[DFRPG] Occult Toronto
Erik Weissengruber:
Diaspora does not shy away from in-your face compels. It is really smart in that it limits the effects of any 1 compel. A FP spend can cause another character to a) not act or b) move a zone. The genius of that game is the way it tells players to create spatial arrangements for fictional possibilities and gives good examples of how to draw those arrangements.
Compels can come hard and fast because their use in the mini-games is very circumscribed.
I want to see GM compels work in creating long-term consequences (or their avoidance through the sacrifice of FP) and ensuring consistent and compelling Cities for that long-term, and consistent can compelling scenes in the short-term (i.e. in one scene).
I want NPCs to be able to limit PC options through the expenditure of their resources, not to have my infinite pool of FP stymie or obviate every roll the PCs try to make. That way douchebaggery lies.
Sometimes it makes sense for an NPC a mysterious enchanted being to lay down a couple of Aspects on a PC through Declarations, or for a PC with the "Hot for leather-clad Vampires" to be unable to move away this round. But such immediate challenges to PC efficacy should come from a clearly-defined agent with limited capability to decrease that efficacy. And I get the feeling that permitting NPCs to prevent one OPTION for action (Attack, Block, Maneuver, Assess/Declare) will sit more comfortably with my players than imposing a blanket "you do nothing for this round 'cause my Vamp is so mesmerizing".
Ron Edwards:
Hi Erik,
I have a quick system question. Let's say that a given circumstance of Fate Point economy hits a critical point for a player. In other words, he or she cannot buy off a Compel, or if it's possible, only at a price of not having Fate Points necessary for doing some other thing, or at the price of having to fail a particular thing, and in each case, "the thing" is pretty important to the character and player.
What's the downside for the character? In mechanics terms, fiction terms, or both. I'm thinking of things that are more drastic than merely limiting options as you describe in your last post. I'm talking about tragic breakpoints in a character's personal saga, climaxes of stories, that sort of thing.
And if there is such a downside, then as you see it, is this a situation to be avoided, such that the GM manages things to be pressured enough to be dramatic but without true point-based crisis; or is it a situation that could well come about and is as desirable as any other way the system could go?
Best, Ron
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Erik Weissengruber on January 23, 2011, 08:35:14 PM
Diaspora does not shy away from in-your face compels. It is really smart in that it limits the effects of any 1 compel. A FP spend can cause another character to a) not act or b) move a zone.
Change that to "not act." But in Diaspora that means, specifically, "assumes the worst possible roll on Fate dice -- -4 -- and proceed from there.
So my houserule "Forbid one course of action" and accept another alternative: "compel character to not act/auto fail -- give them an automatic -4 and go from there"
Quote from: Erik Weissengruber on January 23, 2011, 08:35:14 PM
Sometimes it makes sense for an NPC a mysterious enchanted being to lay down a couple of Aspects on a PC through Declarations, or for a PC with the "Hot for leather-clad Vampires" to be unable to move away this round. But such immediate challenges to PC efficacy should come from a clearly-defined agent with limited capability to decrease that efficacy. And I get the feeling that permitting NPCs to prevent one OPTION for action (Attack, Block, Maneuver, Assess/Declare) will sit more comfortably with my players than imposing a blanket "you do nothing for this round 'cause my Vamp is so mesmerizing".
The Vamp could now, under the augmented compel rule,
a) declare MOVE impossible (rule out 1 course of action)
b) but a blanket "you are riveted in place by this death goddess" and have that mean an autofail/-4 equivalent
I can play hardball now. But without the temptation to act like a Ty Cobb.
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 23, 2011, 08:41:58 PM
Hi Erik,
Let's say that a given circumstance of Fate Point economy hits a critical point for a player ... he or she cannot buy off a Compel.
What's the downside for the character? In:
* mechanics terms
* fiction terms
* both.
I'm thinking of things that are more drastic than merely limiting options as you describe in your last post. I'm talking about tragic breakpoints in a character's personal saga, climaxes of stories, that sort of thing.
... if there is such a downside, then as you see it:
* is this a situation to be avoided, such that the GM manages things to be pressured enough to be dramatic but
* is it a situation that could well come about and is as desirable as any other way the system could go?
I had time to parse the question but not formulate response. Will get to it later today.l
Erik Weissengruber:
Let's think of this situation:
-PC's sister is about to be "turned" and made a vampire
-The Vamp "turning" he is a woman who has seduced and captivated PC before PC knew she was Red Court
-I am without any Fate Points
-The Vamp compels my "Hot for leather-clad Vampires" Aspect.
