Aspects placed by GM?

[BumblingBear]

In our game the other night, there was a situation where a PC got two consistent awesome rolls in combat and would probably be feeling cocky.

I was wondering if the GM could place a temporary aspect of "feeling good" or "damn I'm good" to possibly compel or not.

Do temporary or sticky aspects only result out of maneuvers or consequences?

I'm a bit hazy on aspect rules.

[sinker]

I'd say it's totally fine provided that the player is alright with that. I'm not sure if it's RAW, but the GM is totally allowed to bend (or break) the rules if it's for something that adds to the cool or the fun. One of the things to remember though is that an aspect often cuts both ways and either of your examples could be used for the player's benefit as well as a tool for the GM.

[BumblingBear]

Ok that's kind of what I thought.

Our game is off to a great start.  We're all just kind of hazy on some of the rules right now.

How often do compels happen in other games?

[admiralducksauce]

Ok that's kind of what I thought.

Our game is off to a great start.  We're all just kind of hazy on some of the rules right now.

How often do compels happen in other games?

I try to compel whenever I can.

"You COULD just leave the Radio Shack you broke into to steal a DV player from, OR you could load up on loot and have a car chase with the cops."

"You're old and busted, Bill, you might have to go out the front door alongside Clay and fight those cops."

"If Scott takes the dead man's confession and does last rites, you won't be able to ask him any more questions about the magic artifact he stole."

"That vampire you hit who's Bleeding Out isn't doing anything this round but staying in the basement and moaning in pain."

As long as an Aspect compel can lead to some sort of drawback mechanically, I'll try to offer FP to players.  One time last session a PC had a "Getting Sleepy" consequence from being tranq-darted, but they were just planning their next move in a Waffle House so I couldn't think of a serious enough drawback to warrant a Fate Point.  If Jimmy fell asleep in his food, haha, that's funny, but it doesn't MEAN anything.

[Kommisar]

Not very often yet in my game.  My group has been playing GURPS for... what?  I guess 20 years now in a few cases.    So, I'm still breaking them of some bad habits and getting them into the mindset of FATE.

As for creating an aspect; go for it.  As long as it makes sense and makes things more interesting and raises the entertainment value of the game I see no reason not to.  In this particular case, I would stop and consider if this would make sense for this character.  If he is already prone to be a bit cocky, it makes sense.  If he is an old vet snake-eater type, though, it may not make any sense.  It should make sense and flow naturally.  Not be something hoisted on a player to punish him for a few lucky rolls.  Plus, I really like the idea of phrasing the aspect such that it could be used against him as well as in his favor.  IMHO, any aspect that is purely detrimental should be limited to a consequence or through direct actions of a "bad-guy".

[Papa Gruff]

Haven't often placed/forced aspects as a GM so far. IMO it can be a little bit tricky and you have to be cautious not to come across as a mean GM that want's to force the party into a certain plot by introducing aspects and compelling accordingly.

As far as I can remember I only did it once. The wizard of our party had been up for about 24 hours strait. I simply stated the obvious and told him to note a temporary aspect of "DEAD TIRED" to his list. I probably should have asked for an endurance roll against good/great or some such instead of just forcing the aspect. That said, I'm actually not sure if I even compelled the aspect later, witch means that the aspect didn't accomplish anything really and was redundant. However it brought the point along that the PC was tired, but I guess I could simply have mentioned that during a narration.

Ask yourself if the aspect you introduce as a GM has the potential to lead to something interesting/cool/worthwhile. If it does you definitely should introduce it. The players will probably like it. If not, why bother? It just adds to the things you have to keep track of. In other words: go with the flow.

[luminos]

You want to apply an aspect to a character as GM?  Okay, have an NPC maneuver the aspect onto the PC. 

Just giving out aspects on a whim is too arbitrary.  Giving out negative aspects for good rolls is punishing success, and at that point you might as well start ignoring rules whenever you feel like it.  I can't say I would want to play in that game, but I do know people who would enjoy it.

[devonapple]

The wizard of our party had been up for about 24 hours strait.

Another option would have been to begin asking the character to use his Endurance skill to restrict all other Skill rolls (so for any skills higher than Endurance, it would take a -1 to reflect the fatigue). I think that may be more in line with the RAW.

I was wondering if the GM could place a temporary aspect of "feeling good" or "damn I'm good" to possibly compel or not.

If the GM wants, there are optional rules in the DFRPG book for something called "Spin," which is to reward rolls that generated a lot of extra shifts but would not themselves benefit from extra shifts. I'm not up on the details, but you basically get free bonuses for a later roll or rolls because your character is hitting its stride. This would be a good way to use that without placing Aspects.

[Ren]

In this case Bear is referring to a scene in our game (I am the GM) wherein one of the characters was on the roof of a wrecked SUV and had just used a large-caliber handgun to finish off the second of two berserking alligators that had been attacking Bear's character and probably saved his life. The character is not normally a combat-monkey but is a very self-confident and cocky type and the player was the one to actually suggest the idea, more as a joke than anything else, but we as a group like it and so got to talking about it.
I think that if there had been anymore to the scene, like an additional fight or another encounter, then maybe a sticky aspect that either he or I (as the GM) could invoke/compel for a bonus. In this case "Damn I'm Good" could give him a positive feeling and aid in a future action, but it could also be used against him as a compel to make him OVER-confident. At least that is the way I'll likely run it for the future.

[luminos]

Be careful with that type of thinking though.  "Overconfident" or similar things are very much the kind of stuff you could wind up with if you take a consequence, so having the same result for exceptionally good results as exceptionally bad ones is going to remove the amount of control the players have over the outcomes of their actions.  I'd tear my hair out if that started happening to me.

