ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Selrach on November 12, 2010, 06:05:42 AM
-
Interesting mechanical idea I have been kicking around for a while. What if you structured your aspects and the associated compels to all logically link together in a chain. That is to say if one aspect is compelled and then logically all the others would have to be compelled in turn as they would lead into one another. Not a very long lived character in a campaign I would think but it is something I think sounds very interesting in theory.
Any idea what that chain of compels could be or thoughts on the subject?
-
I think this is a good way to give a GM an aneurysm, but that said:
High Concept: Wandering Luchador
Trouble: Easily Offended
Other Aspects: No Build To Anger, Them's Fightin' Words, "To The Pain", Put Them Out Of Their Misery, "I Ever Tell You 'Bout That One Time?"
How's that?
-
Nice that's exactly what I was thinking of. The compels have to continue from the top down or else you get stuck in a loop. That's perfect and hilarious. Thanks.
-
In Fate games you're not supposed to chain compel I thought.
Aspects have to be able to be compelled separately and can't repeat themselves. How would you compel, "Them's Fightin' Words" Without compelling "Easily Offended" or "No Build to Anger"?
In the context of a story, it also leads to characters that are 1 dimensional or 1 note.
-
I would never play this character or advocate anyone do that. I just responded to the beginning of this thread, cause it sounded fun.
On another note, a friend of mine and I have talked about playing a tag team of Mexican Luchadores, whose aspects are all two parts of a tag move: a set up and a take down, but all with descriptive names, so that they could be used for other things.
Really, this was born out of a desire to imagine the look on a Red Court Vampire's face when being taken down by a couple of masked Luchadores.
-
It's an interesting concept. One that, being new to fate (still reading the book), is something I never really thought about. It's something I'm going to have to decide one way or another if i like or not, but at least something that I can keep my eye out for.
-
Yes as I stated at the start of this thread it was more a theoretical exercise. Playing a character bound by a chain of compels would be almost the same as playing a character with a negative refresh(which is of course not possible). I posted this topic not because I wanted to play a character like this but more because I wanted to see if it was possible.
-
Ahh.... I see. Theoretical exercise.
Yes. you'd end up with essentially a Negative Refresh Character with a license to print Fate points in specific situations.
-
I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by a "chain of compels". From the example given, one Aspect doesn't lead to another. Rather, you just have a ton of nearly identical Aspects.
I'm not knocking the idea. I just think that I'm missing something.
-
I'm more interested than the luchadore idea concept......
-
Ahh.... I see. Theoretical exercise.
Yes. you'd end up with essentially a Negative Refresh Character with a license to print Fate points in specific situations.
Congrats you grasped half the purpose for this thread. My line of inquiry has been answered and I agree with deathwombat that the idea of a luchadore would be an interesting concept. Would he be trained to fight supernatural creatures?
-
So basically, if the character was slighted (or perceived some slight), he could go apeshit on the instigator and claim seven self-compels in so doing?
Ok, but you'd want to change the High Concept to something along the lines of "Highly-Upsetable Wandering Luchador" to get the seventh self-compel.
-
So basically, if the character was slighted (or perceived some slight), he could go apeshit on the instigator and claim seven self-compels in so doing?
More likely than not, if he was slighted a NPC would recognize his massive weakness and maneuver the PC into a position where he ends up serving prison time, or worse. Given a GM and a group that is willing to allow for at least some logical consequences for behavior, such a PC would end up in the same position as a tough mook: face down, with a full set of Fate points. We had that happen before; though the game was very breezy and cinematic, Doctor Crazypsycho was takÅn out halfway through the first scenario, and the second guy to try it (for the lulz) hit new character time even faster. Funny as hell, though.
Consider: a typical criminal profile is a guy with poor impulse control, easily angered, insecure, }ith the need to boast. One concludes that the people with the most Fate points in reality are wearing orange jumpsuits. . .
-
I'm not getting it. The example luchadore wouldn't be chain compelled. I'd compel one of his aspects, and if playing out the compel meant that he touched on his other nearly identical aspects, then so be it, but he doesn't get extra fate points for it.
-
I agree that Easily Offended and Thems Fighting Words are very similar aspects but I think the others are seperate enough to merit their own compels. The first two force him to fight and the others define his actions during and after the fight.
Really this is a pointless arguement because the validity of the compels is up to the GM and the group. I don't really see what's the big deal. Yes, a chain compelling charcter would have a stack of FP a mile high in one session but he would have a hard time using them unless he just buys out of the subsequent compels. In the next session the GM could easily have an NPC discover the PCs lack of impulse control and there you go problem solved. Or just do not let anybody try this theoretical idea and problem solved.
-
I'm not getting it. The example luchadore wouldn't be chain compelled. I'd compel one of his aspects, and if playing out the compel meant that he touched on his other nearly identical aspects, then so be it, but he doesn't get extra fate points for it.
As a GM, that's true. But a player who puts himself at a disadvantage in playing along with an aspect can claim a self-compel ... and in this example, could claim seven related self-compels, in theory. There's an example in the rules on YS104 in which a character had to choose between actions suggested by two conflicting aspects, and was given two Fate because both were considered compeled.
By the way, the flip side of this (as mentioned by Ochosi) is that "buying off the compel" would cost seven Fate. So every time an insult flew at you you'd either have to go ape-shit (and collect a pile of Fate and suffer the consequences) or pay a pile of Fate to resist your natural tendencies.
Yes, I could see this being a BIIIIG problem for such a character.
-
I've mechanically limited my players to receiving or spending at most 2 fate points per compel-ing circumstance, due to just this. One of my players originally made a character that was ALL about fighting evil, and wanted 7 fate points every time the group did exactly what it was going to do: go kill the baddie. So I spouted some BS about how I thought the book only allowed me to give up to 2 fate points, and stuck with it. We changed his 5 other aspects to reflect more interesting parts of his character, and discussed how a compel has to be sort of bad for the character.
What I've learned to watch out for is things like "protective warrior" coupled with "i get angry when innocents are threatened", as it can create a kind of free invocation: "hey i want try protect these people, here's a fate point. now give it back because i am angry about it!"
Interestingly enough, one of my characters has the opposite: a desire to strike down evil, plus a desire to protect others. So when these conflict, she could end up paying to ignore a compel (going for the evil dude) to get a compel (protect others). since that's silly, i always compel her to save people first, as that's her high concept. So she has to go against that if she wants to smite the enemy instead.
Sometimes, it works out to her benefit, and she gets two fate points for smiting the enemy to protect the innocent. Often, she gets these (despite it being exactly what the group was going to do, and thus not really a negative to her) because she does so without regard to the situation... she'll slay a demon in front of a kid without really thinking about the consequences. To her credit, she almost always dishes these points right back into smiting the thing.
-
My philosophy (based on how I interpret the rules) about Fate points is different than what I'm seeing in this thread. Fate points aren't rewards for playing your character. They are payments for when an aspect genuinely introduces complications and challenges for a character. One complication induced by aspects = one fate point, regardless of how many aspects could have led to that complication. The examples in the book that use multiple aspects always show how each aspect introduces a complication beyond what the other aspect did. If I'm compelling different aspects for the same purpose (getting the character to start a fight from an insult, for example), then I count that as following the same rules as escalating the compel on a single aspect. Meaning that it almost never happens except in extraordinary moments, and it never goes beyond two Fate points bid on it.
But this thing where the player "self-compels" seven different aspects on a single complication? No, I don't see that at all. Would his actions be any different had he only had one appropriate aspect? If the answer is no, you have a really good argument that this is not seven different compels. Its just one compel that could have been justified seven different ways.