ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Pbartender on December 21, 2011, 09:10:40 PM
-
So, while we've played FATE before, my players and I are all new to DFRPG. So, to familiarize myself with the rules and to provide my players with a handy resource, I'm putting together a condensed quick reference guide. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to run it by you to make sure I get it right.
First off, Aspects...
-
USING ASPECTS
Invoking:
• Spend a fate point.
• Describe how an aspect benefits you.
• Gain a +2 bonus to one roll, OR Reroll one roll.
Invoking for Effect:
• Spend a fate point.
• Describe how an aspect allows you to make a declaration (an aspect).
• Tag resulting aspect.
Being Compelled:
• GM or player suggests a complication based on your aspect.
• Gain a fate point to accept the complication, OR spend a fate poin to avoid the complication.
• Results of the complication may be negotiated with GM.
Compelling Others:
• Spend an fate point.
• Suggest a complication based on someone else’s aspect.
• Compelled character gains a fate point to accept the complication, OR spends a fate point to avoid the complication.
• Results of the complication may be negotiated with GM.
Tagging:
• Create a new aspect OR discover a hidden aspect (via assessment, declaration, maneuver, consequence, etc.).
• As soon as possible invoke once without spending a fate point.
• Within reason, tags may be passed to an ally.
-
CREATING & DISCOVERING ASPECTS
Guessing:
• Guess a target’s or scene’s aspect.
• Attempt to invoke or compel the potential aspect.
• If guess is correct, invoke or compel succeeds, OR if guess is incorrect, invoke or compel fails.
• If guess is obviously wrong, the fate point spent to invoke or compel may be returned.
Assessing:
• Use an appropriate skill against a character, object or scene.
• If successful, GM reveals an existing aspect.
• Tag aspect.
Declaring:
• Use an appropriate skill against a character, object or scene.
• If successful, you create an appropriate aspect.
• Tag aspect.
Maneuvers:
• Use an appropriate skill against a character, object or scene.
• If successful, you create a temporary aspect (0 shifts = fragile, 1+ shifts = sticky).
• Tag aspect.
Consequence:
• A successful attack deals stress to an enemy.
• Enemy reduces the stress by taking a consequence.
• Tag aspect.
-
Compelling Others:
• Spend an fate point.
• Suggest a complication based on someone else’s aspect.
• Compelled character gains a fate point to accept the complication, OR spends a fate point to avoid the complication.
• Results of the complication may be negotiated with GM.
Not precisely true. Instead, what you are actually doing is invoking the other character's aspect for effect (an effect that would complicate things for the other character). The GM then initiates the compel; compels are always GM-driven. The result is the same, but the designers feel it is an important one. (Though since the compel is in the hands of the GM, this clarifies that the GM determines how compel-worthy the effect is, and controls whether escalation occurs, and any Fate points that change hands due to either an accepted compel or a bought off compel come from or go to the 'bank', not the invoking player's pool.)
-
So, while we've played FATE before, my players and I are all new to DFRPG. So, to familiarize myself with the rules and to provide my players with a handy resource, I'm putting together a condensed quick reference guide. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to run it by you to make sure I get it right.
First off, Aspects...
I'd modify your descriptions a bit for clarity. Here's a quick stab at it...
Paying for Aspect Use
- ...can be either spending a fate point to invoke or using a free tag. When using a free tag, the target (if a character) is not usually* offered a fate chip. If invoking, targeted characters are offered the fate chip. In general, only characters who are resisting a forced affect are 'targeted'.
- Aspects must be 'relevant' to the skill, individual(s), and situation to be used. This judgment is left to the group but usually requires a description.
- *Invoking for Effect may initiate a compel where the GM offers a fate chip even if a tag was used.
I'll use "invoke" below, with the exception noted above everything it applies to also applies to "tags".
Creating or Discovering Aspects
- Assessments
- This is discovering an existing aspect through interaction and/or observation.
- Assessments are accomplished by rolling the appropriate skill. When the target is another character, the assessment may be resisted.
- Consequences
- Consequences are taken when a character's stress track is overloaded or, more rarely,...
- ...as part of a concession.
- Declarations
- This is the creation of an aspect by declaring something 'was there before and is now important to the narrative'. It is usually limited to knowledge (I know this thing which will help) or awareness (I see this thing I can use).
- Declarations can be created by either paying a fate point or by rolling the appropriate skill.
