Mental Evocations solutions?

[Locnil]

Please retroactively consider all previous statements on the cost-neutrality of compels to be in reference to accepted compels.

So.. you are stating that accepted compels are cost-neutral. Ok. I agree. Glad we can still do that. 

I was stating, however, that compels as a whole aren't cost-neutral.

[Locnil]

I don't see a contradiction. I've read your posts, and I still don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in the rules.

Some are less than cost-neutral, others are more. On average, they're neutral.

The contradiction isn't actually with the rules - it's between the rules and the guidelines.

The guidelines state that compels are supposed to be cost-neutral - incidentally, if it wasn't clear, I agree with you about that bit - but the rules suggest otherwise, since refusing a compel causes it to be a drawback and accepting it is cost-neutral. Therefore, collectively speaking, compels are not cost-neutral.

Please explain how some compels are more than cost-neutral, and how that is a function of the rules.

[Sanctaphrax]

Sometimes, the inconvenience presented by a Compel will be minor enough that getting a Fate Point is an overpayment.

EDIT: Because it seems relevant...I'm not sure if I've ever seen a refused Compel. And I've played this game a lot. Given that people can just accept every Compel and accepted Compels are cost-neutral in your eyes, doesn't that make all Compels cost-neutral unless the player deliberately handicaps themself by rejecting one?

[Locnil]

So, in cases where the GM treats compels as an excuse simply to hand out FP?

Ok then. Three solutions to assure cost-neutrality of compels: Make them free to refuse, Give out other benefits along with the FP, or just use them as an excuse to hand out FP.

I distinctly recall YS stating compels should have some 'bite' to them. Have I been misremembering?

[Sanctaphrax]

No, all Compels should have bite.

But sometimes they don't have a full FP worth of bite.

FP are worth a lot.

[Lavecki121]

I don't know how this thread turned into this but:

Sancta, to be clear my comment about house rule was in reference to mental evocation.

That said. Locnil. If compels never came up there would be no way to earn fate points. Your argument that refusing compels is to expensive doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about fate points being an amalgam for free will

[toturi]

Yes, refused compels are expensive.  You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.

No, he is not. But given the general mood of this forum, I did not think it was worth the effort to argue otherwise.

That said. Locnil. If compels never came up there would be no way to earn fate points. Your argument that refusing compels is to expensive doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about fate points being an amalgam for free will

A positive Refresh is a representation of free will. But even monsters with negative Refresh can have Fate Points.

FP are worth a lot.

It depends on what you paid for them and what you for pay with them.

A Compel can shut down an entire avenue of approach. In a case like that, it might as well be that you have failed in that approach. If that approach would have used an apex skill, its relative cost would depend on what skill your alternative approach would use.

Because it seems relevant...I'm not sure if I've ever seen a refused Compel. And I've played this game a lot. Given that people can just accept every Compel and accepted Compels are cost-neutral in your eyes, doesn't that make all Compels cost-neutral unless the player deliberately handicaps themself by rejecting one?

If an accepted Compel is cost neutral, then a declined Compel should also be cost neutral as well.

If we accept the premise that a Compel is supposed to make the story interesting and see it as a positive thing, then the player should be rewarded and come out ahead instead of Compels being cost neutral. However this is not true, while the converse is. The player is punished by losing an FP for refusing the Compel.

So in effect because only accepted Compels are cost neutral, and declined Compels are not, overall Compels are not cost neutral. If overall Compels are to be cost neutral, the accepted Compels need to put the player ahead instead of simply compensating him fully. If there is to be a stick in that the player loses out by refusing a Compel, then there should not simply be a cost-neutral alternative but a carrot to put him ahead.

Accepting a Compel should make the game more interesting. But refusing a Compel doesn't really make the story any more boring per se, except that in order to refuse that Compel the player has to spend an FP which he could have used to make the game more interesting at a later time. I feel that if making the story more interesting is the goal, then refusing a Compel should be cost neutral while accepting it should put the player ahead.

[Wolfhound]

Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

You can change an Aspect just about every single Milestone, thus nearly every game session.

If there is an Aspect on your sheet 'Hot Headed'... the player chose to leave that there, not the GM. This is the case for any character Aspect.

If the GM has a scene that logically or thematically makes sense to Compel an Aspect, the GM probably should... after all... that is the purpose of having an Aspect on the sheet... to dictate character traits good and bad, and get Fate Points for the 'bad'

If the Player refuses the Compel... the player is making the call to refuse the in scene repercussion of the player's choice to leave an Aspect in existence. 

The GM did not leave 'hot headed' in play, but is making it relevant in this scene. How is this 'Railroading'? The player is making the call to refuse a choice the player made, why should that be 'Neutral?' (Assume for purposes of this line item the GM is familiar enough with the system to realize Compels are negotiated and not a new GM making unilateral fiats... admittedly a common fault with new GMs... which is actually a GM "training" issue, not a system fault)

[toturi]

Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

You can change an Aspect just about every single Milestone, thus nearly every game session.

