Compels on consequence generated aspects.

[JesterOC]

One of the worries I was having about consequences, is that they seem to have hardly any effect against NPC's with no fate points (at least ones they can not tag). Even something that might seem debilitating might not ever come into play.  I was wondering if the GM has to step up and constantly compel the PC to enforce that aspect. On the surface it seems a bit harsh, and on the other hand it seems it will constantly hand the player fate points. Here is an example of what I am thinking about.

The PC gets hit with a 6 stress point hit from an NPC swinging a baseball bat at his head. The PC decides to take a Severe consequence of broken right arm instead. In the next scene he goes up against a couple of made men, and tries to pull a gun. Would I as the GM have to hand the PC a fate point and say, no you can't because you broke your arm?

Q1) If he accepts would he be able to say well I try to shoot with his other arm? Or would accepting the fate point mean that he can't shoot with either arms? 

Q2) On the next turn can he say he will try to use his other arm, and thus bypass my ability to compel it. One would assume that using his off hand would be more difficult than his primary hand.

Any other suggestions to make consequences feel more permanent that relying on compels to keep them "in play"

JesterOC
 

[Wordmaker]

Remember that even a mook can get a free tag on a consequence after inflicting it.

Also, for stuff like compelling an Aspect (whether a consequence or a regular one) to prevent a certain kind of action, I'd be inclined to rule that the effect lasts for a scene. So if you compel a character not to shoot someone because of an injured arm, they'd have to think about some other way around the situation because they wouldn't be able to just ignore it after a while or simply switch arms.

[Papa Gruff]

Q1) If he accepts would he be able to say well I try to shoot with his other arm? Or would accepting the fate point mean that he can't shoot with either arms? 

Q2) On the next turn can he say he will try to use his other arm, and thus bypass my ability to compel it. One would assume that using his off hand would be more difficult than his primary hand.

Any other suggestions to make consequences feel more permanent that relying on compels to keep them "in play"

JesterOC

@Q1) Compels are negotiable and in most cases it probably should be discussed to what end the actions of the player are compelled. If the player can come up with good reason why the compel shouldn't be valid or that it should be to an other end, then that's ultimately good for the game because he will be more invested in the action to come. The compel has to be executed as negotiated. If the player excepts not being able to shoot with both arms, then this is the case, at least until the scene is resolved.

@Q2) The answer is pretty much covered in the first one. I'd say that if a compel is taken, then the GM shouldn't in any way be cheated out of it. After all the player was payed and he should honor his end of the bargain. If he tries anyway it should have some consequences. As a GM i'd try to face him with a situation in which he has to spend at least two fate points. What goes around comes around you know ... there is no cheating Fate.

A Severe Consequence is already pretty long lasting. And never forget: Consequences are fate point machines, meaning, that the player should be after keeping them in play.

[JesterOC]

Thanks for the input.

I think we have established that if a fate point is given, then they should not be able to use their gun at all even if they have a good arm.  And perhaps if the player decides to have his PC shoot anyway, he uses his fate point to either use the broken arm, or shoot with the other and he gets to shoot with no extra penalty because he spent a fate point for it.

OK follow up questions.
Q3) If the PC states his intent to use his gun, and I compel him not to. Does loose his action if he accepts the fate point?

Q4) If the PC states that he is not going to use his gun because of the broken arm, but will instead cast a spell, does he get a fate point because he self compelled? Does it matter if he is better as spells than guns anyway? Does he get to cast his spell on that turn?

JesterOC

[Wordmaker]

I'd say no to both. For Q3, the compel is that he can't use the gun, not that he can't act.

For Q4, the character isn't suffering any disadvantage or complication there, he's just opting to use one ability over another. If he was being chased down an alleyway and said he got cornered at a chain-link fence beause he couldn't climb it due to his arm being injured, then he should get a Fate Point.

[prophet224]

On Q2, I really don't think that the player should be kept from shooting at all, just with that arm.  Consequences are specific for a reason, and making it a direct impact on both sides is over general.  However, if it was the person's main gun arm, you still have several options to go with.  First, they probably ought to self-compel, but whether they do or not, I would say they can't use any gun-related stunts.  Also, if they start to pull the gun and you compel them, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say something like "your arm shrieks in pain with your hasty movement and grip," then insert an appropriate penalty such as "your hand spasms open and your gun falls to the ground".  If they choose to shoot with the other arm, that's fine, but you give them a penalty (-2?... I'd even go so far as to say drop their appropriate skill by two ranks unless they have an aspect that makes ambidexterity reasonable, in which case I'd reduce it by 1 instead) and again, they can't use gun-related stunts.

