The Glass Jawed Wizard

[Mr. Death]

I agree, I would like to make any situation where a characters life is more complicated a compel, but what happens in this case when the player buys off that compel? I am still not going to let him in with his staff just because he refused my compel.

Depends on the compel and why you had it happen--were you planning on a fight you wanted him to be handicapped for? Him to be intimidated because he lacks his usual defenses when facing the Winter Lady?

If he buys out of it, whatever complication you were aiming for doesn't come into play, and you have to play to the situation and improvise.

In this case, maybe the wizard can convince the goon without consequence--or the Winter Lady comes out and says, "Hey, Goon, quit wasting time and just let him in here, I'm not afraid of some mortal wizard's staff". The possibilities are endless.

[Centarion]

Depends on the compel and why you had it happen--were you planning on a fight you wanted him to be handicapped for? Him to be intimidated because he lacks his usual defenses when facing the Winter Lady?

If he buys out of it, whatever complication you were aiming for doesn't come into play, and you have to play to the situation and improvise.

In this case, maybe the wizard can convince the goon without consequence--or the Winter Lady comes out and says, "Hey, Goon, quit wasting time and just let him in here, I'm not afraid of some mortal wizard's staff". The possibilities are endless.

This is precisely why (as I explained in the rest of my post) I would not do this scenario as a compel. Of course I could make up some reason why he got past if he refuses, but I don't want it to be that easy.

I like Orladdin's point that instead of a compel you just say "I'm making your life more complicated by banning foci from the presence of the Winter Lady, have a fate point." But as he mentioned, it is pretty similar to just doing it without a compel of any sort.

Back on topic:
Basically, if the GM wants to handicap a wizard they think is too powerful, they can go for the items. Obviously this shouldn't be something that happens every scene, but it could be fairly common. If you don't want it to look like a punishment you could make it a compel, or if you want to make sure it sticks you could just do it and then pay them off a fate point.

[Mr. Death]

This is precisely why (as I explained in the rest of my post) I would not do this scenario as a compel. Of course I could make up some reason why he got past if he refuses, but I don't want it to be that easy.

I wouldn't call it 'easy'--fate points are valuable, remember, and that's a two-point swing to buy off any compel. If you really want to push it, escalate as the book suggests. The fate point(s) he spends to hold onto his staff might be better used on a dodge roll to keep him from being beaten into paste.

Fair's fair. If you're offering a fate point, the player should be able to spend one to refuse the compel.

[Centarion]

Sometimes the fae at the door just wont let you take that staff in. If he sees it (stealth roll?) and you don't beat him in a social conflict (convince him its not magic somehow/make him more scarred of you than of the Winter Lady/be his best buddy) or just take him down, he wont let you by.

The problem here is that as a GM I am not prepared for what happens when they refuse. It is kind of like what the book says about skill checks. For any skill check there has to be an interesting thing that happens for success (like advancing the story) and an interesting that happens for failure (you have to find another way/you get in but the cops are coming). If you aren't prepared to deal with what happens when the PC's fail/succeed to break in to the safe house, you shouldn't call for a roll, just say it happens or it doesn't.

In this case, if the compel succeeds great, the wizard doesn't have his staff.  But what if he buys it off? I am not just going to let him in. It is worth more than 1 to 3 fate points to me. Maybe it is a huge part of the narrative. It is either resolved via him loosing his staff or a conflict/contest.

I could just say "No, you cant get it through peacefully" and be done with it. But that just feels bad. That's why you offer the "half-compel." 

Also, it isn't a 2 point swing. It is 2 points different that if he had accepted the compel, but it isn't 2 points different than the starting point. Also, I think you are overvaluing fate points. That staff probably gives upwards of +2 power and +1 control, so if they cast even 1 spell that hits they have more than payed off that fate point.

In this case it isn't about being fair, it is about providing a challenge for a wizard who is too strong in your game, and one way to do that is to limit access to his items. It isn't about fair, it is about handicapping the wizard in a graceful way and I think paying him a fate point to ditch his staff or fight about it is fairly graceful as these things go (compare to adding in magic immune monsters...)

[Mr. Death]

The game isn't just about what the GM wants. The FATE system for this game is built around giving the players agency to directly affect the story, and fate points are the currency of that.

Yes, there's a place for GM fiat, but frankly, if the player has fate points and is willing to spend them, they should be able to. As GM, it's your responsibility to be able to adapt, not say, "I'm not prepared for what happens when they refuse, therefore they can't refuse." That is, plain and simple, railroading.

There is always a way around things. Fate points exist specifically to make those things happen. If "the fae at the door just won't let you take that staff in," that's the compel. If the player spends the fate point, then there is a way to get the staff in. That's the RAW.

And yes, that's exactly what "two point swing" means. It means a two-point difference between end results, not from the starting point--either you take the compel, in which case you're at +1 fate points, or you buy out and you're at -1.

[Centarion]

Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.

Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).

Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.

Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).

[ways and means]

Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.

Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).

Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.

Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).