- Maneuvers
- This is modifying the scene or an individual through some action.
- Maneuvers are accomplished by rolling the appropriate skill. When the target is another character, the assessment may be resisted.
- Guessing
- This is an Assessment without using a skill to discover the aspect first. It can be risky since you usually don't get fate points used back if you guess incorrectly.
Using Aspects
- Invoking
- Add 2 to a roll or...
- ...re-roll.
- Invoking for Effect
- Create some narrative affect on the scene or...
- ...limit a victim's choices (this initiates a GM compel) or...
- ...add a narrative affecting complication (initiates a compel if directed at a character).
- Compelling
- Limits a character's choices or...
- ...adds a narrative affecting complication.[/list
Not sure how much that actually clarifies anything. Probably the biggest things to point out from your list is Becq's point on compels and that there is no difference in using an invoke vs using a tag beyond whether or not you pay a fate point.
-
Not precisely true. Instead, what you are actually doing is invoking the other character's aspect for effect (an effect that would complicate things for the other character). The GM then initiates the compel; compels are always GM-driven. The result is the same, but the designers feel it is an important one. (Though since the compel is in the hands of the GM, this clarifies that the GM determines how compel-worthy the effect is, and controls whether escalation occurs, and any Fate points that change hands due to either an accepted compel or a bought off compel come from or go to the 'bank', not the invoking player's pool.)
This isn't strictly true either. This is one way you can do it, but is not the only way you must do it. Another way is for players to simply suggest a compel. If it's appropriate, the GM compels. Otherwise the concept of self-compel wouldn't work. Both of these methods work well together and function best in different circumstances. I see the invoke for effect-compel working as a lucky break or fate intervening, while the other method is simply the world working as it should.
Invoking for Effect:
• Spend a fate point.
• Describe how an aspect allows you to make a declaration (an aspect).
• Tag resulting aspect.
While this is the way the book describes the invoke for effect, it is a very odd way to treat it. Taking an appropriate aspect and invoking it to gain... an aspect? Would we invoke that aspect to also gain an aspect? More than anything I'd describe an invocation for effect as a player merely establishing a true fact about the world or his character (not usually about other characters).
-
This isn't strictly true either. This is one way you can do it, but is not the only way you must do it. Another way is for players to simply suggest a compel. If it's appropriate, the GM compels. Otherwise the concept of self-compel wouldn't work. Both of these methods work well together and function best in different circumstances. I see the invoke for effect-compel working as a lucky break or fate intervening, while the other method is simply the world working as it should.
I stand corrected.
However, it seems to me that a purely GM-initiated compel should be ... well, not rare, but not exactly common, either. For example, if the players are fighting an NPC that is Blind In One Eye, it would be easy to suggest a compel every time that foe pulls the trigger on his pistol. But that sort of compel should probably not occur unless a player pays for it or there is a story-driven reason to, because it is intended simply to create a combat advantage.
A good example of when a compel should probably happen without the need for a player to pay for it would be when NPCs are bound by lack of free will to act a certain way. Non-corporeal creatures trying to cross a magical boundary, for example.
Thoughts?
-
Not precisely true. Instead, what you are actually doing is invoking the other character's aspect for effect (an effect that would complicate things for the other character). The GM then initiates the compel; compels are always GM-driven. The result is the same, but the designers feel it is an important one. (Though since the compel is in the hands of the GM, this clarifies that the GM determines how compel-worthy the effect is, and controls whether escalation occurs, and any Fate points that change hands due to either an accepted compel or a bought off compel come from or go to the 'bank', not the invoking player's pool.)
I'll have to read it through again...
I'd modify your descriptions a bit for clarity. Here's a quick stab at it...
Very nice. I'll need to look it over once or twice... I think most of it ends up amounting to the same thing, but we came at it from different directions.
While this is the way the book describes the invoke for effect, it is a very odd way to treat it. Taking an appropriate aspect and invoking it to gain... an aspect? Would we invoke that aspect to also gain an aspect? More than anything I'd describe an invocation for effect as a player merely establishing a true fact about the world or his character (not usually about other characters).
Actually, it's not as silly as it may sound...
Effectively, as I read it, Invoking For Effect is just making a Declaration, but instead of rolling a skill and taking the chance of failing, you use an Aspect/Fate point combo to guarantee success.
