ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: dudemanrocks on November 11, 2011, 10:47:26 PM
-
I can't seem to find a mention of this anywhere. Please direct me if there is.
A compel can only be refused by spending a Fate Point, so if a character has zero FPs, I see few options:
1) The character cannot refuse a compel. Could be reasoned as the character doesn't have the "disposable free will" to resist the circumstances. I don't like this. It takes the choice away, which only happens when a character willing takes on a debt to someone/thing.
2) That character cannot be compelled. Makes it harder to get FPs to the characters that obviously need them, though it does force them to self-compel.
3) Offer compels with a buy out payed with "debt". You can dodge one, but it'll get you later. Doing this at all doesn't thrill me, but it's a comprimise.
4) Allow buying out for free in this specific case. I've leaned towards this, but it might be to soft.
Also, I find myself hesitating to compel characters with 1 FP too, because it leads to the above situation.
This game system isn't easy on characters, and I've found myself trying to get tons of points to them to spice up the rolling. That said, we've only played a few games and we're still getting used to working with aspects, especially declerations.
I'd like to hear any thoughts or suggestions, please.
-
I'd compel that couldn't be refused, but only due so with one that I'm certain the player wouldn't reject.
-
Something you should consider is that a compel is not a bad thing. A compel gets you fate points. A compel introduces drama and fun which are necessary for a good game. Most veteran Fate players welcome a compel, and indeed choose to self-compel as often as they can.
That being said the RAW supports your third option. If a player really doesn't want to take a compel and doesn't have any fate points then you can totally offer to absorb it with debt.
Another option that you should think about is negotiation. Compels can be negotiated. If the player doesn't like the exact terms of the compel (or better doesn't feel like it's quite appropriate for the aspect that they intended) they are free to suggest a compel that suits them better. Keep in mind that you're the final arbiter of this, if they make an offer that would weaken the compel considerably then withdraw the compel or at least tell them no.
-
Option 1 is correct by the rules. Running out of Fatepoints is dangerous
"Oh, a Fatepoint for killing with magic..."
extremly dangerous. It can introduce a LOT of drama if done right but can be missused easy by the GM. Be cautious when you do it but don't refrain from doing it if you think it to be apropriate.
-
It's an acceptably understood consequence of having few Fate points. The economy of the FATE system *is* the circulation of Fate points through Compels, Invokes, etc.
Certainly it is possible that a GM could abuse the situation, either through inexperience, malice, or misjudgement. It certainly feels rotten to be unable to buy off a Compel when you really want to. And if a GM is hammering a character with Compels when they cannot buy them off, especially bad Compels which aren't contributing to the overall story, then there might need to be a conversation amongst the table about what is considering "cricket."
But the core situation (a player with no FP to resist a Compel) is an expected thing in this type of game, and as long as the table is agreed on what is a sporting use of Compels, there doesn't need to be additional adjudication.
-
Well, keep in mind that one of the basic concepts in the game is that Fate is representative of Free Will. Monsters are monstrous because they lack the free will (negative refresh) to fight against their nature. To a lesser extent a character with low Fate (either due to a low refresh or a temporary shortage) is intended to be in a similar bind (though to a lesser degree).
That said, you should keep in mind that compels are intended to limit choices, not dictate an outcome. So if you're seeing a compel as being a matter of forcing a character to perform a certain action, then you're probably being too hard on your players. Instead, the player should be encouraged to come up with a course of action that plays to the aspect being compelled. It's kind of like a concession: yes, you're going down, but it can be on *your* terms, not on terms dictated to you.
(A few posts were made while I wrote this, and I haven't read through them as I press 'post'... :p )
-
I've used all four of those at various points.
Currently, I respond to zero fate points with one of two actions:
1) It's the end of the game session; everyone refreshes fate points.
2) Throw out a relatively benign compel, just to get them back up to one fate point - at which point the gloves are off again.