Really I don't see why this is a compel, the character doesn't choose to have the airport security there, it like compelling a wizard to have it rain yes it hinders the wizards casting but the wizards doesn't have any way to affect whether it rains or not (other than magic).

[JDK002]

I would also argue that if the narratve of yur entire session is ruined because one player decides to buy out of one compel, then the GM didn't think things through very well.

Bit as far as the example we've been going with, I wouldn't treat it as a compel as it doesn't really fit the narrative.  I would treat it as toucan either gve up you weapons and enter, or you can get into a socal conflict, possbly tale consequences, them deal with whatever happens when you get in which could be yet another conflict.

[Mr. Death]

Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.

Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).

I would compel along the lines of, "The security stuff is going to be a problem." If they spend the fate point, then yes, it won't be a problem--a good player will help you come up with a reason for that. Maybe they can bribe someone. Maybe the person at the X-Ray machine is asleep at the wheel. Maybe it's not a problem because they can get another gun the second shit goes down.

Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.

"The narrative demands" = Railroading. You have to work with your players to make sure it's interesting, not just disallow something entirely because you don't think it should happen.

Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).

Thinking of buying out of a compel is "contrary to the narrative" is the wrong way of going about it in my opinion. The narrative includes the players' decisions, not just the GM. You're not just telling a story here--you're providing a framework for the players to help create their story.

Really I don't see why this is a compel, the character doesn't choose to have the airport security there, it like compelling a wizard to have it rain yes it hinders the wizards casting but the wizards doesn't have any way to affect whether it rains or not (other than magic).

Because you're looking at what a compel is the wrong way. A compel is about player choice, not character choice.

I would also argue that if the narratve of yur entire session is ruined because one player decides to buy out of one compel, then the GM didn't think things through very well.

Truth.

Bit as far as the example we've been going with, I wouldn't treat it as a compel as it doesn't really fit the narrative.  I would treat it as toucan either gve up you weapons and enter, or you can get into a socal conflict, possbly tale consequences, them deal with whatever happens when you get in which could be yet another conflict.

That's still a compel--something about the character (he needs his foci) or the situation (someone doesn't want him bringing foci in) is creating a complication where otherwise there would be none. In either way, the 'no foci allowed' is complicating the character's life, and that's exactly what compels are for.

[JDK002]

Yeah I was thinking about it after I posted.  If the players decided to get into a conflict over it, I would probably give a fate point.  Even though I wasn't exactly directly compelling an aspect.  As in that case even though they get to enter with all their weapons they still may have taken some consequences and are therefor weakened.  Which is what I wanted in the first place.

[Sanctaphrax]

The problem is that yes, at high refresh, foci/item slots are the most powerful way to spend refresh.  This is a design flaw in the game.  As such, we know experienced players will see it as the best option and take it.  If we, as GMs, constantly spank them for this choice, it punishes them for making good choices.  Don't overuse this.

I don't see the usefulness of foci as a flaw. It doesn't damage the game, so far as I can tell.

(The power level of magic and its spending cap are another matter.)

I agree with you about GM spanking though.

[Orladdin]

Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all ...

I think you're looking at buy-outs the wrong way-- it's not that the character "get[s to take] their loaded gun past the security officers," they don't (generally) just walk by unnoticed; it's that some story element allowing them to bypass that hurdle comes into play.  It's generally up to the player or the table to come up with the reasoning behind the buy-out.

In the above case, simply telling the characters that they won't be able to get by the checkpoint with armaments thorugh normal means isn't unreasonable.  It's an airport.  They had no reason to believe they would be able to.  A meeting of supernaturals is another matter. 

I assume you took issue with the initial scenario because it lacks ready-made, out-of-the-box narrative flavor?  There's no immediately obvious reason why it happened?
How about this, then:  To use the above example, my players would probably swing into a mens' room bordering the checkpoint wall and declare that the hard-wall doesn't go above the ceiling tiles, store the gun up there, bypass the checkpoint, and then recover the gun on the other side.  They generally had to spend fate points to do this (if they wanted to do it relatively quickly; otherwise skill checks to get blueprints to the airport for finding such a security flaw, etc).

The airport checkpoint would usually be enough to trigger them making declarations to get around it.  Declarations using fate points.  See how that works?  Same end result, different way to get there.
The key point is: don't set your mind against them finding some way to do it.  If your players want something bad enough and are willing to work for it, they should generally get it. 

[Some words]

I agree with everything you said.

I don't see the usefulnes of foci as a flaw. It doesn't damage the game, so far as I can tell.

If you were in Centarion's camp, though, you would think it damages the game.  It's too good of an option.  Foci is one of the primary ways that wizards so drastically outstrip mortals in high-refresh games.

(The power level of magic and its spending cap are another matter.)

But that ties directly into the power level of magic.  It's an option in the core rules that significantly increases magical output and capability.  It's also significantly more potent, point-for-point of refresh, than any other option in the game.

I agree with you about GM spanking though.

I'm not surprised.  You've got a good head on your shoulders even though we don't always agree on things.  Most good GMs and modern game designers would agree with us on that principle.  Game theory has come a long way in the last 30 years.

