Well, you can always declare something like a troll immune to a mortal caster. Remember what Bob says about soulgazing a shide somewhere as a sidenote in Your Story. The same has to apply here, I imagine. While the troll might not be a genius, he will have a pretty good advantage, just because his brain is so alien to humans.
I don't think you are going to do much physical fighting, once someone is inside your noggin. At least if Harry against Corpsetaker is any indication.
A straight up grapple perhaps? With discipline instead of might, once you set up the initiating aspect? Or even presence? That I could see working in a physical conflict, though it is still pretty powerful. On the other hand, it increases the value of social characters in a fight. Someone with good mental capacities, a good self image and such will be less likely to be incapacitated and can therefore help the rest of the group out.
@Quantus: not a soul-gaze. I'm talking using the Sight.Then I am a little confused by how this would work. How do you define the difference between "defending yourself" and "fighting back." Molly used a Sougaze (which to my mind is just another expression of the Sight) to pull CT into that prolonged mental combat on her home turf, but Harry did not need to use Sight when she was probing his mind back in DB. And as near as I can tell Molly never used her sight in all her various mental invasions, in fact she probably hadnt developed it until a ways into her apprenticeship.
All mental combat has been from Harry's perspective and he doesn't really have the training to do mental attacks...so it'd be hard to say that you don't need the Sight.
Up the challenge or come at the wizard from a different angle? Wizards are tough and flexible but they're not unstoppable.
How do you model an alien brain? How is it going to benefit the Troll, mechanically? Is it simply an aspect he can tag, or is there something more...like a threshold to bypass?I think a threshold would be a good way to model it. Like an automatic armor:X or something like it. Or giving him very high skills, if the mental battle takes place in his mind. It should feel a bit like doing brain surgery on a nuclear rocket, on a boat, in a storm, with your eyes tied behind your back, while trying to smell the color 9. Most times, I would not even let you do it, you don't even have an idea of where to apply your mental force. Even on a tiny and insignificant fae like Toot.
Hmm, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the... I think it's the 4th law of magic.
I think a threshold would be a good way to model it. Like an automatic armor:X or something like it.
Up the challenge or come at the wizard from a different angle? Wizards are tough and flexible but they're not unstoppable.
Using the Laws to fix balance issues is and has always been a terrible idea.Was not meant to fix the balance issue. Just thought it would generally be something worth thinking about when doing this sort of thing.
You can't do that. You can't get mechanical bonuses from your concept.I look at it less as a mechanical benefit than a home turf advantage. If you want to get into a fist fight with a shark, you better not do it in the middle of the ocean.
If you want to use something from your list, I think #5 sounds the most interesting.
Too Alien a Mind -- I think this could work like a Compel on the part of the GM vs the attacking character. You Compel any of the Aspects that identifies the PC as mortal and say something like, "I'm going to offer a Compel. Because you're a WIZARD PRIVATE EYE, you're but a mere mortal. Loki's mind is far afield and attempting to direct your Air Evocation as a Mental Attack just doesn't work the way you planned..."
That would at least give players an option to make a Mental Evocation by spending a Fate point. A Compel like this wouldn't be necessary when attacking a mortal, though. (Which might explain the Laws of Magic that govern mental intrusions, to curb the abuse of power mortal practitioners have over their own kind).
I have a question: I'm under the impression that someone always gets to Defend against an Attack, regardless of what kind of attack it is. Several times, I have seen contributors to threads say things that intimate that most (or some) targets couldn't defend against a Mental Attack. For example, do people let the targets of Incite Emotion powers Defend against them? Especially if using the Attack upgrade of the power?
(I'm not sure mental attacks are THAT overwhelming; unless you have a Toughness power, which are far from universal, the only difference is the higher availability of physical armor... assuming you allow mental evocation blocks and defensive enchanted items.
Why not simply create a Power that allows mental attacks with evocation?
And what would be an acceptable cost?
I think I'd prefer a (large) cost in shifts rather than just dropping to weapon rating 0, which would make mental evocation scale differently from regular evocation.
Anyway, Corpsetaker totally ought to be casting high weapon rating mental evocations. And the Gatekeeper's sleep spell in TC.
Such a Power would basically be All Creatures Are Equal Before God, except free and integrated with Evocation. Actually it would be a bit better than that, since it would negate Speed and Size and since monsters tend to have worse Discipline/Conviction than Athletics/Endurance.
