Compels, Accidental Killings and the 1st law

[Richard_Chilton]

Looking at the books, there are several times when Dresden makes "stupid" decisions that feel like compels.

Like how he no choice but to take the money to investigate Lilly's disappearance in Summer Knight.  That was clearly a compel of his "broke" Aspect that the GM used to advance the story.

Having no alternative...  That's rarely the case.  It's just that the alternative looks so bad that it just might as well not exist.
"You have to let the bad guy go OR let the orphans burn in the magical fire you started.  If you let then you'll get the law breaker bit and the police will be looking for you for murder.  Your choice."

As for compels, if you really hate them then don't take Aspects that call on you to do the right thing at the right time.  Or save chips to buy them off.  If you've got the Aspect "defender of the weak" and you've been using it to win your fights then a compel of "You have to let the big bad guy get away while you help the girl tied to the alter" is an acceptable one.  Yes, it will mean fighting the big bad guy after he's rested and called up more minions, but you've defined yourself as defender of the weak and that girl needs you now.

It's like when a girl comes up to Dresden and says "Help me." and he says "Sure." and she says "But I'll only let you help me if you help my vampire boyfriend too.  Please Mr. Dresden, don't leave us here to die".  Dresden knows that he can barely get himself out, but he's got that Aspect and needs his chips (or is out of them), so he does what he can to save the girl and her vampire lover.  

Richard

[Ala Alba]

Exactly, Richard.

In any case, it's not only fair for GMs to compel players that are out of fate points, I'd say it should be expected. After all, how else are you going to get more fate points? Just wait until the next refresh? In the OP's example, the compel is not "save the thugs and you cannot buy out of it unless you want a lawbreaker". It means that if you do buy out of the compel, the thugs are no longer in danger of dying. This complicates things for the player, makes things more interesting, etc.

Sorry if I'm not being very coherent, but basically if you have an aspect on your character sheet, especially if you choose that aspect yourself, it's completely fair game to be compelled, no matter how many fate points you have at the moment. Now, you're right that a compel shouldn't necessarily result in your character being unplayable... but sometimes it could. A changeling could be compelled to choose his fairy side and save the day, or something. Now, unless you've warned the players ahead of time that certain actions will result in certain compels, you probably shouldn't compel a player with no fate points to lose their character. But if you have warned them, and they still do it anyway, they are implicitly giving their consent to have that compel given to them.

[Tedronai]

Looking at the books, there are several times when Dresden makes "stupid" decisions that feel like compels.

Like how he no choice but to take the money to investigate Lilly's disappearance in Summer Knight.  That was clearly a compel of his "broke" Aspect that the GM used to advance the story.

The compel there, is 'this is probably a bad idea, but you're flat broke, and would like to keep eating', NOT 'do this or else'
Harry COULD have turned it down, and found some other way to earn money.  He's bent his rules with regard to 'No love potions...or other entertainment' before.
Harry's player accepted the Compel (likely seeing it as the plot hook it was, or just being starved for fate points like most wizards), and narrated the situation as Harry not seeing any other option.

Having no alternative...  That's rarely the case.  It's just that the alternative looks so bad that it just might as well not exist.
"You have to let the bad guy go OR let the orphans burn in the magical fire you started.  If you let then you'll get the law breaker bit and the police will be looking for you for murder.  Your choice."

The Compel, there, assuming it's against one of the character's aspects, and not a scene aspect created from fallout, is the STARTING of the fire, not the choice between letting the bad guy go and saving the orphans.  And even if it's a scene aspect, a more appropriate Compel isn't a dichotomous choice, but simply a statement of the situation: 'the building is on fire, and if something isn't done, the orphans will die (a result of the character's use of magic that would earn Lawbreaker), but the bad guy is about to get away'.
That, at least, leaves room for creative solutions, like a spell that sucks enough heat out of the building to extinguish the flames, redirecting it into a pillar of flame straight up into the sky that will attract all kinds of attention, and would likely require enough shifts of power that the character will have to take a consequence or two (one for channelling that many shifts, and quite possibly another in backlash), but would allow them to at least have a fighting chance with regards to chasing down the bad guy.

