Compelling players with 0 fate points

[Richard_Chilton]

When it comes to compelling someone who has 0 FATE chips, I think that there are only two times when it should be done by the GM:
1) Gifts: the compel isn't something major but is a reason to give a FATE chip, or
2) Core: it's something that's at the core of someone's character.  It isn't stretching an Aspect but going to the heart of it.

Other than those cases, compelling someone who has 0 FATE chips is saying"Hi - this is how you are going to be playing your PC AND you DON'T get a choice!!!".  Most players hate that.

Richard

[devonapple]

"Forced" Compels feel bad most often when there is a misunderstanding of the game mechanics, and the GM uses a Compel to force a character to commit a particular action, to take choice away, rather than to force the character to factor the Aspect into their approach to the situation. One Compel which left a sour taste in my mouth was early on in our Dresden game, when I was Compelled to (basically) give up the fight and run. I was just learning the game, so maybe I had other options, but at the time, it seemed pretty clear that is what the GM visualized my logical response would be.

That said, sometimes the Aspect being Compelled seems to very clearly indicate a particular path. Sometimes the Compel is ultimately serving the greater good of the story.  But when a Compel leads to the player feeling like they weren't allowed to be all their character could be, it tastes bitter.

And that is how life is sometimes, and it is certainly how things go for Harry from time to time.

[Richard_Chilton]

Here's an example of what I see as a core compel:
A character has an aspect like "Everyone's Mom".  The case revolves around a young child being taken to be used up in a ritual - a bit like the short story "Backup".  That aspect becomes the most used one in the game session - virtually always useful because the PC tracking down an endangered preschooler.

So there's the "charge in and save the kid" bit followed by "fight the bad man" and FATE chips are spent like there's no tomorrow.  The villain (who has taken a few consequences) flees, leaving the toddler screaming in terror and chained to an alter as he runs

Does "Everyone's Mom" join the chase or does that PC go the screaming child and help it?  The player has spent hours spending FATE chips on "Everyone's Mom" because the PC wants to rescue the kid - does it make sense that PC leaves the child in terror (and helpless)? In that situation I'd feel right in tossing a chip and compelling the PC to stay with the kid or rewarding a self compel to stay.

If, on the other hand, the player hasn't been tapping that Aspect at every change, if the player has defined "Everyone's Mom" as mostly a social thing that inspires people to confide in the PC and the player doesn't see it apply to every random kid that finds itself in trouble, then compelling the PC to stay would be a dick move.  Still within the rules but a dick move.  In the first case being motherly is at the core of how the character is being play while in this second case the GM would be stretching the aspect for the compel.


Now that I've provided an example to show what I meant, does the idea of a core compel make more sense and seem less unfair?

Richard

[ARedthorn]

What you're saying, Richard, is already factored into the system. I can't remember off the top of my head what page it's on, but there's a reference that the GM is supposed to sit down with every player and ask those players what the individual aspects actually MEAN, not just what they SAY.

In your second example, the player is perfectly justified to say "No, that's not what that aspect means. Didn't you read my aspect sheet? Jeez, man. Get on board." And refuse the compel on the grounds that the compel isn't legal.

Any compel I do is based on the player's outline of that aspect as they gave it to me... and where there's room for interpretation or confusion, there's room for negotiating and refinement of that outline. The problem you're voicing never comes up (at least, for me).

[Richard_Chilton]

Um, I'm not actually voicing a problem - just saying when I feel it's fair to compel someone with zero FATE chips.  It seems as if we agree on the major points.

Richard

[ARedthorn]

True enough. I just wanted to point out that the reason your second example wasn't legit had little to do with cruelty of GM... the system doesn't allow for the GM to interpret a player's aspects for him... so it's never really, truly forced anyway. The player gave himself that aspect, is final arbiter on whether it applies to the given scene, and ran out of fate points by his own use of them. The situation is his own doing, it's on him, IMO.
Course, I'm also very willing to bargain, and I'm very much more interested in telling a good story than I am in screwing my players over, so it rarely comes up unless it adds to the game in the first place.

[Richard_Chilton]

That's the problem with trying to think up bad examples - they tend to be bad moves.

Would something like that be allowed by the rules? Shrug.  Here's a try for a slightly better "not fair" example.

Someone who comes off as everyone's mom (even just socially) needs to have the mannerisms to back it up.  It's an empathy / rapport type thing that could kick in when empathy / rapport is needed.  If someone is "everyone's mom" then they are someone to turn for comfort and to confide in during emotional situations. Usually people that you instinctively seek comfort from are instinctive comforters. 

Instinctive comforters usually don't leave someone screaming and chained to an alter any longer than they have to - but that wouldn't be a fair thing to compel a PC with 0 FATE chips with.

Better?

Richard

[ARedthorn]

eh... again... there's so much negotiating going on with the player at various stages of play (character creation, prior scenes that establish the aspect, and in-the-moment negotiating) that I still don't think of it as forced pretty well no matter what. The player has way too many chances to avoid the issue for him to claim he got forced into it, up to and even including that very scene.

[Richard_Chilton]

Which is why I think a compel to a core aspect is justified when someone has 0 FATE chips - defining that as how the player has been using his aspects.

In the example I gave - the player decided what he wanted to do, how he wanted to use his aspects, etc.  The player has control over what aspects he used so in a circumstance where someone keeps saying "I tag 'Everyone's Mother' because I need to rescue the kid" and then decides that the kid can stay chained to the alter while the PC chases the villain - in a situation like that situation a compel that you can't buy off can be justified.

Richard

[zenten]

On the other hand, compelling an aspect added by someone else through a manouver can be problematic.

[CottbusFiles]

On the other hand, compelling an aspect added by someone else through a manouver can be problematic.

But that means that you failed your defence roll agains that aspect in the first place

[Tedronai]

And the compel can still be negotiated.