ACAEBG costs 3 or 4 Refresh, plus a FP each time you use it. Add maybe 2 Refresh because the new Power costs no FP, and another Refresh for hitting Discipline/Conviction and ignoring Speed and Size...so you get a cost of 6 or 7 Refresh.
Sleep spells are probably physical,
and Corpsetaker's stuff is probably thaumaturgy.I think you really need weapon values (and probably pretty high ones) to get the overwhelming mental attacks she's got without making her a more powerful character than the Merlin.
Mmm, but aren't Speed and Size powers costed on the assumption that they don't help with mental attacks?
Also, really powerful mental attacks already exist. 3 refresh in Incite Emotion gets you a Weapon:4 mental attack, 4 refresh for ranged, and it only relies on one skill rather than 2-3 like spellcasting.
So what about some kind of compromise Power that allows you to make mental evocations at a cost in shifts, but has a lower Refresh cost?
Something like....
MASTERY OF MIND [-2]
Your evocations can affect the minds of your foes.
Mental Attack Magic. When you cast an evocation attack, you can reduce its Power by 3 shifts to make it deal mental stress instead of physical stress.
This does not allow you to perform psychomantic thaumaturgy effects, like reading minds, as evocation - you are still limited to evocation's options for effects.
It... certainly would make explaining how it doesn't break the Fourth Law easier, but I really don't think so, since Harry talks about sleep spells being "grey magic" mind magic.
I think you really need weapon values (and probably pretty high ones) to get the overwhelming mental attacks she's got without making her a more powerful character than the Merlin.
In regards to fighting Sue, couldn't she just Invoke her High Aspect for Effect to render herself immune, she's technically a zombie and they aren't exactly known for falling for mental stuff, right? Then again I guess that takes FP she doesn't have, but it seems like something some opponents should be able to do.I would personally treat this as a compel on the player using Sue's high concept. Sure the player could use that as a Fate Point dispenser, but they would have to basically give up their action every round. You could also probably justify doing this with demons, angels, outsiders, and any monsters that are generally considered mindless.
Make it cost 5 shifts and 3 Refresh and it might be fair.Hmmm... maybe. Seems somewhat excessive for someone like Molly, who probably isn't casting evocations above 5 shifts anyway, but it does make it more comparable to Incite Emotion.
Still probably physical stress, mechanically speaking, because its take-out effect is totally physical and has nothing to do with anyone's sanity or self-image.
You don't need weapon ratings. Accuracy 9 weapon 0 is plenty overwhelming for most characters.
You don't need weapon ratings. Accuracy 9 weapon 0 is plenty overwhelming for most characters
We just had a huge discussion about this in our game as well, we went with Weapon:X rating for attacks against non-physical stress is 2 Shifts per instead of 1 Shift per (i.e. kinda like what exists for Armor) - worked pretty well so far for us.
This means that a submerged character is rolling +4 on the attack, if you are making that assumption than you need to have the defender at the same margin. It averages to five damage per attack assuming that the submerged defender has no skill to defend with. Accuracy 9 weapon 9 is pretty overwhelming for physical attacks and it looks the wizard even more since he only has to spend one stress for your proposed mental attack and five stress for my equivalent physical attack.
We just had a huge discussion about this in our game as well, we went with Weapon:X rating for attacks against non-physical stress is 2 Shifts per instead of 1 Shift per (i.e. kinda like what exists for Armor) - worked pretty well so far for us.
As a general point, I don't think mental attacks are meant to be costlier than physical ones, comparing Incite Emotion's At Range upgrade (1 Refresh, 1 zone range) and Lasting Emotion upgrade (1 Refresh, Weapon:2 mental attack) to Claws (1 Refresh, Weapon:2 physical attack) and Breath Weapon (2 Refresh, 1 zone range, Weapon:2 physical attack). Addictive Saliva and Emotional Vampire are 1 Refresh Weapon:0 mental attack powers, but they provide more than just the ability to make Weapon:0 mental attacks for that 1 Refresh.
Hmmm... maybe. Seems somewhat excessive for someone like Molly, who probably isn't casting evocations above 5 shifts anyway, but it does make it more comparable to Incite Emotion.
