[DFRPG] Occult Toronto
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 23, 2011, 08:41:58 PM
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?
Phew.
Diaspora has it's mini-games which can be played without GM. It fully entertains the possibility of point-based crisis for compels. A compel can cause you to fail to grab a fallen sacred icon, refrain from making a bold move in a negotiation, not repair an engine on the verge of blowing up, or breaking through the line of alien Stormtroopers to liberate the besiged palace.
As a GM or player I would use that rules system without fear and use point-based crises to make cool stuff happen.
The texts of DFRPG, SoTC, and Starblazer Adventures never address point-based crises although the systems permit the possibility. It is logically possible that Point-based crises might arise by accident, or be created by any player, including the GM. The Compel is a loaded gun, out in the open, but it's in the corner of the room and obscured by a decorative vase. None of these texts gets you ready for when the GM, or, god forbid, one of the players, picks it up and points it at someone.
I don't know when and if I will.
Erik Weissengruber:
Curses, you lack of edit function.
Let's think of this situation:
-PC's sister is about to be "turned" and made a vampire
-The Vamp "turning" is a woman who has seduced and captivated PC before PC knew she was Red Court
-PC is without any Fate Points
-The Vamp compels PC's "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
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote
So my houserule "Forbid one course of action" can [edit] accept another alternative: "compel character to not act/auto fail -- give them an automatic -4 and go from there"
I misremembered the Diaspora rule. The "auto -4" for a Compel applies only in the space combat mini-game. A number is needed for certain resolution steps, so -4 and NO impact from skills or rolls, which means that Aspects could be tagged.
With that in mind, let's revisit this case:
Quote
-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 Fists (+5), and a stunt that allows me to use Fists to throw objects as improvised missiles [edit], 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 some bonus for the Holy Water (+3?), I would only be doing 4 Stress, which the Vamp would likely [edit] shrug off and complete her final suck.
IF I used the Diaspora "Compel = make target lose turn," this calculation would never be made. The GM's Compel would leave the player standing there slack jawed while the Vamp feeds away.
IF I were to use the Diaspora "Compel = "auto -4 roll" in a more general way than it is in that game, the result would look like this:
* -4 instead of dice roll
* No effect from Superb Fists
* Holy Water DOES help for the +3
* and I am stuck at -1
The only way I could even scratch the Vamp in this latter case would be if I had placed some Aspects on her earlier in the scene but had not tagged them yet, Aspects like:
* "She underestimates me"
* "Her back is turned for me"
I go toss my Holy Water, despite the Compel, and these Aspects swing in for a 1-time invocation, with no Fate Point charge, and get +4 to my attack. My clever set up earlier in the scene put aside some bonuses that came in handy when I had 0 FP left to resist the Vamp's Compel.
But after all that effort I only put a 3-Stress hit on the Vamp.
The "-4 roll but you can still make an effort" approach would allow a clever player to stay effective even in a point-based crisis. This would require some real subtle manipulation of the system by that player. And I don't think many people pick up Dresden Files with the expectation that they will have to do crafty system jiu-jitsu to get satisfying story results.
I am pretty sure my players didn't sign up for my game with that expectation.
So I am going in circles: wondering if I should use the hardcore Compels foregrounded in Diaspora (and in the background of the FATE system as such), work with the "auto -4" hack, allow a Compel to forbid ONE of the courses of action build into the resolution mechanic (Attack, Block, Maneuver, Declare, Assess), a mixture of two of those elements, or an avoidance of all of them.
Thoughts?
Ron Edwards:
Lots.
One set of thoughts concerns players' differing expectations and enjoyment. For instance, in the group of people I play with the most, all four of us would eat up the ass-whipping outcomes you're describing with spoons. I've spent FPs on other stuff that really mattered, and the price I pay for those priorities is to stand there like a Pez dispenser while the vampire feeds? Fucking A yes! Whereas you're talking about players who are coming in with vastly different standards for what a player-character is for.
Clearly I am not talking about "good" vs. "bad" play, but instead, exactly what I said: different expectations and enjoyment. For us, a GM who shied away from applying such mechanics would be softballing us as players, not in a strategic try-to-not-to-lose sense, but in the vastly more annoying sense of cushioning our characters from consequences.
There's likely some GNS involved here - are we coming in to do what The Dresden Files does, or what we, as people, think something like it ought to do, as opposed to what it is? Are we here to celebrate the source material (albeit stressing it slightly by playing "our guys" in novel setups), or to use the same starting points to do what we might, arrogantly, consider (much) better?
Another set of thoughts concerns the interesting and extremely clear distinction you're drawing among applications of the FATE mechanics. In some ways, this goes all the way back to the core difficulty in playing Fred's 24-hour game, Pace. Are or are not the initial "failures" consequential in plot terms, whether in comparison to the eventual successes or on their own? If the answer is "they aren't," then the early failures are enjoyable color for what predictably and smoothly turns out to be a success story. If it's "they are," then the story become a rather dark, unpredictable foray into the price of success.
To summarize at this point, Diaspora looks like one end of the spectrum, and possibly Spirit of the Century looks like the other, with basic FATE leaning toward the latter primarily through lack of emphasis. I am perhaps too strong with my own preferences to comment neutrally. When you write,
Quote
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.
... it makes me sigh in profound relief that I own neither book, and leads me to consider picking up Diaspora with great interest. But this view of mine is highly personal, offered as such. More analytically, I think some attention should be leveled toward FATE regarding its incoherence in Creative Agenda terms, and the predictable (and striking) lack of enthusiasm I have observed about playing it, after people get over their excitement about having purchased shiny books.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Whoops, I was interrupted at a key moment. My interest in Agenda-Coherence in FATE is an aside. My intended conclusion was to ask you, Erik, where you think your current players stand in this distinction. It seems to me that your implied decision - how hard do I use these rules - is best made by considering the group's collective interests, enthusiasms, and modes of enjoying play.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page