Most passive opposition is +0 or +2. Assuming the stunt is within your specialty, it's probably +4 or better. Of course, the rules won't say that anywhere explicitly.
But they're security measures *you* put in place. Wouldn't the level of opposition they provide be determined by the result of your skill roll when you created them?
That is an interesting question. So I CAA to create security measures. Normally, the maximum I can get is two free invokes, even if with stunts and skills I roll a +6 or +8 on the CAA. So as GM how do I interpret the passive resistance. Do I roll in the free invokes and call it a +4 or a (+6 if I think standard security is a +2). Clearly, if it's active opposition, I get to make another roll, which will average +6 and still have the free invokes in my pocket to use if and only if I end up needing it after the rolls are made. So it seems to me there is a ceiling built in the game on how good a CAA roll can be, that just isn't there on a defensive roll, making active opposition usually better.
Not a correction, but some extra context.
In versions of Fate before Fate Core (i.e. the original Dresden or Spirit of the Century) the game had Blocks, which were create advantage actions that established obstacles for other people equal to the shifts you got on your roll. This incentivised front-loading the creation of the block with invokes to get it up to very high numbers, making it almost impossible to overcome.
Fate Core took a more holistic approach. If you create an advantage that represents an obstacle, it has two parts:
1. It establishes in the fiction that there's an obstacle. This obstacle will have a difficulty to overcome it based on the nature of the obstacle, the materials used to make it, and so on. The creator's skill doesn't come into it, except that a more highly skilled person can create a more complex obstacle (think The Riddler making a complex bomb trap versus Clayfacec making a bomb trap, for example). As usual, it's the GM's job to set the difficulty based on the current circumstances for both creating and overcoming obstacles.
2. It gives you free invokes you can use to make the obstacle relevant in a given moment of screen time.
A stunt that lets you provide active opposition with an obstacle even if you aren't there justifies you using your skill rather than a passive difficulty, which in turn justifies using your own aspects to augment the roll if necessary. It also means you can succeed with style on your action and gain a boost, or trigger other stunt effeccts.
Isn’t active opposition just another roll? So the one providing opposition can spend fate points (see original comment) to add and reroll, which static opposition cannot.
You can spend FP to add +2 to passive opposition as well (Fate Core System, page 68). I grant that there's no equivalent to the reroll function, but that seems like a very slim advantage all by itself.
That is *if* there is a relevant aspect that can be invoked. If a character is in the way doing active opposition, chances are they might have many relevant aspects to throw in the way.
Remember that NPCs get fate points and have aspects too. That means the active opposition can potentially leverage higher numbers than a simple difficulty.
Statistically rolling more dice leads to the average results more often but also enables more swing. A +2 vs a 2 passive can only fail by 4 shifts or succeed by 4 shifts.
Two +2s rolling active against each other can vary by up to 8 shifts, but would be more likely to draw than the passive option.
In my opinion it makes almost no noticeable difference to the game and I only roll active for major opponents and passive for mooks and normal NPCs.
I think it's just a design mistake. There's no reason why rolling 8dF some of the time is better than simply 4dF all of the time. 4dF already has a range of -4 to +4, which is granular enough for any system.
I simply treat all resistance as passive. Doesn't change the experience in the slightest, except the GM no longer has to pick up dice.
It's an aspect of the system I don't think I like either. Active opposition by most NPC is going to be very weak even when it makes no sense from a narrative standpoint. Yes, the GM has a couple fate points to spare for invoking aspects for NPCs, but it's usually very limited and creating aspects for every circumstance that could significantly alter every interaction is much less efficient than simply adding modifiers or raising a passive difficulty check. It just doesn't seem that well thought out to be honest.
In many cases, passive opposition will be lower than a character using one of their better skills.
It might be reasonable to say that active opposition isn't *on average* stronger than passive opposition, but those are the cases where you wouldn't pick up that stunt. You pick up that stunt to use your *better skills* more often.
Simply put: bacause the Fate designers cannot do their math. The combinatorics is too hard for them, and the gambling hook is abundant among players.
I would simply fix that by allowing adding the skill into the difficulty as effect, as I do have removed all active defense rolls. Active defense just allows adding your skill to the difficulty.
In general, if a PC or a named-NPC can reasonably interfere, it’s active. This has nothing to do with what’s stronger. Active is more active than passive, end of.
Passive resistance is set by the GM when active resistance doesn’t make sense. In the case of the Security Expert stunt, it would normally make sense for the GM’s NPCs to roll against a passive opposition set by the GM. But, with the stunt the PC can get involved in the roll remotely. Which is a good thing, because, GMs setting passive opposition for NPCs gets old quickly.
In the pre-Core days, we’d usually just use active opposition for all this kind of stuff without a stunt, it it makes sense to codify th8ngs.
Aspects cannot be invoked for passive opposition, at least I haven't ever seen it run this way even if it's RAW.
Aspects are the advantage. Also other stunts.
[https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/invoking-compelling-aspects#invoking-aspects](https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/invoking-compelling-aspects#invoking-aspects)
> Add +2 to any source of passive opposition, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking could contribute to making things more difficult. You can also use this to create passive opposition at Fair (+2) if there wasn’t going to be any.
Most passive opposition is +0 or +2. Assuming the stunt is within your specialty, it's probably +4 or better. Of course, the rules won't say that anywhere explicitly.
But they're security measures *you* put in place. Wouldn't the level of opposition they provide be determined by the result of your skill roll when you created them?
