Help me understand player-vs-player compels

[Watson]

I fully understand GM compels as well as self-compels, they both make sense. However, player vs player compels are still a bit odd to me, so help me understand the concept. If we are assuming that the group of player characters are acting as a team, in which situations would it be suitable? For those that have been playing the game - does it come up often?

I can see it being used by a player wanting help from another player character by compelling his aspect HELPING THE ONES IN NEED, but I have difficulties seeing a player compelling another player like in the example on page YS101.

[EdgeOfDreams]

I've never seen a player compel another player.  The closest I've ever seen in practice is a player hinting to the GM that it would be a good time to compel another player, or hinting to that player that they should self-compel.

[Glendower]

I fully understand GM compels as well as self-compels, they both make sense. However, player vs player compels are still a bit odd to me, so help me understand the concept. If we are assuming that the group of player characters are acting as a team, in which situations would it be suitable? For those that have been playing the game - does it come up often?

I can see it being used by a player wanting help from another player character by compelling his aspect HELPING THE ONES IN NEED, but I have difficulties seeing a player compelling another player like in the example on page YS101.

Errol the Ex-Con Shaman and Reza the White Court Wizard are arguing about the best possible path to rescue Errol's estranged Girlfriend from some White Court Vampires.  Rather than engage in the social conflict, Reza decided to compel Errol's aspect of "big brother to the rescue", by telling him that the route Reza wants to take is the quickest route to save his girlfriend.  He holds out the fate point from his personal pool, and Errol's player can take it, or pay a fate point to refuse it. 

I like player vs player compels because it forces arguments to the question, rather than have them drag out, or force them to beat each other up socially.  It creates an opportunity to have friction, but with a reward.  It allows a player to back down from another player with a fate point bribe. 

One of the player characters in my game, a Sorcerer named "Sweet Johnny", learned most of the aspects of the other players throughout a few sessions (Using Empathy and Rapport skill rolls).  As Sweet Johnny learned these aspects, he'd use them to settle arguments, to nudge players characters to do things that benefitted him.  It created this manipulative character that was much loved by the other players, because even though characters were getting messed with, it was done with full understanding of the players, who were choosing to be manipulated (they don't have to take the compels).

[sinker]

Yeah, mostly it's used when there's conflict between two characters (notice I say characters, not players).

[mstorer3772]

You could do it with a goal of passing fate points around.  Everybody give the wizard grief, but when the time comes, he can manage some Major Mojo.

[Tedronai]

Technically, players cannot initiate compels.
They invoke-for-effect to prompt the GM to initiate a compel.
It seems like a subtle distinction, but it produces substantial differences in the end result, such as if the compel escalates.

[UmbraLux]

Technically, players cannot initiate compels.

Not entirely correct - while different from a normal compel it is still called a compel.  The specific text states "This is a chain reaction - the first player calls for the compel, and if the GM accepts it as valid, she negotiates it with the player of the target character, who either decides to accept (gaining a fate point) or avoid (spending a fate point)."

It is different from a standard compel in one case - the initiating player doesn't get his fate point back (nor receive an extra) if the target player buys out of it.  Source is YS107. 

<Insert my standard rant on needlessly obscure terminology used by DFRPG here.>

[mstorer3772]

Not entirely correct - while different from a normal compel it is still called a compel.  The specific text states "This is a chain reaction - the first player calls for the compel, and if the GM accepts it as valid, she negotiates it with the player of the target character, who either decides to accept (gaining a fate point) or avoid (spending a fate point)."

It is different from a standard compel in one case - the initiating player doesn't get his fate point back (nor receive an extra) if the target player buys out of it.  Source is YS107. 

<Insert my standard rant on needlessly obscure terminology used by DFRPG here.>

Also:

Once the initiating player spends the fate point,
he does not get it back even if the target buys out of
the compel.

Emphasis in the original text.