Mental Evocations solutions?

[Locnil]

True. Rape is probably the most sensitive topic in today's world.

Now, to address the counters brought up.

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

Refresh. Self-compels, which by definition are accepted compels (At least, I have yet to see someone compel themselves then decide to buy it off). Also, I wasn't arguing against compels, I was arguing that they are not cost-neutral and shouldn't be treated as such. Or if you want them to be cost-neutral, just houserule that refusing compels are free.

Also, I'm pretty sure the word you were going for is analogy. "Fate point", as far as I can tell, is not an amalgam of anything.

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)

I'd like to start off by saying you seem to be missing my point - see my above reply.

In some of the cases I had in mind, the Aspect wasn't necessarily chosen, but enforced either by takers powers that came with built in trouble aspects, or thrown onto the characters by others. This is the case I was most focused on, when I argued that compels are not cost-neutral.

Also, the assumed cost-neutrality of compels is a problem, because as Sanctaphrax himself pointed out, the game is built on compels, and thus an erroneous assumption about them can easily lead to mistakes. I mean, Sanctaphrax - anyone here, really - how many times in the last month alone have you made a custom power, item of power, creature, or handed out advice on playing or re-designing the game with the implicit assumption that compels are cost-neutral?

Lastly, if the game works as you seem to argue it should - placing all blame on refusing a compel solely on the player for having a compellable aspect - then it would lead to a whole series of boring characters, with people choosing aspects that aren't easily compelled, just cause. I don't think you want that.

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.
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."
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.

So, since the character must now pay to do what he could have otherwise done freely, solely due to the presence of the compellable aspect, how are compels cost-neutral?

The second point regarding the negotiation of compels, I agree with.

Regarding the proper usage of the word compel, you're making an argument about semantics here.

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.

Yes.

Or more accurately, a character who knows if he picks interesting, easily compellable aspects, he won't be penalised for wanting to make an interesting character. Something which I do not think the core rules support, because I do not believe compels are actually cost-neutral.

This is an tautological argument in its purest form. Compels are not bad. Why? Because if they were the game would encourage boring characters. So it's good compels are not bad.






Edit: Oh, and regarding the railroading thing - the GM is punishing the character for not doing what the GM wants. It doesn't matter if compels can be negotiated, since ultimately a negotiation must be agreed on by both sides - both the player AND the GM. It is entirely possible for negotiations to be fruitless, or for them to get so sick of arguing the GM outright refuses to do so, or the player to just give up and suck up all the compels that come his way. All of which are situation that I'm sure no one wants to encourage.

Sure, this form of railroading still isn't quite as bad as the GM outright telling the player he's taking over control of the character, but it's still a form of railroading, especially when it hits characters who have few or even no fate points left.

[Sanctaphrax]

This is an tautological argument in its purest form.

No it's not. It's not an argument at all. I wasn't talking to you there.

Also, the assumed cost-neutrality of compels is a problem, because as Sanctaphrax himself pointed out, the game is built on compels, and thus an erroneous assumption about them can easily lead to mistakes. I mean, Sanctaphrax - anyone here, really - how many times in the last month alone have you made a custom power, item of power, creature, or handed out advice on playing or re-designing the game with the implicit assumption that compels are cost-neutral?

Constantly.

Well, except for the times when it wasn't implicit but explicit.

Lastly, if the game works as you seem to argue it should - placing all blame on refusing a compel solely on the player for having a compellable aspect - then it would lead to a whole series of boring characters, with people choosing aspects that aren't easily compelled, just cause. I don't think you want that.

I wouldn't be so sure. toturi has an unusual style and it's best not to make assumptions about it.

So, since the character must now pay to do what he could have otherwise done freely, solely due to the presence of the compellable aspect, how are compels cost-neutral?

The character doesn't need to pay, and in fact probably should not. Compels are usually, and should usually be, accepted.

The balance of Compels depends on the GM picking the right hardness for their Compels. We agree on that, right?

Well, what I've been saying throughout this argument is that "the right hardness" is one where Compels aren't bad. This relies on GM fiat, obviously, since everything that has anything to do with Compels relies on GM fiat.

[toturi]

If you find the nature of compels in general to be distasteful, use a system that is not built upon them.

I find the specifics of needing to pay to decline Compels to be distasteful.

There has got to have been a better way to say that toturi.

It expresses precisely how I feel about the subject of requiring the player to pay to decline a compel.

Lastly, if the game works as you seem to argue it should - placing all blame on refusing a compel solely on the player for having a compellable aspect - then it would lead to a whole series of boring characters, with people choosing aspects that aren't easily compelled, just cause. I don't think you want that.

Or more accurately, a character who knows if he picks interesting, easily compellable aspects, he won't be penalised for wanting to make an interesting character. Something which I do not think the core rules support, because I do not believe compels are actually cost-neutral.

This is an tautological argument in its purest form. Compels are not bad. Why? Because if they were the game would encourage boring characters. So it's good compels are not bad.