-PC wants to do something to save the sister
Here are the 3 points of departure:
1) The GM, through the Vamp, compels PC's "Leather-clad Vampires are HOT" Aspect.
2) Another Player compels the PC's Aspect
3) The Player compells his/her own Aspect
1) The GM, through the Vamp, compels PC's "Leather-clad Vampires are HOT" Aspect.
* mechanics:
-PC MUST accept the compel as presented. The PC now has a FATE point to resist further compels. But here and now PC will either have to accept a restriction on a course of action or broad loss of efficacy.
-Restriction: The PC has a bowl of Holy Water but Vamp forbids an Attack, and carries out the final suck. PC could try a Move to get away, a Maneuver such as knock over a precious vial of alchemical fluid and place a "Distracted" Aspect on the Vamp (which someone else could tag for a free +2), or some kind of Block (I throw up my "Shield" spell between the Vamp and my sis). These could all delay the final suck and allow either the PC or other players to work on the Vamp. But if the PC is alone, the Vamp stands a good chance of finishing the sucking.
-Auto-Failure: Anything I do will start from the premise that I failed my roll in the worst possible way (-4). So if I have superb Guns (+5) my attack will be a net 1 (Average). The Vamp might get a defense roll or not (depending on skills) but my hit was very weak, and even with a Weapon: 2 and some bonus for the Holy Water (+3?), I would only be doing 6 Stress, which the Vamp could easily shrug off and complete her final suck.
* fiction
-Restrictions create interesting blocks and
-Either way, my sister is a Vampire. Sure, I have a 1 measly FP to help me in subsequent actions but that is small compensation. The PC has been forced into a tragedy by a GM who knew quite clearly that the PC had no more FP. A bit of a downside. But then again, FP spending decisions were made earlier. The PC was operating in a dangerous world and that there are casualties. It seems like a fitting end.
* both
The GM made a decision within the ambit of the rules and according to the fiction established during play so the player will have to accept it. I am not sure if I would do this as a GM.
2) Another Player compels the PC's Aspect
* mechanics
-same as above
* fiction
-Let us say that a straight laced PC2 has been berating PC1 for his/her dalliances with Vamps and other weirdies.
-PC2's player decides that PC1 will suffer the consequences of his Aspect.
-The PC would say things like "My God, look where your moral degradation has led us," or "this is what you get for messing with evil." As a character, PC2 is totally opposed to the Vamp's aims, but the player is making a tragedy happen.
* both
-This example is a logical possibility and an elaboration of the clearly stated rule "players may compel other players' PCs." But in none of the FATE games I own have I ever seen this extreme case of a player using the compel mechanic to frustrate another player's desire to see the fiction unfold in a certain way. I have never had a FATE game go this way and a move like this could really tear at a group's Social Contract. Play advice usually has the GM responsible for major consequences of giving into a compel and never explores how Player vs Player compels might work.
3) The Player compels his/her own Aspect
* mechanics
-The same as 1) and 2). The player draws attention to the Aspect on his own sheet and before any rolls says "OMIGAWD! Sis is about to be turned but I am so lust-besotted that I simply cannot act" and gives him/herself an "auto failure." He/she is now 1 FP richer (players are encouraged to "Self-Compel" to gain FP). That FP must be spent in some FUTURE conflict, so it can't be used right now.
* fiction
-We now have a picture of a flawed PC whose unsavoury appetites have led to his sister's demise. Makes for a good story.
* both
-I prefer this to 1) where the GM was creating a tragedy. The implementation of the Compel mechanic resulted in a great bit of story and gave an FP depleted player an edge in some important action later in the scenario.
In practice, I have never seen circumstances this extreme come up in FATE play. Some folks in my Spirit of the Century and Starblazer Adventure games did express the sentiment that the games seemed a little superficial and that nothing was really at stake despite all the sound and fury and exploding biplanes and battles with deathbots. So if there is going to be real in-your face tragedy or drama or the real possibility for surprising new situations to arise through the mechanics and currency, rather than just GM fiat and razzle dazzle with laser sharks and zombie dinosaurs, the Compels have to be deployed with close attention to FP scarcity and with the aim of producing drama.
The default mode of FATE play is to focus on skills with FP acting as +2 bonuses or re-rolls. Most players hoard FP to keep getting those bounuses when they need them. As a result, there is little chance of their rolls on behalf of their PCs going awry. Some groups and players really get into creating Aspects and tagging them for team attacks or to prepare or tough challenges. I have yet to see much discussion of Actual Play moments where Compels and scarce FP combined for some tough, dramatic, and consequential decisions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page