Author Topic: Mental Evocations solutions?  (Read 21506 times)

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #90 on: May 31, 2013, 03:23:08 AM »
Please retroactively consider all previous statements on the cost-neutrality of compels to be in reference to accepted compels.

So.. you are stating that accepted compels are cost-neutral. Ok. I agree. Glad we can still do that.  :)

I was stating, however, that compels as a whole aren't cost-neutral.

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #91 on: May 31, 2013, 03:26:09 AM »
I don't see a contradiction. I've read your posts, and I still don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in the rules.

Some are less than cost-neutral, others are more. On average, they're neutral.
The contradiction isn't actually with the rules - it's between the rules and the guidelines.

The guidelines state that compels are supposed to be cost-neutral - incidentally, if it wasn't clear, I agree with you about that bit - but the rules suggest otherwise, since refusing a compel causes it to be a drawback and accepting it is cost-neutral. Therefore, collectively speaking, compels are not cost-neutral.

Please explain how some compels are more than cost-neutral, and how that is a function of the rules.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #92 on: May 31, 2013, 03:27:54 AM »
Sometimes, the inconvenience presented by a Compel will be minor enough that getting a Fate Point is an overpayment.

EDIT: Because it seems relevant...I'm not sure if I've ever seen a refused Compel. And I've played this game a lot. Given that people can just accept every Compel and accepted Compels are cost-neutral in your eyes, doesn't that make all Compels cost-neutral unless the player deliberately handicaps themself by rejecting one?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 03:30:04 AM by Sanctaphrax »

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #93 on: May 31, 2013, 03:31:53 AM »
So, in cases where the GM treats compels as an excuse simply to hand out FP?

Ok then. Three solutions to assure cost-neutrality of compels: Make them free to refuse, Give out other benefits along with the FP, or just use them as an excuse to hand out FP.

I distinctly recall YS stating compels should have some 'bite' to them. Have I been misremembering?

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #94 on: May 31, 2013, 03:36:07 AM »
No, all Compels should have bite.

But sometimes they don't have a full FP worth of bite.

FP are worth a lot.

Offline Lavecki121

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2013, 03:36:58 AM »
I don't know how this thread turned into this but:

Sancta, to be clear my comment about house rule was in reference to mental evocation.

That said. Locnil. If compels never came up there would be no way to earn fate points. Your argument that refusing compels is to expensive doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about fate points being an amalgam for free will

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #96 on: May 31, 2013, 10:43:06 AM »
Yes, refused compels are expensive.  You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.
No, he is not. But given the general mood of this forum, I did not think it was worth the effort to argue otherwise.
That said. Locnil. If compels never came up there would be no way to earn fate points. Your argument that refusing compels is to expensive doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about fate points being an amalgam for free will
A positive Refresh is a representation of free will. But even monsters with negative Refresh can have Fate Points.
FP are worth a lot.
It depends on what you paid for them and what you for pay with them.

A Compel can shut down an entire avenue of approach. In a case like that, it might as well be that you have failed in that approach. If that approach would have used an apex skill, its relative cost would depend on what skill your alternative approach would use.
Because it seems relevant...I'm not sure if I've ever seen a refused Compel. And I've played this game a lot. Given that people can just accept every Compel and accepted Compels are cost-neutral in your eyes, doesn't that make all Compels cost-neutral unless the player deliberately handicaps themself by rejecting one?
If an accepted Compel is cost neutral, then a declined Compel should also be cost neutral as well.

If we accept the premise that a Compel is supposed to make the story interesting and see it as a positive thing, then the player should be rewarded and come out ahead instead of Compels being cost neutral. However this is not true, while the converse is. The player is punished by losing an FP for refusing the Compel.

So in effect because only accepted Compels are cost neutral, and declined Compels are not, overall Compels are not cost neutral. If overall Compels are to be cost neutral, the accepted Compels need to put the player ahead instead of simply compensating him fully. If there is to be a stick in that the player loses out by refusing a Compel, then there should not simply be a cost-neutral alternative but a carrot to put him ahead.

