Compels, Accidental Killings and the 1st law

[Steppenwolf]

I said:
Nope, cause the thugs are not dead yet.
You are giving him a choice to save them, extinguishing the fire.

This can bring to interesting situations:
let's suppose the BBG is escaping with the MCGuffin and the main purpose of the thugs is to let him put a safe distance between the wizard and him (and the not-so-secondary purpose to end the PC's miserable life).

Do the character choose to run after the BBG and to be a LawBreaker or to save the thugs and his soul, but giving the BBG an advantage?

But in the situation where the character has only one refresh it isn't a choice, that's what I'm saying.  A compel should ALWAYS be a choice (saving of course those situations where the character is without Fate chips).  When you're giving the player the choice of 'Save the thugs or become an NPC' what you're really doing is railroading them into saving the thugs.

Ok, let's start this one.
First of all, Player chose that Aspect, so he was expecting that some building could catch fire.
Then Player chose to put himself in situation which could bring in a Compel and to accept the Compel itself (unless of course he was short on FPs).

The building is on fire for his character's fault, it's up to the character to put remedy to the situation. He can just use a water spell to extinguish the fire and call the firefighters and taking some Stress for the spell.
It's not railroading, it's a situation based on player's choices. And probably a situation in which the player would like to be: repairing his mistakes and making his life harder because of his faults.
(and if the McGuffin is really important this can award a second FP to the character).

Moreover, if you put a band of thugs in front of a 1-refresh wizard, you are already forcing him to not use lethal magic. Why don't spice up things?

[Tallyrand]

Of course there were choices leading up to that situation, but still the only choice being presented when you push forward the fate chip is do what I say or die (effectively).  That's where the compel happens, so that's where the choice should be but the character really doesn't have one.

[Tedronai]

First off, Compels are negotiations.
Even if the character has no Fate points left, it's still a negotiation.
S/he could, for instance suggest an alternate complication that would be more to their liking.  Perhaps the danger isn't in that their use of fire lit the building, but that a few missed shots (or shots that 'clipped' their targets) punched though the building, and, while the resultant fires don't seem to be particularly dangerous (they'll burn themselves out before they reach the mooks, or are just burning slowly enough or are small enough that help can easily be arranged before then), those flames have been spotted by local authorities or someone who alerted said authorities, and they'll be on scene shortly, with plenty of difficult questions.

[Tallyrand]

First off, Compels are negotiations.
Even if the character has no Fate points left, it's still a negotiation.
S/he could, for instance suggest an alternate complication that would be more to their liking.  Perhaps the danger isn't in that their use of fire lit the building, but that a few missed shots (or shots that 'clipped' their targets) punched though the building, and, while the resultant fires don't seem to be particularly dangerous (they'll burn themselves out before they reach the mooks, or are just burning slowly enough or are small enough that help can easily be arranged before then), those flames have been spotted by local authorities or someone who alerted said authorities, and they'll be on scene shortly, with plenty of difficult questions.

Sure, of course, but I feel that the potential scope of negotiations are simply to broad for a discussion of this sort (only, people who don't know each other, a variety of play groups etc.) so I was just going with the offer on the table.  That being said though, the player has very little to bargain with if they have no Fate chips, and therefor very little negotiation power so if the GM insists that death must be on the table then my point stands.

[Tedronai]

If the GM is insisting that death MUST be on the table, then they are, frankly, likely being unreasonable.  They're either imposing a Fate point tax (if the player has any), or using the equivalent of 'Rocks Fall, You Die' (if the player doesn't have any Fate points remaining).

[Steppenwolf]

As a general thought, sometimes you got only one safe way to handle the situations because your preceding choices brought you to that point.

In some cases you can reasonably negotiate some other outcomes, in other cases there are only complicating ones.
However if we stick with my example, the compel is made to make the things more interesting.
And it can lead to other scenes.
Perhaps you have save a thug who gives some hints about the BBG.

[Tallyrand]

If the GM is insisting that death MUST be on the table, then they are, frankly, likely being unreasonable.  They're either imposing a Fate point tax (if the player has any), or using the equivalent of 'Rocks Fall, You Die' (if the player doesn't have any Fate points remaining).

Exactly my point, so if that's not what he wants to do, then he shouldn't open with death.

[Tallyrand]

As a general thought, sometimes you got only one safe way to handle the situations because your preceding choices brought you to that point.

In some cases you can reasonably negotiate some other outcomes, in other cases there are only complicating ones.
However if we stick with my example, the compel is made to make the things more interesting.
And it can lead to other scenes.
Perhaps you have save a thug who gives some hints about the BBG.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that you're really not giving them the choice of whether they save the thug or not.

[Tedronai]

However if we stick with my example, the compel is made to make the things more interesting.

Unless the player isn't interested in having their character railroaded in that particular direction.  In which case the compel DOESN'T make the game more interesting for that player, only more difficult.

[Richard_Chilton]

When it comes to accidental killings, I divide them into two groups - the player accidentally causing a death and the PC accidentally causing a death.