For example, I have an ex-cop character in my game. He could feasibly make a Investigation roll... if he's successful he declares that he's he's got "Dirt On The DA", but if fails, then he's out of luck. Or he could spend a fate point and invoke his "Thin Blue Line" aspect for effect to get the same result (maybe it was a juicy tidbit he picked up back while he working the beat). When he meets with the DA, not only can he invoke "Thin Blue Line", but he's also got a tag on "Dirt On The DA" to use on the Intimidate roll he'll need to make. Plus, now the aspect is out there for anyone else to compel or invoke.
Effectively, it let's you double down on an aspect, by temporarily turning one aspect into many.
-
Effectively, as I read it, Invoking For Effect is just making a Declaration, but instead of rolling a skill and taking the chance of failing, you use an Aspect/Fate point combo to guarantee success.
You may be blurring the line between creating / discovering an aspect and using it. Invoking, tagging, and compelling are ways to initiate use of an aspect. Assessments, declarations, maneuvers, and consequences are ways to discover or create an aspect.
Regarding compels and invoking for effect, this post by Iago may help (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205).
More on FATE mechanics by one of the authors:
- The Core of FATE Core (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-core-of-fate-core/)
- The Core of FATE Core, Part II (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-core-of-fate-core-part-two/)
-
I pretty much agree with UmbraLux about everything here.
Would make a couple of changes to his guide, though.
1. Consequences can also arise from consequential contests, IIRC.
2. - Invoking for Effect
- Create some narrative
affect effect on the scene or...
-
However, it seems to me that a purely GM-initiated compel should be ... well, not rare, but not exactly common, either. For example, if the players are fighting an NPC that is Blind In One Eye, it would be easy to suggest a compel every time that foe pulls the trigger on his pistol. But that sort of compel should probably not occur unless a player pays for it or there is a story-driven reason to, because it is intended simply to create a combat advantage.
I don't agree about the rarity of GM initiated compels, but part of that is when I compel my players they stay compelled. I've always disliked the attitude that a compel lasts for a short period of time. If I offer a compel it does not pose a limitation immediately that can be cast off on the next round, it lasts until it is no longer relevant, so in your "Blind in one eye" example I would compel once, and that would effect his shooting for the rest of the scene. I wouldn't compel again, unless different limitations became apparent or the stakes were raised (in which case I probably misjudged the severity of the compel initially).
All that being said, I would say that regardless it's the GM's job to evaluate each compel and decide if it's valuable to the table. If a compel is weak then it probably shouldn't happen in the first place, and if it's sound (like your second example) then no problems.
We probably agree in spirit if not in execution.
Effectively, as I read it, Invoking For Effect is just making a Declaration, but instead of rolling a skill and taking the chance of failing, you use an Aspect/Fate point combo to guarantee success.
For example, I have an ex-cop character in my game. He could feasibly make a Investigation roll... if he's successful he declares that he's he's got "Dirt On The DA", but if fails, then he's out of luck. Or he could spend a fate point and invoke his "Thin Blue Line" aspect for effect to get the same result (maybe it was a juicy tidbit he picked up back while he working the beat). When he meets with the DA, not only can he invoke "Thin Blue Line", but he's also got a tag on "Dirt On The DA" to use on the Intimidate roll he'll need to make. Plus, now the aspect is out there for anyone else to compel or invoke.
Effectively, it let's you double down on an aspect, by temporarily turning one aspect into many.
You might want to consider that a player can actually do this without an aspect. Spending a fate point to make a declaration is one of the functions of fate points. This is separate from invoking an aspect. Check YS19-20.
-
...when I compel my players they stay compelled. I've always disliked the attitude that a compel lasts for a short period of time. If I offer a compel it does not pose a limitation immediately that can be cast off on the next round, it lasts until it is no longer relevant, so in your "Blind in one eye" example I would compel once, and that would effect his shooting for the rest of the scene. I wouldn't compel again, unless different limitations became apparent or the stakes were raised (in which case I probably misjudged the severity of the compel initially).
Yep, I do something similar. I use compels lasting at least a scene and sometimes an entire session. Depends on what makes sense in the game's current context.