Could we make it 4 shifts/3 Refresh, which allows two 1-Refresh upgrades at +2 shifts, making it 5 Refresh?
I really do think 5 Refresh for no penalty is fairer than 6-7 comparing to ACAEBG, which is 3 Refresh but requires one fate point per scene.
I'm not sure it's that clear-cut, if mental attacks (Emotional Vampire) can have a take-out effect of death.
Then how does Corpsetaker Take Out Luccio, who defends with probably Fantastic Discipline (at least Superb...) and has a 4-box mental stress track, and as a "significant NPC" ought to be able to take a mild and moderate consequence (and maybe an extra mild, though I personally doubt she deserves Superb Conviction), with one spell?
If Molly can cast worthwhile mental attack evocations, then Corpsetaker's gonna be broken. That's the downside of your method, and the main reason I prefer setting weapon rating to 0.
Not sure what you mean. If you're suggesting a 5 Refresh Power that lets you cast mental evocations with no loss of power, I'd say no.
Per scene per target, IIRC. Using it on everyone could easily cost you a dozen FP per session.
And mental stress is more powerful than ACaEBG anyway.
Death is as mental as it is physical, at least the way I see it.
Same way Harry took out Corpsetaker with one bullet, using his unimpressive Guns skill and a weapon 2-3 handgun.
Stuff that happens in the novels is always a bit hard to translate into the game. We just have to assume that the target's consequence slots were full or that the attacker invoked a bunch of Aspects or something.
I don't follow. Could you re-explain?
I really do want mental attack evocations to be viable at reasonable refresh costs, though.
(BTW, I do think that the rules as written and intended allow mental attack evocations at no special penalty. This is me trying to pin down a way to do it that works for those who do think it's utterly broken.)
Are you suggesting weapon rating 0 for no additional refresh cost, or would you still have to buy an additional Power?
It's really more valuable than 5 Refinements?
I'm not sure I agree, depends on who you're attacking. Against a physical defense specialized target, sure. Against a spellcaster or faith-based character, you're going to want to attack physically.
Mental toughness Powers really should exist, but if you introduce them, you have to re-stat everything that would reasonably have them (not really that difficult, but it is going to introduce an across-the-board rise in Refresh costs, so you might want to use a higher refresh power level for PCs if you use them).
I will try. I kind of ranted in my last post and then realized things I forgot. Ok so my argument would go a lot better if someone could make 2 evocators, one designed for mental and one for physical. I would but I have a hard time making characters as is. Assume submerged, optimize as you will.
Wizards can just do it because they already have the Sight, but for non-wizard spell caster, how about a -1 or -0 power to represent the special training it takes to do mental combat. It'd work exactly like the Sight for the purpose of making mental attacks using evocation. This power wouldn't allow them to make the Lore checks to discern aspects and what-not. It'd just allow them to make these sorts of attacks. So it'd be less useful than actually owning the Sight.
Wizards can just do it because they already have the Sight, but for non-wizard spell caster, how about a -1 or -0 power to represent the special training it takes to do mental combat. It'd work exactly like the Sight for the purpose of making mental attacks using evocation. This power wouldn't allow them to make the Lore checks to discern aspects and what-not. It'd just allow them to make these sorts of attacks. So it'd be less useful than actually owning the Sight.
I'm still tossing around the idea of requiring an aspect to tag - which would be easy if you have the Sight because you can use Lore to get something and tag that to open a channel to start mental combat.
What I like about this is it still allows for full-blown high weapon evocation attacks every exchange.
I don't know about the RAI, but the RAW is clearly unclear. So I go with the not-obviously-ridiculously-broken interpretation.
I've actually heard the opposite interpretation for casters...some people like to use mental stress to deplete their spell reserves. And most casters have a decent Athletics and/or a physical armour item of some kind, in my experience.
I make mental toughness cost only 1 Refresh per level if you have physical toughness at that level already, which really cuts down on the Refresh bloat.
It still seems a bit off because other supernatural powers don't seem to treat mental stress as overwhelmingly massively better than physical...
In a game in which mental evocation exists & is broadly allowed, mental armor items are probably going to be as common as physical ones.
"In world", though, I think combat specced spellcasters are very much the exception (thus, even at the worst of the Vampire War when lowering their standards and drafting people, the WC could only get about 1/20 to be Wardens).