Most the first one group can be handled by the GM saying "You do realise that doing that might kill someone, right?" and then the group talking things through.  I say most because I've seen some unforeseeable deaths.

The second bit, when the player knows that death might occur but the character would do something like that, can lead to great role playing.

If no one can envision a death occurring then that's one thing and we can debate intent, but if the players or the GM (who should pass along a warning) can see it happening then that's another.  If you know it is possible and still do it, then you've opened yourself up to the consequences.  You shot into that crowded room, you brought down the ceiling, you flooded the park with water - whatever you did you knew that there was a chance of death.


Which is why Dresden shows so much restraint.  There are countless times that he could unleash something major but doesn't because he knows that people might get hurt.  He won't even share information if he thinks it will lead to someone getting hurt.

That's because not hurting innocent bystanders is a theme of the series.  Any action you take (or don't take) has consequences and those consequences have to be ones that Dresden can live with.


Speaking of consequences, if you use sponsored magic and build up a debt, that was your choice.  Maybe you'll have to steal a baby for the Summer Court or burn down a church to pay for your use of hellfire, but when you took that power you knew that there wasn't a free lunch.  That you would have to pay for everything eventually.  Would it be fair to those without sponsored magic if your PC moved heaven and earth then didn't have pay for it? Of course not.

Along the lines of "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch":
If you take an Aspect of "Kicking Ass and Chewing Bubblegum, and I'm All Out of Gum" then it will help you in fight after fight, but when that idiot pushes your buttons why shouldn't you be compelled to put him into his place?

There are downsides to all Aspects - and if there's any doubt of how it should be compelled then the Player and GM really have to get on the same page before the compels start.

Spoiler for Turn Coat:

(click to show/hide)

Read the end of Turn Coat and then tell me that Morgan's actions after the traitor was unveiled isn't a great example of a compel? Morgan doesn't have to run after the traitor - and doing so could easily kill him, but there's a traitor to the White Council and Morgan has to deal with it.  He can't trust anyone else to deal with it - he has to.  And as an example of someone buying off a compel there's Morgan's "I didn't tell the council" speech at the end.  Not telling the council goes against everything he believes in (and a couple of Aspects) but he sees the big picture and makes a tough call on a minor offense.

Richard

[Steppenwolf]

In this case he simply negotiate the fact the warehouse is burning but none is going to die. Perhaps the fire was extinguished by an automatic system, or perhaps the fire attracts the attentions of autorithies (like you said) or the other thugs outside.

However, when the player has no FPs, how do you compel him?

Edit after Richard's post:
this was my point.
If you choose to let you be prone to your aspects, this is a player's choice.

And, I can't help to stress this point, it's an aesthetic choice which must be made in advance by the whole group.

[Tedronai]

Along the lines of "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch":
If you take an Aspect of "Kicking Ass and Chewing Bubblegum, and I'm All Out of Gum" then it will help you in fight after fight, but when that idiot pushes your buttons why shouldn't you be compelled to put him into his place?

The appropriate Compel in such an instance is not: "and now you punch the guy in the face, and that will lead to Bad Things (tm)"
it is: "you really want to punch that guy in the face, but doing so would lead to Bad Things (tm)"

Assuming the Compel is not bought out of, the character can punch the guy in the face and then suffer the Bad Things (tm), or they can take some inconvenient measures to deal with their violent impulses (like having to walk out of an important meeting before you lose control of your emotions, but in so doing insulting the people you were trying to win over)

[luminos]

The example compel really isn't that bad.  I can easily see a situation where a player could be compelled to flat out let the bad guy get away, no alternatives.  This compel is even better though, because it explicitly calls out the possibility of the player making his final action stopping the bad guy, even though it costs him his character.  It's a normal compel with extra options stated up front.

[Tedronai]

I can easily see a situation where a player could be compelled to flat out let the bad guy get away, no alternatives.

(bolding added)

Like what?

(and be sure not to make it a situation of the GM simply using a 'because I said so', as that's not a reasonable argument; the response to a GM using 'because I said so' even once too often is the player expressing his/her opinion with his/her feet)

[UmbraLux]

..it's an aesthetic choice which must be made in advance by the whole group.

This!

-----
Four points worth considering when your group decides how to treat it:

•   1) Don't get locked in to either / or choices.  They're often False Dilemmas.  The choice of "save the thugs or <kill and> become an NPC" should really be phrased as "choose to kill or choose to do something else" which might be 'save the thugs' but could also be 'trap the thugs' or a variety of other resolutions. 
  
•   2) Intent precedes mechanics (YS308).  If the intent is to avoid any chance of killing, it probably shouldn't be an attack.
  
•   3) Compels may dictate the type of action, but they don't dictate precise actions.  (YS101)  So you might compel a character to "stop the thugs from getting away" but precisely how (and whether or not they use an attack) is up to the player / character. 
•   4) An attack causes harm.  (YS200)  Physical harm can kill.  However, death really shouldn't be an issue until 23+ shifts of damage have been inflicted.  (Extreme consequences are reserved for when "...you absolutely must push to the bitter end..."  YS205)