Straight-up dichotomies are almost exclusively bad ideas in collaborative storytelling (ie pen+paper rpgs)

As for compels, if you really hate them then don't take Aspects that call on you to do the right thing at the right time.  Or save chips to buy them off.  If you've got the Aspect "defender of the weak" and you've been using it to win your fights then a compel of "You have to let the big bad guy get away while you help the girl tied to the alter" is an acceptable one.  Yes, it will mean fighting the big bad guy after he's rested and called up more minions, but you've defined yourself as defender of the weak and that girl needs you now.

It's like when a girl comes up to Dresden and says "Help me." and he says "Sure." and she says "But I'll only let you help me if you help my vampire boyfriend too.  Please Mr. Dresden, don't leave us here to die".  Dresden knows that he can barely get himself out, but he's got that Aspect and needs his chips (or is out of them), so he does what he can to save the girl and her vampire lover.  

Richard

Again.  DICHOTOMIES ARE BAD.  Be more creative.

[luminos]

(bolding added)

Like what?

Like if the hypothetical player has the aspect "Always lets the bad guy get away".  Thats a blunt scenario, but if you refine the situation enough, you can easily get circumstances where less obvious aspects can be compelled towards the effect of the bad guy getting away.

[Tedronai]

Like if the hypothetical player has the aspect "Always lets the bad guy get away".

 

Granted.
Got anything that's not explicitly contrived to exclusively suit your premise?

(roughly generalizing your premise to 'single-option, no-alternative compels are commonly reasonable' because I'm a nice person and won't make you try to tailor absolutely anything you might come up with to 'bad guy gets away')

Thats a blunt scenario, but if you refine the situation enough, you can easily get circumstances where less obvious aspects can be compelled towards the effect of the bad guy getting away.

'Towards the effect of' is a far cry from 'with the only meaningful option of'

[luminos]

My premise is that the compel exists as potentially valid.  That means that I get to be as contrived as I want to in order to prove it.  You are the one who has to show beyond doubt that such situations cannot exist, as you are the one asserting the universal negative.

And when I stated 'towards the effect of', that meant that regardless of the specific actions the player took to fulfill the compel, the effect of those actions would be to let the bad guy get away.  I did not say it as a way of meaning 'something like' or 'vaguely resembling'.

[Tedronai]

In that light, perhaps you'd be so kind as to allow me to clarify my position?

In any but the most contrived or obscure scenarios, a dichotomous Compel is unnecessary, unproductive as compared to other options, and just generally a BAD IDEA.


(traveling TOWARDS a destination is not the same as traveling TO a destination, ie. it does not necessarily result in you ending up AT that destination; perhaps a subtle distinction, but you see how such semantics change the meaning of a sentence, yes?)

[Richard_Chilton]

Again.  DICHOTOMIES ARE BAD.  Be more creative.

Um, that scene I paraphrased is in Grave Peril, when Justine forced Harry to help Thomas and her escape.  I thought it was creative when I read it.

Harry has flaws (which makes him an interesting character) and in the RPG those flaws are linked to Aspects.  He often has to choose between either or choices and often the choice he makes is because of his flaws.  Harry is putty in the hands of a damsel in distress.  He knows it, and that he's been exploited more than once, but each time some girl says "Oh help me Mr. Wizard" he falls for it - at least for a short time.

Justine isn't even the only girl who exploits him in that book.  Grave Peril starts off with someone (who uses a fake name) asking him for help and Dresden gives her his special "anti-spirit" charm that he really needs.  He knows he needs it, but a girl asked him for help so he gives it to her.   Sounds like a compel to me.

Richard

[Tallyrand]

Looking at the books, there are several times when Dresden makes "stupid" decisions that feel like compels.

Like how he no choice but to take the money to investigate Lilly's disappearance in Summer Knight.  That was clearly a compel of his "broke" Aspect that the GM used to advance the story.

I agree that that is a compel, I don't agree that he had no choice or that a GM should leave him no choice.  There's a reason compels can be bought off, because the player is always supposed to have that option.  Were it game and had Harry tossed up a fate chip he may has simply said no to the job because he had some other side work that could make ends meet, otherwise he could have said that he was ok on money at the moment and taken the opportunity to put himself into a better bargaining position.

Having no alternative...  That's rarely the case.  It's just that the alternative looks so bad that it just might as well not exist.
"You have to let the bad guy go OR let the orphans burn in the magical fire you started.  If you let then you'll get the law breaker bit and the police will be looking for you for murder.  Your choice."

