Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Mr. Death]

If I understand you right, you're compelling the fact that the weapon has been lost, not a particular aspect. While this is fine for your game, it is definitely a houserule, since compels can only be used on aspects.

For example, assuming neither the PC nor the scene had any relevant aspects, if an NPC disarms the PC or the PC gets in a fight and for whatever reason doesn't have his weapon, would you give him a Fate Point? If so, that's a houserule.

To echo Haru, if there isn't any relevant aspect dictating why the PC doesn't have a weapon, then why doesn't he have a weapon?

And honestly, it's so ludicrously easy for the GM to declare an aspect to compel, it's really just a case of semantics at this point. "Disarmed" is an aspect that can be compelled, if nothing else.

I don't know, I just think there are more interesting uses for compels than to offset a tactical disadvantage. "You dropped your sword, have a fate point" isn't as much fun, for me, as "I'm compelling your 'Wrong Place At The Wrong Time' aspect to say you're on your own with no backup when the terrorists take over the Nakatomi Building."

I'm not saying, "You dropped your sword, have a fate point," I'm saying, "You won't be able to use your sword--the central point of your fighting style and for which you've spent several fate points--for the entirety of this scene, maybe more. So you can't use your apex skill, and even if you can, you'll still be missing the cumulative +3 in bonuses for it. Here's a fate point to make up for the huge disadvantage you've been handed."

To borrow your example, do you or do you not think that Bruce Willis should also get a fate point if he has to start that scenario without a firearm of any kind?

[Lavecki121]

Death: What you are saying makes sense to me. If they lose their weapon. But then are you arguing that they should be able to have these stunts if that is allowable? Im just trying to get what your stance is. To me it seems like:

I dont like these stunts but if they are there than the player should be able to be compelled to lose this item they use a lot.

In which case I agree. If it is more like:

I dont like these stunts and they shouldn't have them and they should be losing their weapon a lot.

Then I do not agree.

[Haru]

To borrow your example, do you or do you not think that Bruce Willis should also get a fate point if he has to start that scenario without a firearm of any kind?

I think that "without a firearm" is part of the "wrong place, wrong time" compel. I would not add an additional compel there. It could be part of an escalation, but I don't think someone would do that this early in a story.

[Mr. Death]

Lavecki: You're mixing two of my arguments up. My main argument is that these stunts are too loose in their restrictions for the strength of the bonuses they give.

The bit about losing the weapons stems from my argument that the player is going to have his weapon on him as often as possible, and that it's entirely the player's choice to have the weapon barring a compel. In my view, the strength of these stunts is such that if I were a player with them, I would be much more inclined to buy out of the compel.

I'm not saying whether or not anyone should be losing their weapon a lot. I'm saying that losing the weapon is something that the player can easily say "no" to, and therefore these stunts are going to be giving them an advantage in the vast majority of times they use the skill.

[Mr. Death]

I think that "without a firearm" is part of the "wrong place, wrong time" compel. I would not add an additional compel there. It could be part of an escalation, but I don't think someone would do that this early in a story.

Put it this way--McLane has a fighting chance because he has a firearm. The first terrorist he comes up to, he's able to get into fist fighting range because he gets the drop on him with a gun. Not having a firearm completely changes the situation--McLane can't use his apex guns skill and he can't hold up that first terrorist, so he has to approach the situation completely differently using skills he's not as proficient at and which don't have a Weapon rating.

[Haru]

Hmm ok, in that case, the weapon probably wouldn't even have come up at the time of this compel and was later declared into the scene due to one of McLane's other aspects.

[JDK002]

I'd be incredibly hesitant about applying compels to anything but Aspects. Aspects are the most important elements of a character; their driving narrative force. That's why Fate Points apply to them.

If a character has an Aspect relating to a particular weapon, then by all means fire off the compels where appropriate. But if Guns McShooter has to leave his weapons behind to get into a night club, he doesn't get a Fate Point. In fact, I'd be more inclined to use compels to make a character refuse to leave their treasured weapon behind, because that causes much more interesting problems than simply being at a tactical disadvantage.

The risk of losing a weapon or not having one to hand isn't a compel - It's the price you pay for the fact you got a Physical Stress bonus without paying Refresh for it.

I tend to agree, if it's not aspect related you shouldn't get a FP.  At that point having to give up your gun to get into a night club it's not a compel, it's just role-playing.

However if a player is going to stack a bunch of stunts that are all conditional to their weapon, I would probably require them to have an aspect that relates to the weapon.

[Wordmaker]

Haru's got it. McClane already got the Fate Point for the bad situation he's in (like he always gets into), so he doesn't get an extra one for the added detail of not having his gun.

There's no aspect specifically applicable for "McClane doesn't have a gun." He's in trouble because he's unprepared, that's the aspect that's been compelled. Everything else is just in the details. Getting into different numbers of Fate Points based on the range of factors involved could get silly really fast. Does he also get another point for not having shoes?