Edit: Oh, and regarding the railroading thing - the GM is punishing the character for not doing what the GM wants. It doesn't matter if compels can be negotiated, since ultimately a negotiation must be agreed on by both sides - both the player AND the GM. It is entirely possible for negotiations to be fruitless, or for them to get so sick of arguing the GM outright refuses to do so, or the player to just give up and suck up all the compels that come his way. All of which are situation that I'm sure no one wants to encourage.

Sure, this form of railroading still isn't quite as bad as the GM outright telling the player he's taking over control of the character, but it's still a form of railroading, especially when it hits characters who have few or even no fate points left.

What I have quoted, I agree with. Which is not to say that I do not agree with what I had left out.

The player is encouraged to have "Fuego!" Aspects which can in equal parts be Compelled as well as be Invoked. But because the cost of declining the Compel is not neutral, then the payoff for accepting the Compel should put the player ahead.

[toturi]

I wouldn't be so sure. toturi has an unusual style and it's best not to make assumptions about it.

I think the quote Locnil was referencing to was not mine but Wolfhound's.

[UmbraLux]

No it's not. It's not an argument at all. I wasn't talking to you there.

I don't get this.  Who you were addressing doesn't change the logic used (or unused).

-----
Whether or not compels are cost neutral is dependent on the group.  When they're decided by GM fiat, I suspect they're often negative.  When more negotiation is used I suspect they come closer to being neutral.  But the real issue with making blanket statements about compels is simply that they may have very dissimilar effects. 

Compels force the narrative down a particular path.  Whether or not this is good, bad, or neutral is dependent on how much the forced narrative affects your character adversely and on how much you had invested in an alternative narrative line.

[Tedronai]

Or more accurately, a character who knows if he picks interesting, easily compellable aspects, he won't be penalised for wanting to make an interesting character. Something which I do not think the core rules support, because I do not believe compels are actually cost-neutral.

A character who refuses all compels without repurcussion is indistinguishable, narratively, from a character who is never compelled.
We have established that characters that are never compelled are 'boring', and undesirable.
Thus, characters refusing compels must be disinsentivized.

The cost-neutrality of compels matters only for accepted compels.  The game strives, and must strive, not to avoid penalizing characters for being presented with compels, but rather for accepting them.

[Mrmdubois]

A character who refuses all compels has no fate points.  Which is not the same as a character who never gets compelled, unless that character uses up all his fate points in some other way.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't get this.  Who you were addressing doesn't change the logic used (or unused).

There was no logic. I wasn't trying to convince anyone.

I was just providing information that I believe to be true.

It expresses precisely how I feel about the subject of requiring the player to pay to decline a compel.

I think your sense of proportion is somewhat lacking.

[Lavecki121]

Totori, are you saying that you won't be compelling the characters in the game we set up?

[toturi]

Totori, are you saying that you won't be compelling the characters in the game we set up?

But because the cost of declining the Compel is not neutral, then the payoff for accepting the Compel should put the player ahead.

Does this answer your question?

[Tedronai]

A character who refuses all compels has no fate points.  Which is not the same as a character who never gets compelled, unless that character uses up all his fate points in some other way.

See above re: 'without repercussion'
That section was in response to the suggestion that refusing compels should be free.

[Lavecki121]

Does this answer your question?

Yes, though I'm not sure how this will be implemented. Could you elaborate or put an example?

[toturi]

Yes, though I'm not sure how this will be implemented. Could you elaborate or put an example?

Mostly I would prefer that you self Compel (at least for your own Aspects and not Aspects I am putting into place). But should I Compel your characters, the threshold of a worthy Compel will be (I feel) quite low. Not quite a weak Compel but close enough to be neighbors. In fact, I was thinking of Compelling a scene Aspect to have Eugene voluntarily give himself away. Assume that I did make the Compel. Would you accept or do you want to negotiate it?

[UmbraLux]

There was no logic. I wasn't trying to convince anyone.

I was just providing information that I believe to be true.

Like it or not, it's difficult to avoid logic or illogic when communicating more than rudimentary information.    Logic is the structure behind reasoning and judgement.  If you're communicating either, logic (or fallacy) is unavoidable.

-----
Talking about paying to avoid compels, one thing which seems to work well is making compels pointed out by players (other than the GM) avoidable without cost.  It helps keep everyone engaged with the aspects, takes some of the scene & personal aspect load off the GM, and is all upside since there's no cost to saying "no".  It also leaves the GM the option of more expensive compels. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Like it or not, it's difficult to avoid logic or illogic when communicating more than rudimentary information. 

I think the information I was communicating is sufficiently rudimentary that no logic was involved. "That was not an argument" is a simple proposition with a single True/False value.

If you meant the previous statement about why it's good for Compels to be cost-neutral...there was some logic there, but it wasn't tautological. I think Locnil called it that because he (or maybe she) thought my conclusion was that Compels are cost-neutral. But that wasn't my conclusion.