Accepting a Compel should make the game more interesting. But refusing a Compel doesn't really make the story any more boring per se, except that in order to refuse that Compel the player has to spend an FP which he could have used to make the game more interesting at a later time. I feel that if making the story more interesting is the goal, then refusing a Compel should be cost neutral while accepting it should put the player ahead.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 10:49:21 AM by toturi »
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Wolfhound

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Trí Dhia a mhaireann an mhuintir go deo
    • View Profile
    • Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #97 on: May 31, 2013, 01:22:14 PM »
Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

You can change an Aspect just about every single Milestone, thus nearly every game session.

If there is an Aspect on your sheet 'Hot Headed'... the player chose to leave that there, not the GM. This is the case for any character Aspect.

If the GM has a scene that logically or thematically makes sense to Compel an Aspect, the GM probably should... after all... that is the purpose of having an Aspect on the sheet... to dictate character traits good and bad, and get Fate Points for the 'bad'

If the Player refuses the Compel... the player is making the call to refuse the in scene repercussion of the player's choice to leave an Aspect in existence. 

The GM did not leave 'hot headed' in play, but is making it relevant in this scene. How is this 'Railroading'? The player is making the call to refuse a choice the player made, why should that be 'Neutral?' (Assume for purposes of this line item the GM is familiar enough with the system to realize Compels are negotiated and not a new GM making unilateral fiats... admittedly a common fault with new GMs... which is actually a GM "training" issue, not a system fault)
Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)  http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/dfd
#6 Top Campaign on Obsidian Portal, 200+ fans
2011 December Campaign of the Month (Campaign of the Year runner-up)
Won't y'all come on by and join the fun?

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #98 on: May 31, 2013, 03:00:16 PM »
Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

You can change an Aspect just about every single Milestone, thus nearly every game session.

If there is an Aspect on your sheet 'Hot Headed'... the player chose to leave that there, not the GM. This is the case for any character Aspect.
Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible. If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.

Also you are assuming that an Aspect on a character is the direct result of a player decision. This is not necessarily true. A scene Aspect placed there by a GM can be Compelled. An Aspect placed on the character by an NPC can also be Compelled.
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Wolfhound

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Trí Dhia a mhaireann an mhuintir go deo
    • View Profile
    • Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #99 on: May 31, 2013, 03:46:34 PM »
Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible.
Indeed. The mechanic for the 'flexibility' to now decide to not have the chosen Aspect be used against his/her character ... is the Fate Point that now must be paid to the GM.

If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.
Well, let's not let hyperbole enter into this. Death in FATE in an agreed upon situation between the GM and the players.

Rather "If you have chosen to be 'a hothead,' choosing how being 'a hothead' complicates your character's life is pretty much a moot point - it's going to happen. All that remains is negotiating with the GM as to how that complication manifests."

Also you are assuming that an Aspect on a character is the direct result of a player decision. This is not necessarily true. A scene Aspect placed there by a GM can be Compelled. An Aspect placed on the character by an NPC can also be Compelled.
I would highly encourage a quick review of pages 100-105 here. Strictly speaking the verbiage for "Compel" is used for and in regard to Character Aspects.

A Scene Aspect can be "Tagged" and if it's Sticky, a Fate Point can later be spent to Invoke it again.

An Aspect placed on a character by an NPC is a "Maneuver" and likewise can be "Tagged" or, if Sticky, a Fate Point can be later spent to Invoke it again.
Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)  http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/dfd
#6 Top Campaign on Obsidian Portal, 200+ fans
2011 December Campaign of the Month (Campaign of the Year runner-up)
Won't y'all come on by and join the fun?

Offline Wolfhound

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Trí Dhia a mhaireann an mhuintir go deo
    • View Profile
    • Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #100 on: May 31, 2013, 07:14:59 PM »
Sorry, was in a bit of a rush this morning, and wasn't as clear as I normally prefer.