If there is an Aspect on your sheet 'Hot Headed'... the player chose to leave that there, not the GM. This is the case for any character Aspect.

Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible. If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.

Also you are assuming that an Aspect on a character is the direct result of a player decision. This is not necessarily true. A scene Aspect placed there by a GM can be Compelled. An Aspect placed on the character by an NPC can also be Compelled.

[Wolfhound]

Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible.

Indeed. The mechanic for the 'flexibility' to now decide to not have the chosen Aspect be used against his/her character ... is the Fate Point that now must be paid to the GM.

If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.

Well, let's not let hyperbole enter into this. Death in FATE in an agreed upon situation between the GM and the players.

Rather "If you have chosen to be 'a hothead,' choosing how being 'a hothead' complicates your character's life is pretty much a moot point - it's going to happen. All that remains is negotiating with the GM as to how that complication manifests."

Also you are assuming that an Aspect on a character is the direct result of a player decision. This is not necessarily true. A scene Aspect placed there by a GM can be Compelled. An Aspect placed on the character by an NPC can also be Compelled.

I would highly encourage a quick review of pages 100-105 here. Strictly speaking the verbiage for "Compel" is used for and in regard to Character Aspects.

A Scene Aspect can be "Tagged" and if it's Sticky, a Fate Point can later be spent to Invoke it again.

An Aspect placed on a character by an NPC is a "Maneuver" and likewise can be "Tagged" or, if Sticky, a Fate Point can be later spent to Invoke it again.

[Wolfhound]

Sorry, was in a bit of a rush this morning, and wasn't as clear as I normally prefer.

Re: Scene Aspect
Yes indeed, it is possible to Compel Aspects in a handful of situations outside of Character Aspects. However, even within the rules they're a bit hamfisted (burning building example) or involve magic (love potion). While you could do it with a Compel... there's probably a much better way.

Re: Aspect from another NPC
A true Compel from another character requires them to pay your character a Fate Point, otherwise it's a Maneuver.

---

However, special case or not, yes you're most correct - they're still implied to be "Compels" off situation relevant Temporary Character Aspects (in the rules I believe they use the verbiage "temporarily on your record sheet" even) a but that also means they're negotiated if they're Compelled. That was the essential thrust I was trying to make in my reply this morning.

One of the things mentioned by Locnil in an earlier reply (what lead to me replying myself) - it was an interesting word choice - "Railroaded" specifically in reference to Compels, it makes me wonder if some of the resistance to Compels comes from forgetting (or general inflexibility on) that point.

Today In the Village of Exampleton

(click to show/hide)

We have OPHs (Our Plucky Heroes) facing off against EBGs (Evil Bad Guys) and the GM hits the scene with the Scene Aspect "Tempers Are Running Hot" ...  by the very nature of Scene Aspects, the GM is taking a direct hand, but that doesn't mean it has to be a complete railroaded cludge.

Meh - GM Compels the scene Aspect, gives everybody a Fate Point, and combat ensues. Yes, technically within the rules, but I would say this is about as clunky a method as possible. If this is the type of GM style in discussion, I would understand feeling railroaded.

Better - Young Jack, a member of OPH, has the Character Aspect 'a  hothead' - the GM Compels THAT and justifies it due to the Scene Aspect "Tempers Are Running Hot" ... it stands to reason a character with a Character Aspect like that would "lose it" in a socially stressful situation and start the combat. However, it would still probably feel a bit like railroading without negotiation.

Fuego! - Young Jack is 'a hothead' and the GM offers a Fate Point for a Compel off it in the Scene. The player of Young Jack doesn't want OPH to "throw the first punch" and would rather have the EBGs start it off so they can claim self-defense later. The GM indicates that he wants fighting to start in exchange for the Fate Point, but Young Jack's player doesn't want to be the one to start it out (for whatever plot reason). So the agreed upon Compel is that Young Jack will use an Intimidation skill attack (off the Provocation trapping) against some chosen member of the EBGs (Fred). So he yells out to Fred, "Hey Fred, is ya sister able to walk straight yet? Heard she got a right propa shaggin' last weekend!"  ... Intimidation resisted by Discipline, Young Jack is tagging the Scene Aspect "Tempers Are Running Hot" ... and the player asks the GM if this acceptable for the Compel? GM says it is; gives the Fate Point. Jack inflicts a Great 4 Shift Social Attack after the dice rolls - Fred only has 3 Social Stress so it takes him out (he's really just a minor goon in the scene, no need to take consequences). Young Jack's player says the terms of the "take out" is that Fred makes the first attack, charging across the space between the two groups and takes a swing at Jack.... fight's on. GM's goal met, player still had control of how that Compel played out.