[devonapple]

I think that if there had been anymore to the scene, like an additional fight or another encounter, then maybe a sticky aspect that either he or I (as the GM) could invoke/compel for a bonus. In this case "Damn I'm Good" could give him a positive feeling and aid in a future action, but it could also be used against him as a compel to make him OVER-confident. At least that is the way I'll likely run it for the future.

It sounds like one of those things that felt really cool at the table, when the energy is high and the dice are rolling well, and if everyone at the table is alright with both the Invoke as well as the Compel potential of such Aspects, certainly keep it up.

To an outside observer who wasn't caught up in the moment, it seems to have definite potential for disgruntled players, especially the idea that success could become an inadvertent risk of later Compels.

If the player already has an Aspect related to cockiness or overconfidence, you could Compel that Aspect, using the awesome success as a trigger, rather than provide an all-new Aspect. Also, players can change Aspects at certain Milestones in the game, and if he lets success go to his head, that could be an option.

[BumblingBear]

It sounds like one of those things that felt really cool at the table, when the energy is high and the dice are rolling well, and if everyone at the table is alright with both the Invoke as well as the Compel potential of such Aspects, certainly keep it up.

To an outside observer who wasn't caught up in the moment, it seems to have definite potential for disgruntled players, especially the idea that success could become an inadvertent risk of later Compels.

If the player already has an Aspect related to cockiness or overconfidence, you could Compel that Aspect, using the awesome success as a trigger, rather than provide an all-new Aspect. Also, players can change Aspects at certain Milestones in the game, and if he lets success go to his head, that could be an option.

There would not have been any disgruntled players on this one.. lol

It would have been 100% appropriate for the character.  The character in question is the biggest smartass in the game and is turning out to be the pin who is connecting all of the other characters.

I think the next session we play, I am going to attempt to give more aspects to others and myself through rolls and such.

I also guess we need to talk as a group to see whether we want to incorporate spin into our game.  IIRC, that is an optional rule in the book, but it IS actually in the book and I think that it is really cool thematically.

[Funge]

As the player of the PC in question, it was definitely a fitting aspect.  I suggested the character trait, if not the turning it into an aspect part.  I was unsure at the time (as the GM seemed to be) whether it would be appropriate, rules- or feel-wise, to throw a temporary aspect on the PC mid-game, especially if I might start perceiving it as some sort of punishment.  There was about a five second period while we discussed it where I felt like we were talking about me getting slapped for, effectively, rolling really well and spending a fate point.  But then I realized how easy it would be to get compels and how utterly perfect it was.  I would have been fine with it in this instance, but as a house rule or a regular thing I'm not sure.  It would have been so much in line with the character, though, that I'm making this specific instance moot by replacing one of my less inspiring aspects with something like Gross Overestimation of My Abilities.

There were no NPCs present that could have placed the aspect on my guy, or this would be a much less opaque topic.  Well, no NPCs that weren't A) alligators and B) dead, at least.

One other problem that I perceived arose from a large percentage of the game taking place just between PCs.  Is it possible/acceptable/desirable for PCs to compel other PCs or place aspects on other PCs?  In the cases of a compel, would the consequences that arise from pursuing the negative side of an aspect be severe enough to warrant a fate point?  It didn't really seem to me like that would work very well.  If my smartass, in other words, pissed off Bear's buttkicker, could that be considered a compel on an I'm Smart, But My Mouth's Smarter aspect?  Or would it only work if the consequences were going to be especially bad?  Like if he was definitely going to kick the crap out of me?  Anybody else's experience on this?

That might be a bit off-topic, and I'll start a new thread if deemed necessary (but later, because I've got to head off to work).

[Drachasor]

Hmm, placing an aspect on someone isn't a trivial thing.  By the rules it can be done via a maneuver if it is appropriate...and I think that's just about the only way to apply an aspect to a non-scene in the game...well, aside from a consequence.

In the spirit of the game, I think stuff like this should be negotiated and treated as half-compels.  If a character is the sort that can get cocky, propose placing a "cocky" aspect on them and offer them a fate point for it.  Allow them to refuse without paying a fate point.  An aspect placed in this way can be freely tagged once by any enemy.  For stuff like "cocky" I think this would work decently well, but I don't think it would come up much since big stuff like this should be one of your aspects.

For stuff like not getting enough sleep, that sounds like a consequence to me, which can also be negotiated about ("you can stay up as long as you want to get this stuff done, but you'll be tired").

[BumblingBear]

Hmm, placing an aspect on someone isn't a trivial thing.  By the rules it can be done via a maneuver if it is appropriate...and I think that's just about the only way to apply an aspect to a non-scene in the game...well, aside from a consequence.

In the spirit of the game, I think stuff like this should be negotiated and treated as half-compels.  If a character is the sort that can get cocky, propose placing a "cocky" aspect on them and offer them a fate point for it.  Allow them to refuse without paying a fate point.  An aspect placed in this way can be freely tagged once by any enemy.  For stuff like "cocky" I think this would work decently well, but I don't think it would come up much since big stuff like this should be one of your aspects.

For stuff like not getting enough sleep, that sounds like a consequence to me, which can also be negotiated about ("you can stay up as long as you want to get this stuff done, but you'll be tired").

I think the group was more interested in placing a sticky aspect on the PC as if it were a maneuver or a "consequence" of sort that would last maybe the next scene and allow the GM to compel the character for fate points and added hilarious.

I cannot stress enough that this character really would not be changing his normal ways by being compelled to be overly cocky.

I think it would have flown well with the story that is unfolding too.

Either way, I think that our group will probably have a lot more fate points flying around the table next session.