I think the point of what Silver's saying is is that if you have someone who wants to play a character who has two Mantles, the idea is that you buy the second set of powers and weaknesses. ...But why would you buy the weaknesses? Now, in some cases, sure, you may be playing someone who has some vampiric-like abilities, but isn't a vampire. Maybe they're a wizard with some emotional pull abilities or something. And that's fine for narrative, depending on concept.
However, if you're playing with the full Vampire Mantle and then want to add a second Mantle for your concept, why buy the weaknesses? They'll only hurt you. You can say that "well, you lack the Impaled by Cold Iron weakness so you're not actually a Knight of Winter", but you effectively are if you bought all of the powers. The only difference is that you have none of the weaknesses attached to Knight of Winter. You're basically a souped up version.
Just from a mechanical perspective, it's bad sense to spend refresh on a weakness. It's narratively interesting, but it's also just bad sense. It hurts you doubly because you have to spend refresh AND the thing you're buying is detrimental to you in the first place.
At least, that's my impression of what they're trying to get across and I rather agree. It seems silly to expect a player to pay for a weakness and, moreover, not enforcing the acquisition of a weakness means that they can just skip out on buying it.
To me, it feels like if someone wanted a second Mantle, the weaknesses would be something A) Attached to them once they bough the first/last power as a sign of their entrance/completion on the path (them being inducted as a Knight of the Faerie or finally becoming a vampire), B) attach certain powers to certain weaknesses (you want to add Knight of the Faerie, so you get Faster, Stronger, Tougher, but that comes with Impaled by Cold Iron), C) acquire the weaknesses after getting a certain number of powers (if you're adding Vampire, you have 4 Core stunts, so after getting 2 or 3 you acquire all of the Vampire Mantle's weaknesses).
Ok, first I should say that I'm not a FATE player. So, mechanically, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But, this statement really kind of stood out to me. Am I the only one who has taken a disadvantage for no benefit, just because I thought it added something to the character? Doing so isn't bad design, it is good RPing.
Originally Posted by Legate71
It is bad design, though. On the one hand, no, taking a disadvantage isn't really inherently bad. It can be very interesting to narrative. But it can also be bad design. In this case, you are losing both a power/Stunt and a Fate Point. It'd be kind of like taking a feat in Pathfinder that just gave you a penalty to your Constitution and nothing else. You could and, sure, that has some interesting potential for narrative... but you also just hurt yourself in a variety of ways in situations to come and
paid a feat slot for the privilege of doing so.