Chain Compels

[Becq]

I'm not getting it.  The example luchadore wouldn't be chain compelled.  I'd compel one of his aspects, and if playing out the compel meant that he touched on his other nearly identical aspects, then so be it, but he doesn't get extra fate points for it.

As a GM, that's true.  But a player who puts himself at a disadvantage in playing along with an aspect can claim a self-compel ... and in this example, could claim seven related self-compels, in theory.  There's an example in the rules on YS104 in which a character had to choose between actions suggested by two conflicting aspects, and was given two Fate because both were considered compeled.

By the way, the flip side of this (as mentioned by Ochosi) is that "buying off the compel" would cost seven Fate.  So every time an insult flew at you you'd either have to go ape-shit (and collect a pile of Fate and suffer the consequences) or pay a pile of Fate to resist your natural tendencies.

Yes, I could see this being a BIIIIG problem for such a character.

[mostlyawake]

I've mechanically limited my players to receiving or spending at most 2 fate points per compel-ing circumstance, due to just this.  One of my players originally made a character that was ALL about fighting evil, and wanted 7 fate points every time the group did exactly what it was going to do: go kill the baddie. So I spouted some BS about how I thought the book only allowed me to give up to 2 fate points, and stuck with it.  We changed his 5 other aspects to reflect more interesting parts of his character, and discussed how a compel has to be sort of bad for the character.

What I've learned to watch out for is things like "protective warrior" coupled with "i get angry when innocents are threatened", as it can create a kind of free invocation:  "hey i want try protect these people, here's a fate point. now give it back because i am angry about it!"

Interestingly enough, one of my characters has the opposite: a desire to strike down evil, plus a desire to protect others.  So when these conflict, she could end up paying to ignore a compel (going for the evil dude) to get a compel (protect others).  since that's silly, i always compel her to save people first, as that's her high concept.  So she has to go against that if she wants to smite the enemy instead.

Sometimes, it works out to her benefit, and she gets two fate points for smiting the enemy to protect the innocent. Often, she gets these (despite it being exactly what the group was going to do, and thus not really a negative to her) because she does so without regard to the situation... she'll slay a demon in front of a kid without really thinking about the consequences. To her credit, she almost always dishes these points right back into smiting the thing.

[luminos]

My philosophy (based on how I interpret the rules) about Fate points is different than what I'm seeing in this thread.  Fate points aren't rewards for playing your character.  They are payments for when an aspect genuinely introduces complications and challenges for a character.  One complication induced by aspects = one fate point, regardless of how many aspects could have led to that complication.  The examples in the book that use multiple aspects always show how each aspect introduces a complication beyond what the other aspect did.  If I'm compelling different aspects for the same purpose (getting the character to start a fight from an insult, for example), then I count that as following the same rules as escalating the compel on a single aspect.  Meaning that it almost never happens except in extraordinary moments, and it never goes beyond two Fate points bid on it.

But this thing where the player "self-compels" seven different aspects on a single complication?  No, I don't see that at all.  Would his actions be any different had he only had one appropriate aspect?  If the answer is no, you have a really good argument that this is not seven different compels.  Its just one compel that could have been justified seven different ways.