DFRPG discussed on Actual People, Actual Play podcast

[JesterOC]

I love your podcast, and I am ready to listen to your Desden files podcast on my way to work tomorrow.

JesterIC

[WillH]

Thanks Jester

[JesterOC]

BTW I loved it. I like how you guys did not sugar coat the difficulty you have with FATE games.  I can see the GM's issue about compels and I think that a suggestion given by one of the players could provide the solution.

If I recall correctly, the issue the GM had with compels where that it it made him feel that it took a tough decision for the PC and ruined it by you putting a game mechanic shotgun to the players head.  Thus diluting the tension of the that decision by adding mechanical negative to the situation (ie they will loose a fate point if they choose to not complicate their characters life).

I suggest that you use the majority of compels as "self compels". Meaning that the player himself/herself(or you if they miss it) should request the fate point for making the tough choice if it aligned with one of their aspects and that it complicated their situation.

Other times, if they have a situation where they have a damned if they do damned if they don't scenario, give them a FATE point for either choice if the situation was keyed to their aspect.

Only use "standard" compel when you want to force a plot point in a way that is needed to make the scenario you have defined get started. Mostly this would be story hooks, and other times it could be used if the PC's start to go off the "rails".

I think this would keep the feel you desire. I would guess that the standard compel mechanism is to help roleplayers who are more tactically oriented and have a habit of only choosing the plot point that is beneficial to the character's story.

Thanks again for the thought provoking podcast.

JesterOC
 

[WillH]

I think this would keep the feel you desire. I would guess that the standard compel mechanism is to help roleplayers who are more tactically oriented and have a habit of only choosing the plot point that is beneficial to the character's story.

Great post, I'll make sure Jesse sees this.

I do have a quibble with the section I quoted. What you're suggesting is trying to resolve a social situation* with game mechanics. It is my experience that this is a recipe for disaster.

*In this case competing play styles (or creative agendas for those who like jargon).

[JesterOC]

I'm not sure if it is ALWAYS a recipe for disaster... but I see where it could be.  This reminds me of a podcast of a convention seminar (GenCon 2010) where the speakers described game rules as mind control (Luke Crane and Jared Sorensen).

In essence they stated that the rules of the game force a person to act in a certain manner. I assume that all games fit that statement thus all games use mechanics to manipulate a social situation.

Of course there are rules that do this well, and rules that don't and I think that if a rule does its job in a way that disagrees with someones mindset, the rule and thus the game will suffer.

JesterOC

p.s.
I don't think I stated their point well (or even if I understand it fully). I found the link .. it was from the great folks at the walking eye titled "2010 Recordings: Luke Crane and Jared Sorensen: Game Design is Mind Control"
http://www.thewalkingeye.com/?p=874

[noclue]

If I recall correctly, the issue the GM had with compels where that it it made him feel that it took a tough decision for the PC and ruined it by you putting a game mechanic shotgun to the players head.  Thus diluting the tension of the that decision by adding mechanical negative to the situation (ie they will loose a fate point if they choose to not complicate their characters life).

I find myself agreeing with Jesse in that I think Compels should be used to create tough decisions and dramatic moments, generally not to resolve them. If the player is already doing the heavy lifting in a scene, there's often no real need to jump in with a compel in that moment. When the player is waffling or playing it safe, that's a good time to offer a compel to provide direction indicate a direction you think will be interesting.

And, Jesse outlined lots of ways he was comfortable using compels that seemed to be very functional.

[JesterOC]

I think the only thing I would stress, is that if you find that your characters are doing the heavy lifting, you really need to award them via the "self" compel rule or you will find that the heavy lifters will not gain the FATE points they need.  While listening to the podcast I got the impression that he feels that he should not use compels in those situations, I would say that instead you issue the points after the choice to make sure they get their due.

This all could be a issue of semantics and that what he meant by not compelling was the same as "self" compelling after the fact, but it was not clear to me during the podcast, and thus I wanted to bring it up.

JesterOC

[noclue]

I wish Jesse was here to discuss this. But, if by "heavy lifting" you mean complicating their own character's lives, it runs into his ideas about character advocacy. He tends to prefer players advocating for their characters and an outside force being tasked with bringing the adversity. In Fate, the GM brings adversity, but there's a built in flexibility that I like whereby players can also complicate their character's life through "self compels." The system intermediates between player and GM, and to some extent, in some instances, they cooperate in the creation of adversity.

I think Jesse mentions that he sometimes feels that the Fate mechanic makes him pay for bringing adversity. It also rewards players for bringing their own adversity through "self compels." The way I heard it, the kind of Compel that seems the most problematic for him is essentially offering a Fate point to a player to Compel an Aspect, thereby bribing the player to create their own adversity, rather than just creating it himself. Not sure if that is accurate, but it's how I read it. If I got it wrong, I hope Jesse will come by and correct me.

[JesterOC]

Just want widen the discussion..there is another thread discussing this podcast on their boards (http://spookyouthouse.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=saobtk5v6sbmfmutdvt69maeg5&topic=2740.0).

[jburneko]

Hello,

It's been a miserable week at work which is why I haven't been able to respond to the various threads this particular episode has spawned.  Let me see if I can clarify some of my thoughts on Compels and my whole Character Advocacy deal.

Let's say a guy has the "Greedy" Aspect.  We're in a scene where he's splitting up the loot after a heist with his partner.  The players says, "You know what?  I think I totally shoot my partner and take ALL the money."  That's totally going to complicate things and is totally worth a self compel, have a FATE point.  This doesn't in anyway break my thing about "Character Advocacy" because character advocacy is about fighting for what the character wants in the way he would fight for it.  It doesn't necessarily mean doing the "smart" thing or keeping the character safe or even looking out for his "best interests" in a self-help book kind of way.

