Frustrated Question on Morality and denied characater concepts in Dresden RPG

[skakid]

I guess the question becomes, will NPC types have a power level associated with them?  If so that might allow a fairly easy homegrown campaign to do some kind of "reverse" scenario where you're red court vampires working against wizards.  That could be a fun campaign, high powered, but fun never the less.

[iago]

NPCs are going to have a refresh cost associated with their stunts & powers -- which is a pretty good, if rough, barometer of power.

[RangerSG]

The OP seems to be of the opinion that house rules are an insult to the author.

That's how I took it too. And I would submit that only a quality RPG can be loved so dearly to have house rules made for it. 

And I am in full geek-mode over what I've read so far here.

[Telum Voltas]

Playing a character who HAS to give in to their Compels could make for interesting roleplay as well.  How far out of your way will your Sidhe warrior go out of his way to avoid being asked something thrice?  Or what if your White Court vampire has sworn to avoid feeding on a member of the Catholic Clergy, but he's just fought a devastating battle to save a classroom full of catholic schoolchildren?  Will you then break the vow and feed on the Sister responsible for them, or will you sate your hunger on an innocent child?  Or would you find some other way to feed, while still obeying your compulsion not to feed on a nun?

It's not the style of game for everyone, and it's sure to garner cries of "toot toot, railroad!" from some, but it provides a challenge that some people would find even more fun than free will.

[TheMouse]

It's not the style of game for everyone, and it's sure to garner cries of "toot toot, railroad!" from some, but it provides a challenge that some people would find even more fun than free will.

I imagine that those people would be in the minority. Most of the folks I've played with haven't liked being absolutely forced to do something without an option.

[iago]

Compels aren't a force, they're constraint. It's important to recognize that. They eliminate options, but they don't say you can only do this one specific thing.  Your Anger aspect might get compelled, and you'd have to act angrily/in anger, but what that action is is still determinable by the player.

[Telum Voltas]

I imagine that those people would be in the minority. Most of the folks I've played with haven't liked being absolutely forced to do something without an option.

I suppose I phrased my idea poorly.

What I mean is, you're only FORCED to do the action if all your OTHER choices are worse ones (or if your choices leading up to your quandry are so bad that there's no other option).  It's like dying in an RPG: You don't LIKE dying, but sometimes the things you do make it unavoidable to die.  As I showed in my example with not feeding on clergy, you don't necessarily HAVE to act according to your Compel, but it DOES provide a moral quandry that wouldn't be there if you could just ignore your Compel.  The fun isn't in being backed into a corner from which your only egress is the Compel; it's about making you choose between the monster that's in your nature and whatever the alternative is.

Harry faced similar distasteful choices when dealing with Lash.  His cooperation with her on various occasions was distasteful, but he decided that the cost of NOT cooperating would be too high.  That's what I'm talking about.  Not "here is your adventure.  Minute 1: you must do this.  Now you may resume playing your character" sort of things.  Just "If I do this, will I be in a hole so deep that my only choice will be to ____?"

[TheMouse]

Compels aren't a force, they're constraint. It's important to recognize that. They eliminate options, but they don't say you can only do this one specific thing.  Your Anger aspect might get compelled, and you'd have to act angrily/in anger, but what that action is is still determinable by the player.

I worded what I meant poorly.

What I meant is probably closer to: Some people wouldn't like having their options limited in that fashion.

[Rel Fexive]

Even when it's to their advantage i.e. they get a Fate point?  They've chosen the Aspect - might as well take a disadvantage/flaw/complication in another game system and subsequently complain about their character being a pacifist/having no legs/being alcoholic.  They got on the game train - they knew which stations it would stop at.  Of course, some GMs might keep throwing leaves on the line at every opportunity, but-

Okay, I'm going to stop the train metaphors now before the topic gets derailed.

[Knave]

Role Playing in general and Fate in particular isn't about playing perfect characters who always win the day - it's about making fun stories playing interesting characters who struggle through.

Aspects are both a character's passions and flaws - they can be engaged or taken advantage of by both the character and others.  Just like real life.

[TheMouse]

Even when it's to their advantage i.e. they get a Fate point?  They've chosen the Aspect - might as well take a disadvantage/flaw/complication in another game system and subsequently complain about their character being a pacifist/having no legs/being alcoholic. 

I'm thinking more as a situational thing. You can want to play a character with certain conflicts, conflicts you enjoy playing out, and still have situations where you'd rather they didn't pop up. Having the option to just say no is nice.

[Rel Fexive]

Well, what is and isn't fun is the consensus of the table, so players can always argue that it's not fun for that to happen to their character, and maybe the compel can be changed or ignored on that occasion.

[TheMouse]

Well, what is and isn't fun is the consensus of the table, so players can always argue that it's not fun for that to happen to their character, and maybe the compel can be changed or ignored on that occasion.

Which runs exactly parallel to what I said, so we agree.

[Shecky]

Yup. House rules are always the final word.