Compelling a Hex

[Kordeth]

If hexing the buddy's cell phone is going to screw over the wizard and not the mortal (e.g. the mortal is calling for an ambulance for the badly-wounded wizard), that's a simple enough case of a direct compel of the Aspect.

If the hex is going to screw over the mortal as much as or more than the wizard (e.g. the mortal is calling for reinforcements as a scourge of Black Court vampires batter at the door), IMO the best solution would be to compel the wizard's high concept to create a scene Aspect along the lines of "Stray Magical Energy Flying All Around." You can then use that Aspect to compel the mortal with a shorted-out cell phone. That way both characters who are being affected by the compel have a chance to buy it off and/or get compensated.

If the hex is only going to screw over the mortal (e.g. he's trying to call his girlfriend to tell her he can't make their date), you can assume that the wizard's very presence puts a "Technology Fails Randomly" Aspect on the zone he's in and just use that to compel the mortal directly.

[Viatos]

I'm with Valarian on this one, especially now that I've read the rules some more.  Technology can and should be a viable resource for any Pure Mortal character, especially if they intend to make an active contribution; being denied access to that otherwise-available-resource complicates the mortal's life... and complications are the meat of strong compels.  

From a technical standpoint, having a wizard nearby could be considered a "scene aspect" (YS107) and could therefore be a temporary aspect on the sheet of everyone close enough to him/her.  Instead of compelling the wizard's high concept, the GM is compelling the "My Friend the Wizard" scene aspect.

All that aside, getting a fate point for making someone else's life more complicated is rather cheesy, IMO.

I like this. It seems like it's against the spirit of aspects and compels to award the wizard anything unless he's being screwed somehow. Otherwise, the mortal gets the fate point - regardless of how you read the specific purpose of compels being to complicate the CHARACTER'S LIFE (check the book; whether or not he is the SOURCE of the complication is entirely irrelevant), giving it to the wizard or denying it to the mortal is just not FAIR.

EDIT: I think some of you are confusing compels and invocations. A COMPEL only influences the actions of others against you, if it influences them at all - something like THE MOB WANTS ME DEAD for instance. An INVOCATION can influence them for you (getting help from FBI agents tasked with dismantling the local mob, in the above case). A COMPEL on your nature shouldn't screw someone else unless it screws you as well, but an INVOCATION of your high concept could certainly enhance your hexing roll.

[toturi]

If you want to play a game where you can tweak and twist the rules to make a broken characters then there are MANY systems out there that allow and even encourage that.  Fate is not one of those systems, in fact everything about the system is about working together with other players and the GM to create an interesting story and the rules are just a vague tool to facilitate that.  Therefore, if you create a character trying to get the most power with the least disadvantage by seeking out aspects that hurt your allies and their players ability to enjoy the game then you are flat out doing it wrong.

Note here, I'm not a Fate system fanboy, Dresden is in fact the first time I've tried the system, I prefer more 'crunchy' rules sets like Shadowrun and Champions, but if you read the rules to this game you see that there is a clear intention to avoid the pitfalls of mechanics based RPGs.

Every system makes some claim to working together with other players and the GM to create an interesting story and the rules are just a vague tool to facilitate that. Nearly every RPG I have seen or played genuflects in that direction at least once. The more you try to avoid the pitfalls of mechanics based RPGs, the more you find yourself in one.

[Slife]

Let's say you're a pure mortal hiding in a warehouse next to an evil wizard.  You use your cell phone, but the wizard shorts it out.

Did you just give the evil wizard a fate point?

[Tallyrand]

Let's say you're a pure mortal hiding in a warehouse next to an evil wizard.  You use your cell phone, but the wizard shorts it out.

Did you just give the evil wizard a fate point?

I've stated several times here that the assumption is that the Hexing also inconveniences the Wizard, so no.

[Deadmanwalking]

I've stated several times here that the assumption is that the Hexing also inconveniences the Wizard, so no.

Right, but in the above circumstance (evil wizard, cellphone) shouldn't the guy with the cellphone get a Fate Point? He's just been screwed over by an Aspect, and that's what a Compel is.



As a more general sentiment, you seem to be operating under the assumption that Compels are all about improving the story, and reward the player with a Fate Point for doing so. The first is true to an extent, but the secobd is pure bullshit. Compels are something that screws you over or gets you in trouble, and the reward is, in large part, to make the players willing (even eager) for their character to get in trouble so they can get Fate Points. Yes, that improves the story (which is why it's encouraged) but it's a secondary function of the process. That kind of reward avoids bad feeling when the GM needs to screw over the players for the sake of story, and avoids feelings of unfairness when it happens to some and not others. This kind of reward for being messed with and/or screwed over is fundamental to the system, and means that not rewarding a particular kind of thing that screws over a PC (and particularly rewarding another PC for it) is both against the spirit of the system and will almost inevitably lead to bad feelings due to the percieved (and actual) unfairness.