-
Well, keep in mind that one of the basic concepts in the game is that Fate is representative of Free Will. Monsters are monstrous because they lack the free will (negative refresh) to fight against their nature. To a lesser extent a character with low Fate (either due to a low refresh or a temporary shortage) is intended to be in a similar bind (though to a lesser degree).
That said, you should keep in mind that compels are intended to limit choices, not dictate an outcome. So if you're seeing a compel as being a matter of forcing a character to perform a certain action, then you're probably being too hard on your players. Instead, the player should be encouraged to come up with a course of action that plays to the aspect being compelled. It's kind of like a concession: yes, you're going down, but it can be on *your* terms, not on terms dictated to you.
(A few posts were made while I wrote this, and I haven't read through them as I press 'post'... :p )
You are of course right "kill him with magic" is not a particulary good compel.
But "You know, this guy pissed you off in a major way and you make your OWN RULES - maybe he had it coming either way".
edit : how would you word such a compel with an Aspect like
I AVENGE THE WEAK or
I MAKE MY OWN RULES or
DANGEROUS WHEN THREATEND
-
:) That was a lot of help, thanks y'all!
With a solid negotiation, I'm seeing how the forced compel isn't so scary. I'll probably leave the debt option as back up, for the rare instance we can't settle on something. I'll let y'all know if my group finds a better fit.
-
You are of course right "kill him with magic" is not a particulary good compel.
But "You know, this guy pissed you off in a major way and you make your OWN RULES - maybe he had it coming either way".
edit : how would you word such a compel with an Aspect like
I AVENGE THE WEAK or
I MAKE MY OWN RULES or
DANGEROUS WHEN THREATEND
Even in these examples, you should be saying "You know, this guy pissed you off in a major way and you make your OWN RULES - maybe he has something coming", then hold out the chip and wait for the player's decision as to how to handle it. Maybe the answer is to take the chip and punch the guy in the face. Maybe it's to take the chip and back down from the confrontation, with the result that the character questions their ability to handle themselves in a fight. Or, as an example of using the 'debt' concept, perhaps it affects his reputation as someone who shouldn't be pissed off, with the hit to his reputation tied to the 'debt'. If the character was trying to negotiate, perhaps he loses his cool and stalks out of the meeting, spoiling the negotiation. It can be anything, really, so long as it in some (reasonable) way causes trouble for the character. What he *can't* do is ignore the insult and calmly continue the conversation (he'd have to buy off the compel for that).
-
Hmm... Dangerous when Threatened...
Prince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death.
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Prince Humperdinck: I think you're bluffing.
Westley: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.
[slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince]
Westley: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!
[Humperdinck's mouth hangs open, drops sword to floor]
Yeah, Westley is pretty Dangerous when Threatened. Social stress takeout FTW.
-
I like that example. I think Wesley's player not only accepted the Fate point for the compel, but followed through by using the same Fate point to invoke the same aspect for a +2 on his Intimidation roll... :)
-
I'd make the compel that you want to see happen, but allow for the player to negotiate if they don't want to see it. I assume you don't want to punish the player, so it's likely that the compel will be interesting and the player will take his fate point happily. If they have a problem with it, talking about expectations is a good thing.
-
I tell my players if they're out of FP to start looking for places to self-Compel, since by definition they're coming up with complications that they'd agree to the FP.
-
Without compels, a player that runs out of FPs has no way to recover them.
If a player runs out of FPs, they ran out for a reason. Either they spent them all- their choice- or they didn't have many to begin with- their choice to build the character that way.
Self-compelling is the better option, especially since your players should be doing a fair bit of this anyway... but even otherwise... why is a forced compel bad? You're not forcing them to act in any way that they have no control over- they built the character and chose the aspects in play (maneuvers notwithstanding- and most of those are perfectly reasonable within the situation you're using them).
Negotiating is perfectly fair too- you should be doing this a fair bit anyway... but when push comes to shove, they asked for it. Literally.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
On the other hand, compelling an aspect added by someone else through a manouver can be problematic.
-
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
-
And the compel can still be negotiated.