-
I don't agree about the rarity of GM initiated compels, but part of that is when I compel my players they stay compelled. I've always disliked the attitude that a compel lasts for a short period of time. If I offer a compel it does not pose a limitation immediately that can be cast off on the next round, it lasts until it is no longer relevant, so in your "Blind in one eye" example I would compel once, and that would effect his shooting for the rest of the scene. I wouldn't compel again, unless different limitations became apparent or the stakes were raised (in which case I probably misjudged the severity of the compel initially).
I felt strongly against that but thinking about it, this makes it easyier for players and GM to remember and you don't have to remeber every single compel every round. On the other hand, you get a lot less FPs that way. There may be reasons to compel the same aspect again. You could compel him in the beginning to limit his shooting but then if maybe a Silph comes flying and he can't see it from the corner of his eyes - new compel. This is just fair to the player i think.
-
Having read these...
Regarding compels and invoking for effect, this post by Iago may help (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205).
More on FATE mechanics by one of the authors:
- The Core of FATE Core (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-core-of-fate-core/)
- The Core of FATE Core, Part II (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-core-of-fate-core-part-two/)
...it seems that there's a bit of extraneous nomenclature. I am compelled (HA!) to try to simplify for my sanity and that of my players. So, let me ask a few questions.
First, Invoking and Compelling...
Using Aspects
- Invoking
- Add 2 to a roll or...
- ...re-roll.
- Invoking for Effect
- Create some narrative affect on the scene or...
- ...limit a victim's choices (this initiates a GM compel) or...
- ...add a narrative affecting complication (initiates a compel if directed at a character).
- Compelling
- Limits a character's choices or...
- ...adds a narrative affecting complication.
Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking and Invoking For Effect? Both are just using aspects to gain a benefit.
Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking For Effect and Compelling? They both seem to be doing effectively the same thing, only that one targets internal aspects and the other targets external aspects.
It seems like we could condense this down to:
- Add 2 to a roll, or...
- Re-roll, or...
- Create some narrative affect on the scene, or...
- Limit a victim's choices to initiates a GM compel, or...
- Add a narrative affecting complication to initiate a compel if directed at a character.
Next, Generating Aspects...
Creating or Discovering Aspects
- Assessments
- This is discovering an existing aspect through interaction and/or observation.
- Assessments are accomplished by rolling the appropriate skill. When the target is another character, the assessment may be resisted.
- Consequences
- Consequences are taken when a character's stress track is overloaded or, more rarely,...
- ...as part of a concession.
- Declarations
- This is the creation of an aspect by declaring something 'was there before and is now important to the narrative'. It is usually limited to knowledge (I know this thing which will help) or awareness (I see this thing I can use).
- Declarations can be created by either paying a fate point or by rolling the appropriate skill.
- Maneuvers
- This is modifying the scene or an individual through some action.
- Maneuvers are accomplished by rolling the appropriate skill. When the target is another character, the assessment may be resisted.
- Guessing
- This is an Assessment without using a skill to discover the aspect first. It can be risky since you usually don't get fate points used back if you guess incorrectly.
Doesn't this all really boil down to:
- You can take action to discover a hidden aspect (Assessment), or create a new aspect (Declaration).
- You can use fate points or skill rolls* to do either.
- The length of time a generated aspect remains useful is determined by the time a character spends generating it and the quality of any skill checks made to generate it.
*I'm including combat generated consequences and aspects as a part of "skill rolls".
And finally, the Costs...
Paying for Aspect Use
- ...can be either spending a fate point to invoke or using a free tag. When using a free tag, the target (if a character) is not usually* offered a fate chip. If invoking, targeted characters are offered the fate chip. In general, only characters who are resisting a forced affect are 'targeted'.
- Aspects must be 'relevant' to the skill, individual(s), and situation to be used. This judgment is left to the group but usually requires a description.
- *Invoking for Effect may initiate a compel where the GM offers a fate chip even if a tag was used.
I'll use "invoke" below, with the exception noted above everything it applies to also applies to "tags".
In other words...
In general:
- Get a fate point when you accept a complication from an aspect.
- Spend a fate point to gain a benefit or avoid a complication from an aspect.
- If you took action to generate an aspect, you get the first benefit for free.
- The GM acts as the "banker" for fate points.
-
(on a side-note, this should definitely be in the resource section of the boards when it's finished....)
-
Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking and Invoking For Effect? Both are just using aspects to gain a benefit.
Invokes modify a roll or allow a reroll while invoking for effect creates a narrative effect - it directly modifies the story. So there is a difference.
Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking For Effect and Compelling? They both seem to be doing effectively the same thing, only that one targets internal aspe uhcts and the other targets external aspects.
The line here is nebulous. The differences really revolve around where the fate chip comes from and who is initiating. Probably could use the terms interchangeably for most uses, just need to remember to pull a fate chip from the bag when a tag is used to initiate a compel.
Next, Generating Aspects...
Doesn't this all really boil down to:
- You can take action to discover a hidden aspect (Assessment), or create a new aspect (Declaration).
- You can use fate points or skill rolls* to do either.
- The length of time a generated aspect remains useful is determined by the time a character spends generating it and the quality of any skill checks made to generate it.
*I'm including combat generated consequences and aspects as a part of "skill rolls".
For the most part...there are a few differences but, as you point out, it`s primarily a difference in terminology. Things like not paying a fate point to make a maneuver - it would be a declaration instead. But I don't think you`ll run into any issues if you lump aspect creation and discovery types together. Not in play at least. The different terms probably will help when discussing ramifications online.
And finally, the Costs...
In other words...
In general:
- Get a fate point when you accept a complication from an aspect.
- Spend a fate point to gain a benefit or avoid a complication from an aspect.
- If you took action to generate an aspect, you get the first benefit for free.
- The GM acts as the "banker" for fate points.
Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free."
Hope that helps.
-
Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free."
Not so. If you make a declaration with a fate point there's no reason why you would not get to tag it.
-
Invokes modify a roll or allow a reroll while invoking for effect creates a narrative effect - it directly modifies the story. So there is a difference.
Sure, I see what you mean, but we could also say that since one invoke gives a flat bonus and the other gives a reroll, Then we should have different terms for them as well? :P Silly, I know.
My point is, invokes and invokes for effect both give benefits to the character initiating them. Plus, any time a situation allows you to invoke, you can likewise invoke for effect. So, why make the distinction, if it only causes confusion?
The line here is nebulous. The differences really revolve around where the fate chip comes from and who is initiating. Probably could use the terms interchangeably for most uses, just need to remember to pull a fate chip from the bag when a tag is used to initiate a compel.
Yep... That pretty much confirms what I was aiming for.
For the most part...there are a few differences but, as you point out, it`s primarily a difference in terminology. Things like not paying a fate point to make a maneuver - it would be a declaration instead. But I don't think you`ll run into any issues if you lump aspect creation and discovery types together. Not in play at least. The different terms probably will help when discussing ramifications online.
Understood... My goal here is to create a simple, straightforward cheat-sheet that me and my players can reference during play. I'm mostly concerned with fast, intuitive understanding and functionality during the majority of situations.
Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free
What about Declarations created via fate points? No rolling necessary. (Ninjaed by sinker ;D )
-
Not so. If you make a declaration with a fate point there's no reason why you would not get to tag it.
What about Declarations created via fate points? No rolling necessary. (Ninjaed by sinker ;D )
You've already paid a fate point so I wouldn't characterize that as 'free'. You are correct in noting an additional fate point isn't needed for the tag. My point was that you don't get a free tag on an aspect you've guessed correctly and you do on an assessment even though the aspect was pre-existing. ;)
Oh, it may also be worth pointing out that you can pass those free tags on to friends and allies.
Sure, I see what you mean, but we could also say that since one invoke gives a flat bonus and the other gives a reroll, Then we should have different terms for them as well? :P Silly, I know.
My point is, invokes and invokes for effect both give benefits to the character initiating them. Plus, any time a situation allows you to invoke, you can likewise invoke for effect. So, why make the distinction, if it only causes confusion?
You can, of course, rewrite whatever terminology you want for personal use. However, unique definitions / uses may make communication difficult. ;)
More to the specific point, compels (and invokes for effect) are not always for the initiating individual's immediate benefit. Often they're used to limit choices or add a complication. Take the aspect everyone loves to hate as an example: "The Building is on Fire!" doesn't really benefit anyone when compelled. But it may force people to evacuate, destroy property, set off spinklers, start a countdown for when the fire department arrives, or a number of other potential narrative effects. Contrast that with simply invoking the same aspect. It'd give you a +2 to your attack (or other) roll because of the distraction provided or it will allow you to re-roll a stealth (or other) roll as you use the smoke and flames.
Invoking is directly beneficial to a single roll. Compelling / invoking for effect is directed at the narrative, not a roll.