Meanwhile, unless I'm completely mistaken (which is certainly possible), NPCs can discover aspects just like PCs can.  If a character is, say, dragging a leg, the NPCs could reasonably discover the consequence aspect and get a free tag for it.  Similarly, they could get a tag when they see the character pull out the weapon, grimace, and drop it as discussed above.

Granted, this doesn't work if they NPCs in question already know about the consequence.

[Tallyrand]

Not trying to be contrary but for Q3 and Q4 I'd say yes to both.  Specifically Q3 I would state that the character, instinctively going for his gun (and the player ignoring or forgetting one of his aspects) is stunned briefly by the pain of the sudden action.  If the character continued to forget I'd be inclined to even drop a point of physical stress if he keeps ignoring his injury.

Q4, if this is a situation where the character would generally use his gun (like he just doesn't tend to use combat magic, the enemy is resistant to the kind of magic he uses, or he's already accumulates some mental stress) then the character is roleplaying his aspect well and he'd get a fate chip.

[CableRouter]

The PC gets hit with a 6 stress point hit from an NPC swinging a baseball bat at his head. The PC decides to take a Severe consequence of broken right arm instead. In the next scene he goes up against a couple of made men, and tries to pull a gun. Would I as the GM have to hand the PC a fate point and say, no you can't because you broke your arm?

Q1) If he accepts would he be able to say well I try to shoot with his other arm? Or would accepting the fate point mean that he can't shoot with either arms?

I wouldn't let a player change an action if it was compelled against and he accepted, that's the point of the compel.

Q2) On the next turn can he say he will try to use his other arm, and thus bypass my ability to compel it. One would assume that using his off hand would be more difficult than his primary hand.

I'd say it depends on the player's concept.  Anyone serious about using a firearm in combat is going to realize that being injured in your main hand/arm is a very real possibility.   It doesn't take a lot of effort to train your off hand up to nearly the same degree of proficiency as your main hand as most of the skill involved isn't in your hand, it's in your head.   More difficult, yes, but I wouldn't even call it one shift of difference.  Personally, my off hand target scores run about 95% of my main hand scores, but I shoot with my off hand on a regular basis.  Shooting off hand isn't hard, reloading one handed isn't very hard either, it would take longer though, I'd call it a full exchange.  Clearing a jam with one hand is a different story, it could take the rest of your life.    I wouldn't compel or declare a jam though, modern firearms are more reliable than modern cars.  What would you rate your chances of a relatively new car not starting the very next time you turned the key?

Any other suggestions to make consequences feel more permanent that relying on compels to keep them "in play".

Why would you need to?  If someone has a consequence of a Broken Arm and takes steps to reduce or eliminate the effects of that consequence, it's already permanently in play.  Every action the character takes, he is thinking, "What do I have to do to avoid using my bad arm to make this worse."  Just because you aren't constantly penalizing the player doesn't mean the consequence isn't "in play".

Q3) If the PC states his intent to use his gun, and I compel him not to. Does loose his action if he accepts the fate point?

I'd certainly say so.

Q4) If the PC states that he is not going to use his gun because of the broken arm, but will instead cast a spell, does he get a fate point because he self compelled? Does it matter if he is better as spells than guns anyway? Does he get to cast his spell on that turn?

Not unless it's some kind of real disadvantage to just shooting with his other hand. Yes, he would still get to cast a spell on that turn.

[luminos]

Compels should be used for a lot of stuff representing how the aspect is holding them back, but a certain degree of it should be done without compels just be following basic story logic.  If your character has a broken arm, he can't use it to shoot a gun compel or not.  It would be nice for the GM to give you a fate point when this significantly hampers you, but just because he doesn't, doesn't mean your broken arm is suddenly functional enough to have a full range of uses.

[Kordeth]

Compels should be used for a lot of stuff representing how the aspect is holding them back, but a certain degree of it should be done without compels just be following basic story logic.  If your character has a broken arm, he can't use it to shoot a gun compel or not.  It would be nice for the GM to give you a fate point when this significantly hampers you, but just because he doesn't, doesn't mean your broken arm is suddenly functional enough to have a full range of uses.

In fact, trying to shoot a gun with your broken arm (and failing, thus losing an action) should be considered a self-compel and the GM should be reminded to give you a Fate point for it. Ditto shooting with your off-hand, if it comes with a penalty.