Mental Evocations solutions?

[Lavecki121]

I think so. But I prefer not to assume that people will be houseruling when I consider balance.

That being said, you might be right, it might not be an issue. Like I said, this is more a worry than a definite problem.

I get that, but when it is something thats not outlined in the rules you dont really have any choice. Even saying no mental evocation is technically a houserule

[Sanctaphrax]

Depends on your definition of houserule, really.

[Locnil]

Believe me, I've thought this through.

Part of the GM's job is to give Compels that are, overall, cost-neutral.

In some games (the majority, I think) that means giving out Compels that are pretty much never refused, which are each individually worth 1 FP. In others it might mean giving out a mix of soft and hard Compels, some of which might actually be refused, so that on average the soft Compels pay for the hard ones.

This is pretty much a tautology, really. The appropriate level of hardness for Compels is defined by the need to keep Compels from being a weakness. Therefore (non-debt) Compels are not and never will be a weakness.

Well, yes. Basically, as far as you are concerned, compels are cost-neutral because you more or less houserule them to be. Not everyone interprets the game like you do, which is the problem, because from the statements you make in your posts, you seem to assume everyone will be.

The "good" part of rejecting a compel is that you get to continue to do what you were planning on and dont have to take any negative consequences.

For instance: GM compels "Hot headed" To make you attack someone the group is negotiating with because he insulted you. Now you can accept that and go into combat or you can reject it because you want to maintain the conversation.

It is not a benefit. You pay a fate point where, if the compel had never come up, you would never have to pay anything. Therefore, compels are not cost-neutral. In your example, if the compel had never come up, you could have just continued to negotiate. If the compel comes up, now you have to pay a fate point just for doing the same damn thing. Or get railroaded into combat.

[Locnil]

Depends on your definition of houserule, really.

True. The thing with DFRPG is that some rather critical things are left up to the group, like mental evocation, and it can't really be considered houseruling to make a judgement call, especially since Evil Hat flat-out refuses to clarify or even talk about their intent.

That said, some things you seem to take for granted are, objectively speaking, houserules.

[Tedronai]

Or get railroaded into combat.

You don't understand how compels work.
For reference, see my recent posts in this thread.

[Locnil]

I presume you are talking about negotiation. In which case, please elaborate. Otherwise, please correct me.

[Locnil]

On second thoughts, maybe you should just mentally block out the line. Not because I'm conceding the point, because I'm not, but rather because that line doesn't even matter, for what I am trying to argue - that compels are not cost-neutral.

[Sanctaphrax]

I honestly don't think I'm houseruling at all on this.

But if I am, it's in the opposite direction from what you think.

Your Story is not subtle about the fact that Compels are not bad. It says so over and over on pages 109 and 111. If anything I'm making Compels weaker by assuming that they just pay for themselves.

[Locnil]

And because YS says something, it is now absolutely true, right? After all, everything ever published by a game developer is perfectly accurate, so there are no such things as the game mechanics not supporting intent.

If compels didn't require you to pay to refuse them, then yes, I would agree. As it is, it seems the devs look at the the same way most here do - accepting a compel balances out, so it's cost-neutral, but they forgot to account for the fact that if you end up refusing a compel, you would be better off if the compel had never come up. The only way this wouldn't be true is if refusing compels were free, or if they actually gave you a benefit above and beyond the free fate point.

[Tedronai]

Yes, refused compels are expensive.  You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.

[Sanctaphrax]

And because YS says something, it is now absolutely true, right? After all, everything ever published by a game developer is perfectly accurate, so there are no such things as the game mechanics not supporting intent.

If you do what the rulebook tells you to, you are not houseruling.

And the sections I mentioned are (in my eyes) rules. They're what tells the GM how hard Compels should hit.

As I've said before, a Compel that you refuse is obviously not cost-neutral. Odds are that any individual Compel will be off the cost-neutral ideal by at least a bit. But Compels collectively balance out at a value of zero.

[Locnil]

Yes, refused compels are expensive.  You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.

Ignoring the only one hyperbole, if refused compels are expensive, how does that go with your statement that compels are cost-neutral?

[Locnil]

If you do what the rulebook tells you to, you are not houseruling.

And the sections I mentioned are (in my eyes) rules. They're what tells the GM how hard Compels should hit.

As I've said before, a Compel that you refuse is obviously not cost-neutral. Odds are that any individual Compel will be off the cost-neutral ideal by at least a bit. But Compels collectively balance out at a value of zero.

When the rules contradict, then it is a form of houseruling to decide which interpretation to go with. Also, the whole bit about how compels are supposed to be cost-neutral? Guideline, whose interpretation will differ by definition with every GM. The rules for how compels actually work? Those are hard rules, which vary only if the group makes a conscious decision to change them.

Basically, with regards to that section, I believe this is a classic case of the game developer's mechanics not supporting their intent.

Also, with regards to the last bit of your post, I'm not following your logic. If on average, compels are less than cost-neutral, how do compels collectively balance out?

[Tedronai]

Ignoring the only one hyperbole, if refused compels are expensive, how does that go with your statement that compels are cost-neutral?

Please retroactively consider all previous statements on the cost-neutrality of compels to be in reference to accepted compels.

[Sanctaphrax]

When the rules contradict, then it is a form of houseruling to decide which interpretation to go with. Also, the whole bit about how compels are supposed to be cost-neutral? Guideline, whose interpretation will differ by definition with every GM. The rules for how compels actually work? Those are hard rules, which vary only if the group makes a conscious decision to change them.

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.

Also, with regards to the last bit of your post, I'm not following your logic. If on average, compels are less than cost-neutral, how do compels collectively balance out?

Some are less than cost-neutral, others are more. On average, they're neutral.