But in the situation where the character has only one refresh it isn't a choice, that's what I'm saying. A compel should ALWAYS be a choice (saving of course those situations where the character is without Fate chips). When you're giving the player the choice of 'Save the thugs or become an NPC' what you're really doing is railroading them into saving the thugs.
First off, Compels are negotiations.
Even if the character has no Fate points left, it's still a negotiation.
S/he could, for instance suggest an alternate complication that would be more to their liking. Perhaps the danger isn't in that their use of fire lit the building, but that a few missed shots (or shots that 'clipped' their targets) punched though the building, and, while the resultant fires don't seem to be particularly dangerous (they'll burn themselves out before they reach the mooks, or are just burning slowly enough or are small enough that help can easily be arranged before then), those flames have been spotted by local authorities or someone who alerted said authorities, and they'll be on scene shortly, with plenty of difficult questions.
If the GM is insisting that death MUST be on the table, then they are, frankly, likely being unreasonable. They're either imposing a Fate point tax (if the player has any), or using the equivalent of 'Rocks Fall, You Die' (if the player doesn't have any Fate points remaining).
As a general thought, sometimes you got only one safe way to handle the situations because your preceding choices brought you to that point.
In some cases you can reasonably negotiate some other outcomes, in other cases there are only complicating ones.
However if we stick with my example, the compel is made to make the things more interesting.
And it can lead to other scenes.
Perhaps you have save a thug who gives some hints about the BBG.
However if we stick with my example, the compel is made to make the things more interesting.
Along the lines of "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch":
If you take an Aspect of "Kicking Ass and Chewing Bubblegum, and I'm All Out of Gum" then it will help you in fight after fight, but when that idiot pushes your buttons why shouldn't you be compelled to put him into his place?
I can easily see a situation where a player could be compelled to flat out let the bad guy get away, no alternatives.(bolding added)
..it's an aesthetic choice which must be made in advance by the whole group.This!
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
(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.
Again. DICHOTOMIES ARE BAD. Be more creative.
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."
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
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 so external to you?Yes, absolutely. The Lawbreaker power is always applied when a mortal practitioner breaks one of the Laws. Whether or not the WC discovers the transgression and sends in the Wardens is an entirely separate issue.
Wait, you mean if a GM were to simply impose that outcome on a player without offering the player a choice, or even a warning with the option to let the spell fizzle? That would be just absurdly high-handed. The appropriate response would be for the entire group to quit on the spot.
I thought this was some hypothetical scenario, or for someone's PC background. You know, a character that's just strangely good at killing things, and isn't sure why.
It was, it was me proving to myself to a large extent the rules of magic are arbitary and random but then so is life so I can't really complain.
Wait, you mean if a GM were to simply impose that outcome on a player without offering the player a choice, or even a warning with the option to let the spell fizzle? That would be just absurdly high-handed. The appropriate response would be for the entire group to quit on the spot.
But if that's the case Harry would have at least law break two or higher.Only if he actually killed people at the party.
In the core book in the lawbreaker section it says that you gain lawbreaker when you choose to break one of the lawsThe "choose" might refer to the player. I'd have to read the section to be sure. I'll check WoJ over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure he was clear that causing a death with magic makes one a Lawbreaker, intent doesn't enter into it.
Whenever you choose to break one of the
Laws of Magic, you’re crossing a very real line.
By taking such an action, you’ve altered your
self-image and your beliefs—the very basis of
you—to be the sort of person who breaks that
Law. Often, once you do that, there’s no turning
back.
Only if he actually killed people at the party.
Look, my theory is just that, a theory, and under my theory Harry would not have been able to kill those people.
However, I do not find the idea that the laws just exist arbitrarily and randomly likely at all. Jim has put a lot of thought into the series, and from what I understand of the way that Evil Hat came up with the books Jim had a lot of input. I doubt that the implementation of the Laws is particularly divergent from the way he envisions them working.
Alternatively, harm caused by magic is "fed back" to the caster via the sympathetic link between caster and target, so even if the caster is unaware of the effects of his or her actions the metaphysical repercussions still find their way back. If the victim of the action is too alien (non-human) there is no real resonance, and no lasting effect to the caster.
The "choose" might refer to the player. I'd have to read the section to be sure. I'll check WoJ over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure he was clear that causing a death with magic makes one a Lawbreaker, intent doesn't enter into it.
Remember the central conceit of the game is that it's being designed by Billy the Werewolf to be run by Kirby the Werewolf, with Bob and Harry as consultants.
It's going to reflect Harry's views of magic, with some attempts by Bob and Billy to attain some sort of objectivity.