Interesting... like Sight and Soulgaze kind of synergy? Seems somewhat powerful, but yeah, I don't know how else to deal with the Refresh bloat.
I dunno about that. I've almost never seen anyone with a defensive mental item.
Hmmm, upon re-reading, it's not nearly as clear as I thought, every reference to mental magic could easily mean thaumaturgy except for the one about using spirit evocations with a summoned creature's True Name.Are you including the sidebar on YS255? It explicitly states the Spirit element "...covers mental magic, emotions, ghosts..."
Well, mental evocation has two big advantages over those other Powers. It's got a big weapon rating, and if you run into something mentally tough you can go with physical attacks instead.
I dont really understand how that is an advantage over physical evocation. If you run into something physically tough you can go with mental attacks instead. And the weapon rating should be the same in either case.
What if you limited the caster to only being able to do mental or only doing physical? Since no one liked my psychic backlash idea.
That might help a little. I'd worry that everyone would take mental evocation since it's harder to defend against, but maybe the non-combat applications of physical evocation would make it more attractive.I think it depends in part on how often mechanical contructs are encountered and how they are run. For example, does a drone have a Mental stress track? Does a car have a Mental stress track (assuming you cannot see the driver or that the car is already barrelling down on you and taking out the driver isn't going to help you)?
That could be interesting, but it wouldn't actually do anything to reduce the power of mental attacks. Compels pay for themselves.How do you figure?
A compel gives you a FP, thus zero sum value.
That's an advantage over Incite Emotion, not an advantage over physical evocation.
That might help a little. I'd worry that everyone would take mental evocation since it's harder to defend against, but maybe the non-combat applications of physical evocation would make it more attractive.
But then you have to spend a FP to resist it. Unless I've been misreading the rules this whole time.
If everyone is taking mental though you know what your characters are doing and can implement NPC's that counter/ create a challenge for them.
I think it depends in part on how often mechanical contructs are encountered and how they are run. For example, does a drone have a Mental stress track? Does a car have a Mental stress track (assuming you cannot see the driver or that the car is already barrelling down on you and taking out the driver isn't going to help you)?
What if you just let regular Toughness powers defend against mental attacks as well?
Also, something's that's been bugging me for a while.How do you figure?
I was thinking, for having a character that wants to be able to use mental evocations, that they should simply have an aspect related to it.
Yeah, but it's still weird and unfortunate if system quirks discourage people from making characters similar to the main character of the novels.
You have not. But you either get a FP or you lose a FP. Thus zero sum value
Being vulnerable to Compels is not a weakness. So taking a Compellable Trouble Aspect doesn't make your character less powerful.
The benefit (FP) compensates for the penalty (Compels).
Look at is this way. Instead of physical evocators being the norm what would happen to the system. Toughness powers would probably affect mental, and speed might be speed of thought. These things would create more barriers to mental attacks (since that is what this hypothetical situation is based on.) And now someone wants to have physical evocation. Well the game hasnt given us anything for that so now we have to come up with different things for it.
Do you understand where I am going?
Ah, ok, so I haven't misunderstood the rules or your position then.
So how exactly is it a zero-sum game? Assuming that other sources of FP mitigates the other expenditures of FP, Every time you take a compel, you gain 1 FP. Which you can then use, to refuse the next one. Meaning that you must accept half of all compels that come your way, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, since you must use those FP to buy off the other compels. This is assuming the GM never escalates, which makes the situation even worse.
Yes, I did get the reasoning behind the statement. I just think those who subscribe to it aren't thinking it through. As always, no offence intended.
Basically, when a compel comes up, you get two options.
Accept It
This is the scenario you are talking about it. You have to face the complication (bad) but you get a fate point(good). Basically, this option is cost-neutral.
Reject It
You now have to pay a fate point(bad). And... there's no upside, at least compared to if there was no compel in the first place.
I think so. But I prefer not to assume that people will be houseruling when I consider balance.
That being said, you might be right, it might not be an issue. Like I said, this is more a worry than a definite problem.
Believe me, I've thought this through.
Part of the GM's job is to give Compels that are, overall, cost-neutral.
In some games (the majority, I think) that means giving out Compels that are pretty much never refused, which are each individually worth 1 FP. In others it might mean giving out a mix of soft and hard Compels, some of which might actually be refused, so that on average the soft Compels pay for the hard ones.