[Centarion]

I assume you took issue with the initial scenario because it lacks ready-made, out-of-the-box narrative flavor?  There's no immediately obvious reason why it happened?
How about this, then:  To use the above example, my players would probably swing into a mens' room bordering the checkpoint wall and declare that the hard-wall doesn't go above the ceiling tiles, store the gun up there, bypass the checkpoint, and then recover the gun on the other side.  They generally had to spend fate points to do this (if they wanted to do it relatively quickly; otherwise skill checks to get blueprints to the airport for finding such a security flaw, etc).

The airport checkpoint would usually be enough to trigger them making declarations to get around it.  Declarations using fate points.  See how that works?  Same end result, different way to get there.
The key point is: don't set your mind against them finding some way to do it.  If your players want something bad enough and are willing to work for it, they should generally get it. 

I agree completely with this. I objected in the previous example because to me spending a fate point and saying "I just walk in and the trained fae bodyguard doesn't notice the giant magic stick" just makes no sense. But if they want to either try to use a skill contest (like stealth vs. alertness) or a social conflict to get in they can, it will be hard, but they are being direct. If instead they try something like your example it will take more narrative effort, but be a series of easier checks. I like that concept, bashing your way through problems is an option, but it is hard, being smart is less direct but easier (once of think of a way). I have no problem with players finding creative solutions to problems, as you said if they really want it and are willing to work for it they can likely do it.

My only problem/question about your example is exactly what happens with the compel in your example? You suggested something like a security checkpoint or a supernatural bouncer is generally worth a compel to your [guy with guns/wizard]. I am all for them taking the compel and giving up the staff, or taking the compel and then spending some narrative effort (likely using that fate point) to go around (like the scenario you suggested). But what if they flat out refuse the compel? I just doesn't make sense to me that the checkpoint ceases to exist/fails to work properly just because they spent a fate point. How would you handle that?

My view on focus items is that if you treat them as another form of specialization they are too good. If they are an inseparable part of the wizard they are too strong. They allow deep specialization into 1 type of magic for a comparatively small cost (as opposed to actual specializations which cost you a ton when you start trying to go above 2 or 3). As Sanct like to say the path to power in DFRPG is specialization, pick one thing an do it well and focus items are the best at that. On the other hand, I don't think focus items are broken in game. I think they were designed to be a potential flaw. Modern game design is all about choices and restrictions (if you like Magic the Gathering you may have heard this from Mark Rosewater, head designer), and if the choices are easy they aren't even choices. It is pretty clear that the optimal way to build a (blasting) wizard if you are going to always let them have their focus is by spending 1 refinement to get +2/+1 in your element and then building the best possible focus item. But if you say that sometimes you may not have you focus item then this choice is actually interesting and meaningful. Do you want your full strength to be as much as possible but only be at full strength 70-80% of the time? Or do you want to be at almost full strength always and be slightly less specialized? Also smaller foci are easier to hide/carry, so you likely have them more often.

Anyway I am done rambling on that subject.

[amberpup]

I personally think using the example of airport security and getting a gun pass a checkpoint isn't the best choice. Any DFRPG group that couldn't, needs to turn their Fate Dice in.

Now if we're talking about a Fae Bar, that's different....

[Orladdin]

My only problem/question about your example is exactly what happens with the compel in your example? You suggested something like a security checkpoint or a supernatural bouncer is generally worth a compel to your [guy with guns/wizard]. I am all for them taking the compel and giving up the staff, or taking the compel and then spending some narrative effort (likely using that fate point) to go around (like the scenario you suggested). But what if they flat out refuse the compel? I just doesn't make sense to me that the checkpoint ceases to exist/fails to work properly just because they spent a fate point. How would you handle that?

If I am right, you seem to think that you slide the compel across the table and say "You can't get in with that staff." and the player just slides his buy-out and says, "nuh-uh!"  That's not how it works.

Compels and buy-offs are negotiated at the time they happen.  The person taking/rejecting the compel cas to come to an agreement with the table about what is fair and what makes sense for the circumstances in question.  There isn't a situation where the player simply buys-off the compel and it mystically "goes away." 

A couple of examples:

If you approached the scenario with the fae bouncer by saying "You're planning to stop off at the Winter Club on your way home.  <slide fate point> You know security is likely to prevent foci and iron weaponry from being taken in." Then them sliding the buy-out should be accompanied by the player responding "Normally that would be true, but because of the recent skirmish between winter and summer in the Ozarks, the club is likely to be undermanned and they won't notice," or perhaps "Normally that would be true, but because of the service I am offering Maeve, she doesn't see a reason to block my armaments."

If it happens a different way, such as the player strolling up with his stick and demanding entry out of the blue (rather than the theoretical planning phase the previous paragraph described) you slide a fate point and say something like, "The burly troll at the door eyes your staff and puts a stopping hand out.  'No staffs, wizard,' he says."  The player would need to slide a buy-off and say something like "I am here to perform a service to Maeve.  She will need me armed." or some-such.