-
You've already paid a fate point so I wouldn't characterize that as 'free'. You are correct in noting an additional fate point isn't needed for the tag. My point was that you don't get a free tag on an aspect you've guessed correctly and you do on an assessment even though the aspect was pre-existing. ;)
Something else to consider though is that if you guess and are incorrect, but it reveals an aspect then you do get a tag on that.
-
A strict legalese reading of the rules could be taken to state that you cannot tag aspects that were Declared for FP.
I don't think that it's a very good reading, though.
-
Something else to consider though is that if you guess and are incorrect, but it reveals an aspect then you do get a tag on that.
Not sure where you found this, but am also not sure it matters. Mostly because I don't see how a wrong guess can possibly get you a correct answer. At best it narrows down choices for future guessing.
-
Actually Sanctaphrax, the section on tagging mentions declarations as part of the list on the previous page. Additionally as I mentioned before when you guess and guess incorrectly it specifically mentions that you receive a tag. Since the section on tagging does not say that those are the only situations and since there are other situations mentioned later one could conclude that it's possible to tag any time an aspect is introduced (or at least that the list is incomplete).
@UmbraLux It's in the Guessing aspects section on YS113.
If the guess misses the mark, but missing the
mark tells you something significant and potentially
secret, the fate point is still spent. This sort
of circumstance almost never comes up with
scene aspects, but it can come up when guessing
at aspects on another character, and may even
amount to a “reveal” (see “Assessment,” page 115) of
the target’s true aspect.
And of course on 115 it talks about how you can tag a revealed aspect.
-
Yes, it lists Declarations. But it also requires a roll, which is not involved in FP Declarations.
I don't really like this reading, but it is about as valid as the alternative.
-
@UmbraLux It's in the Guessing aspects section on YS113.
Thanks - I see where you're getting it. One more area for potential confusion... ::)
-
I stand corrected.
However, it seems to me that a purely GM-initiated compel should be ... well, not rare, but not exactly common, either.
I think youve confused me. I'm not sure how a purely GM-initiated compel pertains to a compel on an NPC. It seems obvious that a compel on a one-eyed NPC in combat is going to originate with the players. Repetitive compels in that context would most likely be boring, but that's what invokes are for.
As for GM compels, they are the default compel that FATE runs on. That's classic example of a compel. The GM compels a player with a FATE point. Not only should they be common, they should be thick on the ground. So, I'm obviously not tracking something here.
-
I think youve confused me. I'm not sure how a purely GM-initiated compel pertains to a compel on an NPC. It seems obvious that a compel on a one-eyed NPC in combat is going to originate with the players. Repetitive compels in that context would most likely be boring, but that's what invokes are for.
To be purely technical the GM compels NPCs as well, even if the players initiate it. A player invokes for effect to create a situation where a compel is appropriate and then the GM compels or a player suggests a compel to the GM and then the GM compels. Most of the time a compel is purely a GM tool.
-
To be purely technical the GM compels NPCs as well, even if the players initiate it. A player invokes for effect to create a situation where a compel is appropriate and then the GM compels or a player suggests a compel to the GM and then the GM compels. Most of the time a compel is purely a GM tool.
Yeah, my confusion comes from the use of the word purely GM-initiated, suggesting that it is something that is different from a compel that was provoked by a player invoking.
-
Ahh, the argument we were having had to do with compels that were suggested to the GM (requiring no effort from the player) as opposed to a compel that was the result of an invoke for effect.
Becq was saying that compels of an NPC that require no effort from the players should be rare, I was saying that they should have impact, but we agree that one that is simply an advantage for the players with no benefit to the story is not great.
-
Ahh, the argument we were having had to do with compels that were suggested to the GM (requiring no effort from the player) as opposed to a compel that was the result of an invoke for effect.
Becq was saying that compels of an NPC that require no effort from the players should be rare, I was saying that they should have impact, but we agree that one that is simply an advantage for the players with no benefit to the story is not great.
Not sure it's what you're referring to, but I tend to compel NPCs behind the scenes on a regular basis. It's what keeps the bad guy trying a new plan after the PCs foiled his last one. It's what keeps a predator hunting...and leaving bodies behind. It's why a necromancer experiments...even when he knows he's being hunted. It's why an overly confident villain toys with victims instead of simply slaughtering them. It's also what gives them a fate point or two for confrontations with the PCs...