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

[Tedronai]

I sometimes don't give a target number if time is a factor.  I'll say it's a Lore extended test.  Each roll is one day and then let them spend the time...it adds tension if they don't know they'll succeed on time

It adds tension to the game, though, by robbing it (or other factors) from the story.

[cold_breaker]

I don't know, this has given me a lot to think about. I'm still not convinced that its always in the best interest of gameplay to always tell players all this matagame info - even if you can trust the players not to metagame, people make honest mistakes. I lean towards getting a package of sticky notes aswell to be honest.

On the other hand, I admit it might not be good for the system, so perhaps I need to find a different way of keeping my stories interesting. Perhaps I'll try giving them as much metagame info as possible and just mix together 2 plots to see if the story develops organically - e.g. if they catch bad guy #1 really quickly and easily, bad guy #2 will screw them over because they didn't stop to kill him earlier.

Either way, it's a lot to think about.

[Taran]

I sometimes don't give a target number if time is a factor.  I'll say it's a Lore extended test.  Each roll is one day and then let them spend the time...it adds tension if they don't know they'll succeed on time

Other times you need to give them a target number. "the target is 5 and the time is one day".  So now, if they get a 7, they can use those two spare shifts to reduce how much time it took to find the info.  I think that's important.

It adds tension to the game, though, by robbing it (or other factors) from the story.

I just ran across this and thought it might be pertinent:  Under scholarship,  YS pg 142

One important note: because the GM is not
always obligated to reveal the difficulty of a given
roll, you may not know how much you failed it
by, which means you don’t know how long you’ll
need to research.

Pretty much exactly what I said.

[Tedronai]

Yep, as good as the DFrpg is, there are still some stupid statements in YS.
That philosophy runs directly counter to the very core foundations of the system, and is incompatible with its primary mechanic (the FP economy).

[Wordmaker]

I think if I wanted the characters to have false information, I either wouldn't call for a roll at all, or I'd use a compel.

[cold_breaker]

Just finished my next session and tried giving out targets for everything. Essentially, I learned a few things.

Firstly, my players spent fate points, whereas before they were mainly hoarding them. This was primarily a combat session (which I learned a few other things about running that are off topic) but I think this was an improvement.

Secondly, in some cases, my players complained that I told them the targets. Now, this was in extreme cases where their target to beat was an 11 (legitimately, there were a group of off screen mages working together to free the BBEG of the fight) - essentially the block was on the level of compel and I think my players would have preferred if I blurred the line and didn't tell them whether it was a compel or just a really wicked number.

I think what this tells me is that every group is different - and not every group enjoys having access to ALL the meta. It's my opinion that you have to find a balance between the two - not telling your players all the meta info does hamstring the system somewhat, but telling them all the info can take away some of the entertainment. Fate is a role playing game, not a chess game. I think - and this is going to be difficult for me - that the trick to telling when not to tell your players the target is to remember that it's not a tool for manipulating them.

[Tedronai]

The difference between a Compel and a high-strength block can only ever be crystal-clear.  Compels are negotiated, and as such, cannot be proposed, accepted, or otherwise implemented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening.

[cold_breaker]

Tedronai: I think you're getting too hung up on being a rules lawyer in a system that's by it's nature meant to be flexible

In this case, the lesson learned is that, if something needs to happen story wise, you CAN handle it by coming up with a good mechanical reason, or you can just add an aspect to the scene instead and compel it. So, in this case, I could come up with an 11 shift magical block that someone has added to the combat from off screen - or I could just say that the block is an aspect that compels the player to do what the block was intended to do anyways. Either way, they will have to pay fp to overcome it (possibly several!) but in the compel scenario you hand wave the actual math and possibly grant the player a fatepoint as a reward for going along with it - or possibly more than one.

Either way, I'd give the players a basic idea of what happened (a magical shield) and they could roll lore to figure out more clues (there are spellcasters nearby!) The GM has narrative power to say how an aspect can be compelled, and even if you wish to up the Ante on a compel.

I think this is what people have been trying to tell me, I only really understood now. You just have to remember that aspects can be on anything, and as a GM, if there isn't one that fits your needs story wise, you can add them on the fly.

[cold_breaker]

The difference between a Compel and a high-strength block can only ever be crystal-clear.  Compels are negotiated, and as such, cannot be proposed, accepted, or otherwise implemented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening.

To directly respond to this: anything mechanical cannot be proposed, accepted or otherwise implimented without being made clear to all parties that such is happening either. The only difference between doing something by mechanically engineering it, and doing something by simply saying there's an aspect on the scene or enemy that the players have not yet assessed for whatever reason and simply compelling that aspect - is that the second scenario grants a Fatepoint to whoever it is compelled against.

[Tedronai]

The only difference [...] is that the second scenario grants a Fatepoint to whoever it is compelled against.

This is factually incorrect.
Compels also are negotiated and can be refused.  A block is not negotiated and cannot be refused.

[cold_breaker]

This is factually incorrect.
Compels also are negotiated and can be refused.  A block is not negotiated and cannot be refused.

Yeah, but you're splitting hairs. As a GM, you can always increase the compel - and refusing costs fate points. For a block, the players can always use fate points to overcome the block - although they need relevant aspects. So yes, using Fate points you can 'overcome' a powerful block, the same way you can 'overcome' a compel.

In the end, you get more or less the same result, it's just the mechanics are simplier for the GM if you go the compel route.