[Wordmaker]

Another assumption that seems to be going around is that a wizard who is compelled to accidentally hex something is doing so intentionally, and that the character or player is therefore actively trying to screw over another player.

To be honest, if I had a player who wanted to hex something another player was using, I wouldn't allow it as a compel. It's a poor example, really, because a GM who makes that compel is causing problems for a particular character that shouldn't happen, narratively. Looking back at my last post, I don't agree with what I said anymore.

For me, the purpose of compelling an Aspect is to bring problems to a character that suit that character's narrative and personal plot. So unless a mortal has an Aspect that reflects his association with wizards (Like's Billy's "Harry Dresden Is My Friend" Trouble) then I wouldn't use a compel to cause problems specifically to them due to a wizard's presence.

So, say Harry and Billy are driving along in Billy's SUV, using a GPS to find a quick route while on a case. I might compel Billy's "Harry Dresden Is My Friend" Aspect to cause the GPS to get fried, since that Aspect reflects the difficulties Billy experiences due to hanging around with Harry.

The important thing here is that, if Harry was driving with, say, Kincaid, who also had a GPS, it's a different situation. None of Kincaid's Aspects are related to Harry or any wizard, so Kincaid's stories don't feature problems and delays due to Harry's presence, because those aren't thematically appropriate for Kincaid. The importance here is more on what narrative elements are specific to the characters involved, not what should "realistically" be a consistent effect.

[Trobon]

Another assumption that seems to be going around is that a wizard who is compelled to accidentally hex something is doing so intentionally, and that the character or player is therefore actively trying to screw over another player.

To be honest, if I had a player who wanted to hex something another player was using, I wouldn't allow it as a compel. It's a poor example, really, because a GM who makes that compel is causing problems for a particular character that shouldn't happen, narratively. Looking back at my last post, I don't agree with what I said anymore.

For me, the purpose of compelling an Aspect is to bring problems to a character that suit that character's narrative and personal plot. So unless a mortal has an Aspect that reflects his association with wizards (Like's Billy's "Harry Dresden Is My Friend" Trouble) then I wouldn't use a compel to cause problems specifically to them due to a wizard's presence.

So, say Harry and Billy are driving along in Billy's SUV, using a GPS to find a quick route while on a case. I might compel Billy's "Harry Dresden Is My Friend" Aspect to cause the GPS to get fried, since that Aspect reflects the difficulties Billy experiences due to hanging around with Harry.

The important thing here is that, if Harry was driving with, say, Kincaid, who also had a GPS, it's a different situation. None of Kincaid's Aspects are related to Harry or any wizard, so Kincaid's stories don't feature problems and delays due to Harry's presence, because those aren't thematically appropriate for Kincaid. The importance here is more on what narrative elements are specific to the characters involved, not what should "realistically" be a consistent effect.

I agree with this. Basically if you compelling an aspect then it should in some way be creating a complication for the person who has the aspect. In one of the examples from before, someone came up with an example where the mortal would be effected, but not the wizard (I believe it was calling her boyfriend). If the wizard has nothing at stake and the mortal doesn't have an aspect dealing with the wizard then there doesn't seem to be any reason to have a compel there.

There is an exception here if you were to, say, compel the wizard to create that complication so that you can then compel an aspect on the mortal (like Easily Frustrated) to create a limitation on them. That way the wizard would be inconvenienced even though it wouldn't be directly.

Again though if there is no way the person with the aspect will be inconvenienced then, from a story perspective, why should there be a compel?

[ryanroyce]

Again though if there is no way the person with the aspect will be inconvenienced then, from a story perspective, why should there be a compel?

Simply put, because wizards fry technology.  It is simply a part of the setting.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is settled.  I realize now that my original question was based on an erroneous premise - that the GM was compelling the wizard's high concept.  This would not, strictly speaking, be the case.  Instead, having a wizard in a zone creates a scene aspect for that zone (My Friend the Wizard, Hexing Aura, Murphy's Law of Magic, etc).  When the GM wants to make life difficult for tech users, s/he compels that scene aspect and gives the fate point to the targeted character's player.

[GoldenH]

As a thought, perhaps it would be best to compel one of the Guest Star aspects. If they don't have one, put it on the scene.