This is pretty much a tautology, really. The appropriate level of hardness for Compels is defined by the need to keep Compels from being a weakness. Therefore (non-debt) Compels are not and never will be a weakness.
The "good" part of rejecting a compel is that you get to continue to do what you were planning on and dont have to take any negative consequences.
For instance: GM compels "Hot headed" To make you attack someone the group is negotiating with because he insulted you. Now you can accept that and go into combat or you can reject it because you want to maintain the conversation.
Depends on your definition of houserule, really.
Or get railroaded into combat.
And because YS says something, it is now absolutely true, right? After all, everything ever published by a game developer is perfectly accurate, so there are no such things as the game mechanics not supporting intent.
Yes, refused compels are expensive. You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.
If you do what the rulebook tells you to, you are not houseruling.
And the sections I mentioned are (in my eyes) rules. They're what tells the GM how hard Compels should hit.
As I've said before, a Compel that you refuse is obviously not cost-neutral. Odds are that any individual Compel will be off the cost-neutral ideal by at least a bit. But Compels collectively balance out at a value of zero.
Ignoring the only one hyperbole, if refused compels are expensive, how does that go with your statement that compels are cost-neutral?Please retroactively consider all previous statements on the cost-neutrality of compels to be in reference to accepted compels.
When the rules contradict, then it is a form of houseruling to decide which interpretation to go with. Also, the whole bit about how compels are supposed to be cost-neutral? Guideline, whose interpretation will differ by definition with every GM. The rules for how compels actually work? Those are hard rules, which vary only if the group makes a conscious decision to change them.
Also, with regards to the last bit of your post, I'm not following your logic. If on average, compels are less than cost-neutral, how do compels collectively balance out?
Please retroactively consider all previous statements on the cost-neutrality of compels to be in reference to accepted compels.
I don't see a contradiction. I've read your posts, and I still don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in the rules.The contradiction isn't actually with the rules - it's between the rules and the guidelines.
Some are less than cost-neutral, others are more. On average, they're neutral.
Yes, refused compels are expensive. You're the only one that thinks this is controversial.No, he is not. But given the general mood of this forum, I did not think it was worth the effort to argue otherwise.
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 willA positive Refresh is a representation of free will. But even monsters with negative Refresh can have Fate Points.
FP are worth a lot.It depends on what you paid for them and what you for pay with them.
Because it seems relevant...I'm not sure if I've ever seen a refused Compel. And I've played this game a lot. Given that people can just accept every Compel and accepted Compels are cost-neutral in your eyes, doesn't that make all Compels cost-neutral unless the player deliberately handicaps themself by rejecting one?If an accepted Compel is cost neutral, then a declined Compel should also be cost neutral as well.
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?Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible. If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.
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.
Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point. You are saying that since the player has chosen how his character can be Compelled, then when he decides to decline the Compel, therefore he is the one responsible? I would say that if the player has chosen for his character to be susceptible to Compels, not just the how but for the GM to be able to Compel the character in the first place, then he would be responsible.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.
If you are going to be killed, choosing how you are killed is pretty much a moot point.Well, let's not let hyperbole enter into this. Death in FATE in an agreed upon situation between the GM and the players.
Also you are assuming that an Aspect on a character is the direct result of a player decision. This is not necessarily true. A scene Aspect placed there by a GM can be Compelled. An Aspect placed on the character by an NPC can also be Compelled.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.
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 did not mean killed as in death but more in a manner of bad things happen. An Aspect where it is likely that bad things happen to the character much more than good things.
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?
It becomes as I had described before - "If you are going to bekilledraped, choosing how you arekilledraped is pretty much a moot point."(click to show/hide)
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
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?I'd like to start off by saying you seem to be missing my point - see my above reply.
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)
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.
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.
This is an tautological argument in its purest form.
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.
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?
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.What I have quoted, I agree with. Which is not to say that I do not agree with what I had left out.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I don't get this. Who you were addressing doesn't change the logic used (or unused).
It expresses precisely how I feel about the subject of requiring the player to pay to decline a compel.
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?
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.
Does this answer your question?
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?
There was no logic. I wasn't trying to convince anyone.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.
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. ;)
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?