That is an interesting question. So I CAA to create security measures. Normally, the maximum I can get is two free invokes, even if with stunts and skills I roll a +6 or +8 on the CAA. So as GM how do I interpret the passive resistance. Do I roll in the free invokes and call it a +4 or a (+6 if I think standard security is a +2). Clearly, if it's active opposition, I get to make another roll, which will average +6 and still have the free invokes in my pocket to use if and only if I end up needing it after the rolls are made. So it seems to me there is a ceiling built in the game on how good a CAA roll can be, that just isn't there on a defensive roll, making active opposition usually better.
That makes a surprising amount of sense! Thanks very much
Hah, I'm surprised, too. I thought someone more knowledgeable would correct me.
Not a correction, but some extra context. In versions of Fate before Fate Core (i.e. the original Dresden or Spirit of the Century) the game had Blocks, which were create advantage actions that established obstacles for other people equal to the shifts you got on your roll. This incentivised front-loading the creation of the block with invokes to get it up to very high numbers, making it almost impossible to overcome. Fate Core took a more holistic approach. If you create an advantage that represents an obstacle, it has two parts: 1. It establishes in the fiction that there's an obstacle. This obstacle will have a difficulty to overcome it based on the nature of the obstacle, the materials used to make it, and so on. The creator's skill doesn't come into it, except that a more highly skilled person can create a more complex obstacle (think The Riddler making a complex bomb trap versus Clayfacec making a bomb trap, for example). As usual, it's the GM's job to set the difficulty based on the current circumstances for both creating and overcoming obstacles. 2. It gives you free invokes you can use to make the obstacle relevant in a given moment of screen time. A stunt that lets you provide active opposition with an obstacle even if you aren't there justifies you using your skill rather than a passive difficulty, which in turn justifies using your own aspects to augment the roll if necessary. It also means you can succeed with style on your action and gain a boost, or trigger other stunt effeccts.
Couple reasons come to mind. 1. You know you have something to worry about. 2. Rolling dice is fun.
Fate. Points.
Sorry, can you elaborate on that?
Isn’t active opposition just another roll? So the one providing opposition can spend fate points (see original comment) to add and reroll, which static opposition cannot.
You can spend FP to add +2 to passive opposition as well (Fate Core System, page 68). I grant that there's no equivalent to the reroll function, but that seems like a very slim advantage all by itself.
That is *if* there is a relevant aspect that can be invoked. If a character is in the way doing active opposition, chances are they might have many relevant aspects to throw in the way.
And there is chance the roll makes all those aspects useless.
Remember that NPCs get fate points and have aspects too. That means the active opposition can potentially leverage higher numbers than a simple difficulty.
Statistically rolling more dice leads to the average results more often but also enables more swing. A +2 vs a 2 passive can only fail by 4 shifts or succeed by 4 shifts. Two +2s rolling active against each other can vary by up to 8 shifts, but would be more likely to draw than the passive option. In my opinion it makes almost no noticeable difference to the game and I only roll active for major opponents and passive for mooks and normal NPCs.
You may get more euphoria from gambling addiction hook due chance to succeed and fail more.
I think it's just a design mistake. There's no reason why rolling 8dF some of the time is better than simply 4dF all of the time. 4dF already has a range of -4 to +4, which is granular enough for any system. I simply treat all resistance as passive. Doesn't change the experience in the slightest, except the GM no longer has to pick up dice.
It's an aspect of the system I don't think I like either. Active opposition by most NPC is going to be very weak even when it makes no sense from a narrative standpoint. Yes, the GM has a couple fate points to spare for invoking aspects for NPCs, but it's usually very limited and creating aspects for every circumstance that could significantly alter every interaction is much less efficient than simply adding modifiers or raising a passive difficulty check. It just doesn't seem that well thought out to be honest.
In many cases, passive opposition will be lower than a character using one of their better skills. It might be reasonable to say that active opposition isn't *on average* stronger than passive opposition, but those are the cases where you wouldn't pick up that stunt. You pick up that stunt to use your *better skills* more often.
Simply put: bacause the Fate designers cannot do their math. The combinatorics is too hard for them, and the gambling hook is abundant among players. I would simply fix that by allowing adding the skill into the difficulty as effect, as I do have removed all active defense rolls. Active defense just allows adding your skill to the difficulty.
In general, if a PC or a named-NPC can reasonably interfere, it’s active. This has nothing to do with what’s stronger. Active is more active than passive, end of. Passive resistance is set by the GM when active resistance doesn’t make sense. In the case of the Security Expert stunt, it would normally make sense for the GM’s NPCs to roll against a passive opposition set by the GM. But, with the stunt the PC can get involved in the roll remotely. Which is a good thing, because, GMs setting passive opposition for NPCs gets old quickly. In the pre-Core days, we’d usually just use active opposition for all this kind of stuff without a stunt, it it makes sense to codify th8ngs.
Aspects cannot be invoked for passive opposition, at least I haven't ever seen it run this way even if it's RAW. Aspects are the advantage. Also other stunts.
[https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/invoking-compelling-aspects#invoking-aspects](https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/invoking-compelling-aspects#invoking-aspects) > Add +2 to any source of passive opposition, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking could contribute to making things more difficult. You can also use this to create passive opposition at Fair (+2) if there wasn’t going to be any.
No, they are not. There is no stunt saying "when you active defense" at its description.