In a novel that's valid, in a game though the choice is not 'Get the bad man or save the poor orphans', it's 'Do you want to continue playing this character or not?' which is an entirely different creature at the gaming table.

[Drachasor]

Um, that scene I paraphrased is in Grave Peril, when Justine forced Harry to help Thomas and her escape.  I thought it was creative when I read it.

Harry has flaws (which makes him an interesting character) and in the RPG those flaws are linked to Aspects.  He often has to choose between either or choices and often the choice he makes is because of his flaws.  Harry is putty in the hands of a damsel in distress.  He knows it, and that he's been exploited more than once, but each time some girl says "Oh help me Mr. Wizard" he falls for it - at least for a short time.

Justine isn't even the only girl who exploits him in that book.  Grave Peril starts off with someone (who uses a fake name) asking him for help and Dresden gives her his special "anti-spirit" charm that he really needs.  He knows he needs it, but a girl asked him for help so he gives it to her.   Sounds like a compel to me.

Richard

Harry has multiple ways to help both girls.  He could have decided to screw Thomas and just help Justine despite her wishes.  He could have decided on driving the girl to the Church or doing any number of other things to get her to safety.  These are good compels, imho, because they provide multiple ways for the player to satisfy them.  A kind of bad compel, and possibly an aspect that isn't good, is one that only provides one way to satisfy it....generally speaking.  Granted nothing is perfect, but generally, I think, it is more interesting if a compel provides flexibility in satisfying it.  You probably can't get that ALL the time, but I think that can be achieved most of the time.

[Bruce Coulson]

A lot of this depends on how the group wants to play.  My take on the matter...

If there's no risk, then there's no drama, and it's not very interesting.  It should be possible for a character to accidentally kill someone, even if they're taking reasonable precautions, if they launch an attack.  Which is a great way to have the players look for alternative solutions if they'd prefer to avoid the risk of killing someone.  Mind you, as a GM, I warn players when the possibility exists of death.

I see Fate Points as a way to insure yourself against that risk, if the player feels the character would take the risk...but should succeed anyway.  (They don't want to have their character removed from play, they don't think the story for failure would be interesting, whatever.)  I'm fine with that, too.

Stories require conflict, they require drama.  A character that will always succeed when the chips are down is fun for a while...but becomes boring.  Even if there is no risk, the player should have the feeling that there is.

[sjksprocket]

I would personally never tell a player "do this action or lose you're character". That being said, can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? I'd say it's up to you. I think it's a bit of an (expletive) move. But not everyone sees it that way.

On the other hand though, where I might not force the situation, if a player comes to that situation and chooses the option to lose his character, I will accept it. It was the players choice.

If the player comes to that situation (Do this or lose you're character) and chooses the lose character option, but doesn't want to lose the character I would probably try to give him another way out. Only if the player would keep pushing the issue would I say "Okay, you have left several people to die, you have made other really bad decisions, your option is to make said decision or take lawbreaker".

For me and my campaign I would not plan on having any do or die situations. and if they come up I would try to come up with a third option. "It looks like he will get away, but you have a chance to injure him to put an aspect on him for future encounters". Something like this IMO would lessen the sting of this sort of situation. But like I said I don't like this sort of thing to begin with, but that's me.

[zenten]

I'm inclined to warn a wizard's player that their 1 refresh character is in danger from NPCdom due to Lawbreaker the moment they make a 1 refresh wizard.  The same would go for a Changeling.

[bitterpill]

I have allways wondered if you never knew you killed someone with magic and had no intent to kill anybody with magic when you used it and the white council never found out would this still give you the lawbreaker stunt would your soul be tainted by something you didn't even know about.

[Bruce Coulson]

That seems a bit unfair.  1-Refresh characters are supposed to be challenging, but not doomed.

Warning a player ahead of time that the character he/she wants to play is going to be in danger of becoming an NPC seems confrontational.

As long as the player(s) understand the basic rules, game concepts and conceits, and the general table understanding of the campaign, I don't see any reason to hammer home those points.

Perhaps I've been fortunate in getting mature players who like the books and want to play in that style.  A Wizard in my campaign went to some pains to make sure a self-taught Sorceror knew the Laws so that later, if there were any problems, it wouldn't be on his conscience.