Story based actions that you wont even allow a roll for - too railroady?

[cold_breaker]

OK, so I've been mulling this over for a bit. There is an old standby that says that if failing a roll wouldn't result in anything, don't call for a roll. I generally interpret it as thus:

1) If the roll has no real relevance to the campaign, don't call for a roll
2) If the PC can't possibly fail or succeed, don't call for a roll
3) (Recently learned) If the player has recently made the roll doing something similar, don't call for a roll. Use the recent result instead.

Now, that said, I wanted advice on how to handle a scene. I was planning on having an NPC introduce himself by essentially showing the groups seer a vision of hope - considering her visions are by nature always graphic, horrible and depressing, this should come as quite a shock. I was considering this as a mental attack that would place an aspect on her for the duration of the story and hopefully suggest a new permanent aspect in the future. I'm considering this as an autotakeout - so I'm thinking I have three options:

A) Big mental attack, enough to one shot her mental stress attack. Give her the option of trying to fight it off, but compel her not to.
B) Massive mental attack. Don't bother letting her roll as per the rules above.
C) Find another mechanical way of modeling this?

I should mention, this is a plot device, not really screwing the players over so much as making sure they pay attention to the badass NPC. If I go with A, the Aspect should probably screw her over a little, so I'm leaning towards that, even if I have to compel her with 2-3 Fate points.

My question is, am I trying to railroad the players doing this? I'm new to this and trying to determine how best to accomplish this. The best I can do at the moment seems to be railroading them into wanting something (since as PCs, the players haven't really given their characters much by way of wants, needs or passions.) My best guess on how to handle this situation is to railroad them into a goal, then let them figure out how best to accomplish that goal (while planning out the obstacles to the most obvious routes to that goal and preparing to improvise when they take a less obvious route.)

[PirateJack]

I'd go with an outright compel rather than going through the mental attack. Even if it turns out to be a good thing for her character, I doubt she'd thank you for taking up one of her very valuable consequence slots.

[cold_breaker]

It's always an option for the PC to take a consequence, or not. The aspect would be the taken out result, not a consequence of the attack. I'd prefer her not take any consequences from this, but in option A, that'd be an option for her, rather than being taken out.

[Taran]

Things like prayers and Cassandra's Tears place an aspect on the World.

Why don't you just have the seer come see the PC.  RP out the scene and place a new aspect on the World.  You can use this aspect to drive the story, compel the PC's  (as the vision inevitably drives itself to become reality) and it lets the PC's steer the story toward that outcome as well by invoking the aspect.  The aspect will last the scenario or until things resolve themselves.

[InFerrumVeritas]

This is what compels are for.  The PCs get a chance to say no (but you can escalate by offering more fate points).  Basically, you bribe them to railroad them a little, but ultimately they have a choice. 

Also, I think placing the aspect on the world or campaign, like Taran suggested, is better than forcing one on a player.  This keeps control of the character in the player's hands.

[Haru]

The idea of "don't roll if failure isn't interesting" does not (only) mean that you shouldn't roll if there is nothing happening if you fail the roll, but also that any roll (or any conflict/contest/challenge) should be a fork in the road, not a bottleneck. If you have a bottleneck and fail the roll to pass it, your story is stuck in front of the bottleneck. If you have a fork in the road, then the story will progress no matter if you succeed or fail, it's just a question of how it will progress.

In your case, the vision is sort of important to the story. If the character doesn't get the vision, nothing is going to happen. So I'd make the vision happen without any roll. What happens after that is important. How will the character react? That's also where you could put a compel, in order to make her react to the vision in a certain way.

If you want to make a roll, you could see how she gets the vision. Maybe the connection is gargled, and she only receives it in bits and pieces that warp the message. Instead of "I come in piece" it becomes "I will devour you and everything that is dearest to you". Now that's an interesting turn of events, because the story progresses, but either the character tries to make friends with the NPC or try to kill him.

Can't post this enough:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108546067488075210468/posts/CpvrfJUz8du

[cold_breaker]

I think this is more me wanting Cassandra's tears to not be the only plot device. It's almost artistic taste at this point: I want to use something to compliment the broad strokes of that particular brush. Unfortunately, the PCs are a little on the 2D side so far - partially because the players are still used to D20 style gameplay, and partially perhaps because we haven't had too much time to flesh out personalities yet.

In this case, I'd like to play on the nature of her visions and make the vision a direct result of his actions, but I see what you mean. This should be about a massive compel of her concept, rather than an attack on her stress track. Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a character when I'm supposed to be the GM. I still like basing my actions as being a result of an NPCs actions though...

[Haru]

If it helps you: Cassandra's tears isn't the plot device, this specific vision is. The player can use cassandra's tears himself, like Taran said, by putting aspects on the city that represent visions he came up with himself.

[Mr. Death]

The idea of "don't roll if failure isn't interesting" does not (only) mean that you shouldn't roll if there is nothing happening if you fail the roll, but also that any roll (or any conflict/contest/challenge) should be a fork in the road, not a bottleneck. If you have a bottleneck and fail the roll to pass it, your story is stuck in front of the bottleneck. If you have a fork in the road, then the story will progress no matter if you succeed or fail, it's just a question of how it will progress.

