  9. You’re welcome to use the idea if you like it Jacob.  One of the reasons I backed IW was I wanted to see how the same things were statted up in both systems to see what could be used together.

  10. Why tie the number of aspects to Bonds (a stat that varies from character to character), rather than making it a straight value for everyone like it would be in Fate?

  11. My thought was that Aspects replace Bonds.  You can take a Bond phrase as an aspect if you want (“_____ is in constant danger but I’ll keep them safe” can be an aspect, for instance, and can be used whenever you are trying to defend the other person in some manner), or take something else, but you don’t have your full number of Bonds + Aspects.  Therefore, for a class like Bards that have additional Bonds as part of their ability, that translates to additional Aspects instead, or else that character would be losing some of their abilities.

  12. Ah, right – I was thinking supplement rather than replacement.

    I don’t think they should be a replacement; aspects tell you something different from what bonds tell you – aspects are fundamentally about your character, and bonds are fundamentally about your character’s relationships. (Sure, you can write an aspect about pretty much anything, but it’d be weird forcing DW aspects to just be about a relationship to others.)

  13. But Aspects can do the same things Bonds can, they can provide a bonus or penalty when the appropriate situation comes up.  Why have 2 ways to do the same thing?  Aspects are an expansion of Bonds, you might think of them as “Bonds with anything you’d like”, not just other PCs.

  14. Because bonds aren’t just about their mechanical or fictional effect taken separately?

    There’s also the fact that bonds aren’t an exhaustible resource: if you have one or more bonds with someone, they’re always a bonus to Aid/Interfere.

    Bonds also give you XP when resolved, and can’t be applied as a bonus to any other roll.

    Like I said, Aspects aren’t fundamentally about relationships. They can be, but ultimately what they do is reveal mechanically-exploitable aspects of your character. Bonds don’t do that; they’re (almost entirely) just a written record of your relationship with another character.

  15. Bonds don’t actually add a bonus do they (except to certain rolls)? They are a way to play out your character and gain XP (in that order).

    I like aspects from Fate quite a bit, but I do agree with Alex that they should supplement and not replace bonds. They serve similar but distinct purposes. I also think that aspects could slow things down, but only if they are overused.

    What if you have your bonds, based off of your class. Then you have up to 3 aspects that you can attach to up to three of your bonds that can each be used once per session to improve a roll +2 or reroll?

    Just my thoughts 🙂

  16. Also, I don’t think I made it clear: I love this idea! 

    I introduced DW style rolling (and lack there of on the part of the DM) to a Fate game last night and I think it went quite well!

Comments are closed.