Hello,

It's been a miserable week at work which is why I haven't been able to respond to the various threads this particular episode has spawned.  Let me see if I can clarify some of my thoughts on Compels and my whole Character Advocacy deal.

Let's say a guy has the "Greedy" Aspect.  We're in a scene where he's splitting up the loot after a heist with his partner.  The players says, "You know what?  I think I totally shoot my partner and take ALL the money."  That's totally going to complicate things and is totally worth a self compel, have a FATE point.  This doesn't in anyway break my thing about "Character Advocacy" because character advocacy is about fighting for what the character wants in the way he would fight for it.  It doesn't necessarily mean doing the "smart" thing or keeping the character safe or even looking out for his "best interests" in a self-help book kind of way.

Where I start to have is issues is when Compels are used to resolve a point of fictional tension.  Let's say a player has the Aspect, "Better Late Than Never."  His character is racing across town to save his girlfriend from a bomb.  We could roll Driving or we could Compel "Better Late Than Never" and say he doesn't make it in time.

1) If the PLAYER does it then that breaks my thing about Character Advocacy.  I don't like it when the players aren't invested enough to bother fighting for their characters; when some nebulous sense of "plot" and "drama" supersede raw character passion.

2) If the GM does it then one of two things happens.

2a) The player GLEEFULLY takes the Compel which is just a case of #1 where the GM is simply pointing out the opportunity.

or

2b) The player is genuinely bothered by this and buys the Compel off.  In which case the GM is now a dickweed.  He made the player pay a game resource for the RIGHT to fight for his character's interests something I like to take for granted at my table.

Does this help clarify my issues with the mechanic?

Jesse