I agree with this, with an addendum that a bottleneck can be interesting if there's something chasing you to it. Trying to force open a door while ghouls are on your tail, for instance.

In your case, the vision is sort of important to the story. If the character doesn't get the vision, nothing is going to happen. So I'd make the vision happen without any roll. What happens after that is important. How will the character react? That's also where you could put a compel, in order to make her react to the vision in a certain way.

Speaking as a GM who has a character who's a seer, yeah, this is how I do it--I give out visions without a roll, and usually offer a fate point if there's going to be some tangible result to the vision. If the seer has a mental consequence as a result, for example. In one case, the trauma of the vision let her be knocked out and captured, and that was worth a fate point.

If you want to make a roll, you could see how she gets the vision. Maybe the connection is gargled, and she only receives it in bits and pieces that warp the message. Instead of "I come in piece" it becomes "I will devour you and everything that is dearest to you". Now that's an interesting turn of events, because the story progresses, but either the character tries to make friends with the NPC or try to kill him.

Or do it like The Sight--you see the whole vision, but a lore roll determines how much of it you understand.

[Haru]

I agree with this, with an addendum that a bottleneck can be interesting if there's something chasing you to it. Trying to force open a door while ghouls are on your tail, for instance.

There's a difference between a bottleneck for the characters ("There is only one exit"), and a bottleneck in the story.
Your example still presents 2 valid options: You escape or you get caught by the ghouls and brought to their master. The bottleneck I am talking about would be if you needed to get into the house first to make something happen, or get the information that there is something important in the house, and you fail the roll to obtain it. Everything comes to a screeching halt.

Also, there is one quote I really liked: "Before there was a riding skill, nobody fell of a horse". 

[cold_breaker]

If it helps you: Cassandra's tears isn't the plot device, this specific vision is. The player can use cassandra's tears himself, like Taran said, by putting aspects on the city that represent visions he came up with himself.

I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.

[Mr. Death]

I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.

The reason Cassandra's Tears doesn't have a cost is because it has a built-in penalty. Never forget that. The player should always have an uphill battle convincing anyone of the character's visions. If the character declares a vision through Cassandra's Tears, that means everyone else should actively disbelieve them. I know, it might be hard with the metagame, but without that penalty the power isn't being used right.

So even if a character declares through a vision something that will work in their favor, they'll still have to work to take advantage of it because nobody will believe them and help them take advantage of it.

[cold_breaker]

The reason Cassandra's Tears doesn't have a cost is because it has a built-in penalty. Never forget that. The player should always have an uphill battle convincing anyone of the character's visions. If the character declares a vision through Cassandra's Tears, that means everyone else should actively disbelieve them. I know, it might be hard with the metagame, but without that penalty the power isn't being used right.

So even if a character declares through a vision something that will work in their favor, they'll still have to work to take advantage of it because nobody will believe them and help them take advantage of it.

I'm ok with declarations in a vision to some extent - but players initiating a vision seems like it's pushing it - even with the -2 to get people to believe it. Could be gamed way too easily. For instance:

Good - The GM says 'you have a vision! Billy the NPC will try to backstab you!"
Player - *making a declaration* 'But not until after we get the kid to safety!'

Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'

[Haru]

I guess that's one way to interpret it, but that's not my understanding of CT. If it was, I'd charge refresh for it... being able to pick and choose the future as a player is really powerful. I MIGHT be inclined to let that sort of thing happen as a declaration though, but I'd be very wary. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, I'll have to reread it later. I'm all for giving players more narrative power, but that seems like the straw that tips us from gaming territory into book writing territory.

Well, what the power does is something that any player can do at any time. Everyone at the table can say "Hey, I would like to have X happen at some point." And you can then put that up as an aspect for your game. The only thing that cassandra's tears does, really, is to give this knowledge to the character as well.

Good - The GM says 'you have a vision! Billy the NPC will try to backstab you!"
Player - *making a declaration* 'But not until after we get the kid to safety!'

Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'

Honestly, I think the declaration you marked as bad might even be the more interesting one. It is a great plot hook. Are the characters the only ones after the chalice? Damn their luck, somebody else found it before they did and recognized it for what it is. The whole beginning of the adventure then and there. Brilliant.
The "good" declaration is something that I would see in a concession. You have a social challenge where Billy is setting everything up to backstab you, but before he can take you out, you concede for the kid to get to safety before it happens. Doesn't really work as a declaration, I think.

[Mr. Death]

Bad - The NPC requests the players retrieve a mystical chalice.
Player - *making a declaration* 'I've had a vision! The chalice will be in a garage sale by some old lady in Utah for cheap!'

To add onto what Haru said, the proper application of Cassandra's Tears would then have all the rest of the PCs going something along the lines of, "That's just ridiculous, the holy grail isn't going to be in some old lady's garage. We'll keep checking the museums."

With Cassandra's Tears, if a player makes a declaration, the power ensures that the whole world is actively working against him taking advantage of it.