Started by Erik Weissengruber, January 07, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Erik Weissengruber on January 23, 2011, 11:35:14 PMDiaspora 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.
Quote from: Erik Weissengruber on January 23, 2011, 11:35:14 PMSometimes 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".
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 23, 2011, 11:41:58 PMHi 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?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 23, 2011, 11:41:58 PMAnd 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?
QuoteSo my houserule "Forbid one course of action" can  accept another alternative: "compel character to not act/auto fail -- give them an automatic -4 and go from there"
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 , 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  shrug off and complete her final suck.
QuoteSome 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.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 24, 2011, 11:11:58 PMErik, 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.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 24, 2011, 10:52:05 PMMore 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.