Where I start to have is issues is when Compels are used to resolve a point of fictional tension.  Let's say a player has the Aspect, "Better Late Than Never."  His character is racing across town to save his girlfriend from a bomb.  We could roll Driving or we could Compel "Better Late Than Never" and say he doesn't make it in time.

1) If the PLAYER does it then that breaks my thing about Character Advocacy.  I don't like it when the players aren't invested enough to bother fighting for their characters; when some nebulous sense of "plot" and "drama" supersede raw character passion.

2) If the GM does it then one of two things happens.

2a) The player GLEEFULLY takes the Compel which is just a case of #1 where the GM is simply pointing out the opportunity.

or

2b) The player is genuinely bothered by this and buys the Compel off.  In which case the GM is now a dickweed.  He made the player pay a game resource for the RIGHT to fight for his character's interests something I like to take for granted at my table.

Does this help clarify my issues with the mechanic?

Jesse

[exploding_brain]

Your difficulties with the compel mechanic totally make sense, based on that description of how it might be used.

I think many of the comments above are trying to address the idea the type of scenario you're describing is a less than optimal way to use the mechanic.

The compel you describe isn't so much making the character's life difficult or complicated, in the way that FATE is intended to address the fiction.  It's just making his life suck, and not in a particularly interesting way.

I hope we'll see some alternate ways to address that scenario, that let the compel mechanic add to the drama of the narrative.  I'd try to write some up now, but work is calling me back.

Looking forward to the next episode by the way.

[exploding_brain]

OK, so for instance, the aspect "Better late than never" implies to me that, while this character is going to have problems because of showing up somewhere late, he'll usually be able to salvage something from that late arrival.  So the character learns that his GF's is danger of being blown up.  The character wants to get to the location of the bomb in time to diffuse it.  If he rolls really well on his drive role, he'll have more time to deal with the bomb.  The player picks up the dice, and the GM holds up a fate point and says, "I think you're going to get there too late to diffuse the bomb.  But, better late than never, you will have enough time free your girlfriend.  But the cops are probably going to start taking an interest in why thing around you keep blowing up."  Now the player can take the compel, and wind up in the sort of situation that the Aspect indicates he should often be in, or he can buy off the compel, for the chance to rescue his GF, disarm the bomb, and avoid unwanted police scrutiny.

The player can also offer alternative conditions for the compel. "I know I'm going to be late, so I call my buddy who lives in that section of town.  He can save her, and disarm the bomb.  Of course, he'll get credit for the save, and she might decide he would make a better boyfriend, since he's more reliable and heroic.  But I'll get a look at the bomb, and maybe that can help lead me to the bastards who put it there."

[exploding_brain]

Let me see if I can address the ideas of advocating for characters more directly, and maybe also the idea of the GM playing adversity without having to pay for it.

The introduction of the compel shouldn't necessarily trump the resolution of a conflict by other mechanics.  In the particular problem case that we've been discussing, the compel can best be used as a way to get the GM and players to discuss how to make the conflict a more interesting part of the story.  The GM brings the adversity, in the form of antagonistic NPCs and environment.  The Compel gives the GM more latitude to turn the screws that much tighter, because the PC has a connection with this particular adversary.  If the characters Aspect(s) suggest a way in which the conflict would be more interesting, by upping the stakes, or complicating the possible consequences, or changing the arena, he can suggest that the story take that particular turn, and offer the player a reward for giving him the tool to take the story in that direction.

Assuming the PC accepts the compel, he still gets to advocate for his character, but he might be up against tougher odds, or he might have to accept some limitation while doing his fighting, or he might have to concede a setback on one front so that he can concentrate on another.  Hopefully, the upshot is to increase the drama at the table, either by the increased risk of failure, or the pathos of having to sacrifice one desire to pursue another.

I don't know if that was very clear or helpful.  Usually I include examples to supplement these sorts of discussions, but I wanted to try to address things in general terms in this case.

P.S. Sometimes it is a good idea to let the compel short-circut the other game mechanics, if the consensus at the table is that the process of determining the some outcome won't be much fun, and there's one particular outcome that people are excited to see.  In that case, a compel, accepted or bought off, could the the most agreeable and efficient way to get to the good stuff. But I think we're concerned with conflicts you want get more fun out of, rather than the boring ones you might want to skip.

[noclue]

Where I start to have is issues is when Compels are used to resolve a point of fictional tension. 

Yeah, but why would someone do that? I mean that compel of Better Late Than Never is just flat. It robs the decision of any visceral impact. As soon as the player accepts it, not saving the girlfriend has been accepted. Had the Greedy compel been a GM compel, it would have rocked, because you would compel Greedy and the player would have acted on it, and then it would have introduced more points of fictional tension, rather than resolving them.

Jesse, I don't think you have a problem with compels. I think you have a problem with bad compels.

[ActionMan3K]

A great way to use the Better Late Than Never compel in this situation is as a limiting factor, assuming you have a skill challenge set up at the bomb site.  The character still arrives before the bomb goes off regardless of the player's response to the compel.  However, if the compel was accepted they'll have much less time to react to the situation.  A challenge that would have given them four exchanges might only give two.  The player will have to choose between getting his girlfriend out of the building and letting it blow or trying to disarm the bomb and risking both of their lives.