If the player still refused to take the bait, his 'hotheaded' character, in a situation where 'tempers are running hot' ... still didn't lose his temper and kept a lid on it. Very uncharacteristic considering the scene... thus it costs a Fate Point to buy off the GM Compel.

Conceptually related are temporary Character Aspects as what might be applied by something like Bob's Love Potion (independent of a Maneuver Aspect inflicted by another character)

Last Week In Exampleton

(click to show/hide)

Jack (OPH) is on a date with Fred the EBG's Sister. They're out under the stars drinking some homemade wine and discussing whatever it is they talk about in Exampleton... how to grow a turnip or whatever.

A fairy apparently put a Love Potion in Jack's drink. As indicated for the item description, he takes the Aspect "Consumed By Lust..."

Meh - the GM compels it and the scene plays out as one might expect. Yeah, that would feel like railroading.. but then again, it was magic. Young Jack's player is left with the smarmy feeling that maybe his character just got magicked into being the village rapist.

Better - Pretty tough to put a middle of the road lipstick on this pig, but here goes. Player asks what the terms of the Compel are, and that it's Jack must act on his lust in some way that makes it very clear - at least a painfully social awkward situation at the minimum. Jack shuffles/scoots far closer than propriety would allow, and even places his hands on Fred's sister in an unacceptably familiar way (unless they were already intimately acquainted) and risks at least a good cheek slapping at the minimum. Young Jack's player also indicates that if Fred's Sister has any alertness whatsoever, it's easy for her to tell that Young Jack is very ... enamored ... of the situation due to the effects of the lust potion. Socially awkward yes with no idea how the scene will play out, but his character isn't a rapist. The Compel has been acknowledged and acted upon.

Fuego! - Ok, GM's being a right propa git with this scene so might as well own it. Player accepts the Compel and turns around and uses the Fate Point gained to Invoke his Aspect "Right Charming Bloke" to boost a Rapport vs Discipline Seduction attempt. He rolls well enough to overcome Fred's Sister's Social Stress track even though it's technically not an attack - so the scene fades to black as Jack and Fred's Sister enjoy a romantic interlude.

... likely the events of the above led to the conflict I used in the first example.

Tune in next week for the next exiting episode of "As The Butter Churns" ... will Fred's Sister discover she's pregnant? Will Young Jack survive the encounter with Fred's gang?

Hopefully the above shows that a Compel need not feel like "railroading" ... if it does... your group may not be leveraging the system as fully as you otherwise could be. Likewise, hopefully it shows why "buying off" a Compel costs a Fate Point. If the scene is set up properly ... actually going against the trappings of the scene should represent a fairly monumental decision to not engage or participate (thus costs the FP).

[toturi]

Rather "If you have chosen to be 'a hothead,' choosing how being 'a hothead' complicates your character's life is pretty much a moot point - it's going to happen. All that remains is negotiating with the GM as to how that complication manifests."

I did not mean killed as in death but more in a manner of bad things happen. An Aspect where it is likely that bad things happen to the character much more than good things.

And I think you missed the point. If the player had chosen that an Aspect would bring more bad things for him to deal with than good stuff that helps him along, then it is the player's choice. But if the Aspect was forced upon the character (whether it is through the rules and everyone has such an Aspect or singled out via GM fiat is, to me, irrelevant to this discussion), then it is not his choice. It becomes as I had described before - "If you are going to be killed raped, choosing how you are killedraped is pretty much a moot point."

(click to show/hide)

And this is precisely how I view Compels - as character rape, despite how you have tried to portrayed it in your examples. It is simply that in your examples, the rapist used lube or substituted penetration with a blowjob.

[Tedronai]

If an aspect is applied to a character by means of GM fiat, then the results of that aspect being in place are also the results of GM fiat.  This is not an irrelevant distinction from an aspect applied using the rules.

If you find the nature of a specific compel to be distasteful, negotiate an acceptable alternative.
If you find the nature of compels in general to be distasteful, use a system that is not built upon them.

[Sanctaphrax]

Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

We want players to build characters that have interesting Compellable weaknesses. The game should encourage that.

But if Compels are bad then an optimal character is one that's built to not get Compelled.

So it's a very good thing that Compels are cost-neutral...if they weren't, then the game would be telling people to build boring characters.

It becomes as I had described before - "If you are going to be killed raped, choosing how you are killedraped is pretty much a moot point."

(click to show/hide)

And this is precisely how I view Compels - as character rape, despite how you have tried to portrayed it in your examples. It is simply that in your examples, the rapist used lube or substituted penetration with a blowjob.

You have got to be kidding me.

I was going to discuss this with you, but...no. That is the worst analogy.

[Mrmdubois]

There has got to have been a better way to say that toturi.