Re: Scene Aspect
Yes indeed, it is possible to Compel Aspects in a handful of situations outside of Character Aspects. However, even within the rules they're a bit hamfisted (burning building example) or involve magic (love potion). While you could do it with a Compel... there's probably a much better way.

Re: Aspect from another NPC
A true Compel from another character requires them to pay your character a Fate Point, otherwise it's a Maneuver.

---

However, special case or not, yes you're most correct - they're still implied to be "Compels" off situation relevant Temporary Character Aspects (in the rules I believe they use the verbiage "temporarily on your record sheet" even) a but that also means they're negotiated if they're Compelled. That was the essential thrust I was trying to make in my reply this morning.

One of the things mentioned by Locnil in an earlier reply (what lead to me replying myself) - it was an interesting word choice - "Railroaded" specifically in reference to Compels, it makes me wonder if some of the resistance to Compels comes from forgetting (or general inflexibility on) that point.

Today In the Village of Exampleton
(click to show/hide)

Conceptually related are temporary Character Aspects as what might be applied by something like Bob's Love Potion (independent of a Maneuver Aspect inflicted by another character)

Last Week In Exampleton
(click to show/hide)

Hopefully the above shows that a Compel need not feel like "railroading" ... if it does... your group may not be leveraging the system as fully as you otherwise could be. Likewise, hopefully it shows why "buying off" a Compel costs a Fate Point. If the scene is set up properly ... actually going against the trappings of the scene should represent a fairly monumental decision to not engage or participate (thus costs the FP).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 07:18:27 PM by Wolfhound »
Dresden Files: Dallas (DFRPG)  http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/dfd
#6 Top Campaign on Obsidian Portal, 200+ fans
2011 December Campaign of the Month (Campaign of the Year runner-up)
Won't y'all come on by and join the fun?

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2013, 12:03:52 AM »
Rather "If you have chosen to be 'a hothead,' choosing how being 'a hothead' complicates your character's life is pretty much a moot point - it's going to happen. All that remains is negotiating with the GM as to how that complication manifests."
I did not mean killed as in death but more in a manner of bad things happen. An Aspect where it is likely that bad things happen to the character much more than good things.

And I think you missed the point. If the player had chosen that an Aspect would bring more bad things for him to deal with than good stuff that helps him along, then it is the player's choice. But if the Aspect was forced upon the character (whether it is through the rules and everyone has such an Aspect or singled out via GM fiat is, to me, irrelevant to this discussion), then it is not his choice. It becomes as I had described before - "If you are going to be killed raped, choosing how you are killedraped is pretty much a moot point."
(click to show/hide)
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2013, 01:30:30 AM »
If an aspect is applied to a character by means of GM fiat, then the results of that aspect being in place are also the results of GM fiat.  This is not an irrelevant distinction from an aspect applied using the rules.

If you find the nature of a specific compel to be distasteful, negotiate an acceptable alternative.
If you find the nature of compels in general to be distasteful, use a system that is not built upon them.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2013, 01:38:14 AM »
Something I do not understand with this line of argument. I can accept the premise that overall Compels are not neutral... but I do not understand why that matters at all?

We want players to build characters that have interesting Compellable weaknesses. The game should encourage that.

But if Compels are bad then an optimal character is one that's built to not get Compelled.

So it's a very good thing that Compels are cost-neutral...if they weren't, then the game would be telling people to build boring characters.

It becomes as I had described before - "If you are going to be killed raped, choosing how you are killedraped is pretty much a moot point."
(click to show/hide)

You have got to be kidding me.

I was going to discuss this with you, but...no. That is the worst analogy.

Offline Mrmdubois

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1345
    • View Profile
Re: Mental Evocations solutions?
« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2013, 02:27:51 AM »
There has got to have been a better way to say that toturi.