If you have a group of characters with a range of skills in that situation, do they each get a number of Fate Points determined by the amount of skills which they're not in a position to use? Does a hacker get one because they're not at a computer and can't prevent the terrorists opening the vault? Does a pilot get one because they can't do a strafing run on the building? If one character is a sniper but also has Refresh invested in using pistols, does he get 2 Fate points for having neither a sniper rifle not a pistol?

Another way to think about it, is does Harry Dresden get a Fate Point if he finds himself in trouble somewhere he hasn't had a chance to suit up with all his magical gear? Especially later in the series, he has a pretty considerable arsenal at his disposal. But he doesn't always walk around with his staff.

Say you, as the GM, decide to spring an ambush on your PCs in the middle of Christmas dinner. Odds are good any characters present are unarmed. It was their choice not to bring swords and guns to a nice holiday dinner, but not their choice to be attached. Do they get Fate Points just because they don't have their weapons?

I think this is why compels are confined to specific aspects, and why the GM has to exercise restraint in the number of aspects applied to each scene.

I get what you're saying, that the GM could just decide that whatever aspects he wants exist in the scene in order to justify doling out Fate Points. I just think there are more interesting uses of compels; ones which create story complications rather than existing solely to make up for not being able to use an ability.

But it occurs to me, if the aspect "Disarmed" can be applied with a maneuver, and it automatically awards a fate point as a compel, why would anyone disarm someone? Another aspect like "Off Balance" is far more useful since you get the free tag and the opponent doesn't get a Fate Point. Sure, they can use their weapon, but you could just apply a block against them using their weapon instead of disarming it. Then your buddy swoops in and takes them out.

This is just me typing as I think, really. I'm not sure I have a specific point. I can see how this adds more tactical complexity to combat, though.

Here's something to consider. You award Fate Points when one of your players can't use a weapon for which they've bought stunts. Do you do the same if they haven't spent any stunts on that weapon at all? And what about a werewolf trying to maintain a low profile? Do they get a fate point because they can't change shape in front of a crowd, therefore being unable to use the full range of their powers?

[Haru]

But it occurs to me, if the aspect "Disarmed" can be applied with a maneuver, and it automatically awards a fate point as a compel, why would anyone disarm someone? Another aspect like "Off Balance" is far more useful since you get the free tag and the opponent doesn't get a Fate Point. Sure, they can use their weapon, but you could just apply a block against them using their weapon instead of disarming it. Then your buddy swoops in and takes them out.

I think in this case, it is important if a fate point was spent to use the disarm aspect. The aspect was placed by a maneuver and comes with a free tag. That tag was used to enforce the character being disarmed, not a fate point, therefore he doesn't get one.

If on the other hand, you'd place a scene aspect as a maneuver and tag it for effect, lets say a magnetic spell that draws away all metallic weapons, then everyone who is affected by this will be compelled by the GM in return and rewarded a fate point each.

[Mr. Death]

The difference between compelling Disarmed and the one-off tag of Off Balance is that Disarmed A. means the character can't use their higher Weapons/Guns skill to attack, B. Cannot take advantage of the Weapon rating, and C. Has to take specific action to correct this or else he's stuck without it for the scene. The one-off tag of Off Balanced means that the opponent gets a single +2 or reroll on a single action, while the character can keep attacking with the full weapon rating and their apex skill. Simply put, yes, they get a fate point for Disarmed, but it's got more bite to it.

And yes, I'd give everyone at the Christmas dinner table a fate point, because the enemies are, effectively, invoking their being off their guard to get a specific advantage. Though I might get more specific in that actual situation (Wizard's discipline rating stinks because he's drunk, the White Court Vampire's full up on turkey so he gets a penalty to Athletics ratings, etc).

McLane's gun, I think, is worth a fate point because it, specifically, changes the situation in a different way than him just being alone without back-up. The lack of shoes, on its own, doesn't--not until Hans starts going "Shoot the glass!"

Haru said he'd consider McLane having the gun to be a declaration--perhaps one Bruce Willis spent a fate point for. This is the flipside of that.

But put it this way: The shoes might become important and should be worth a fate point when they do, but in that situation, having a gun or not having a gun will definitely become important, so you might as well get the fate point for not having it right away.

Here's something to consider. You award Fate Points when one of your players can't use a weapon for which they've bought stunts. Do you do the same if they haven't spent any stunts on that weapon at all?

I'd look at the situation. If the player doesn't have their Weapon:3 broadsword but can quickly and easily acquire a Weapon:2 short sword, no. If the player doesn't have their Weapon:3 broadsword, can't use their Superb Weapons skill, and have to make due with a Fair Fists rating for attack and defense, then yes.

And what about a werewolf trying to maintain a low profile? Do they get a fate point because they can't change shape in front of a crowd, therefore being unable to use the full range of their powers?

Considering that likely amounts to being unable to use all if not most of their powers, yes--it's either a compel on their high concept, or of the crowd aspect.

[Taran]

Any maneuver can be invoked - even "off balance".  If the guy tries to run away, invoke "off balance" to compel him to stay in the zone. 

[Tedronai]

Giving up your weapon on the entrance to a club, I would not see as a compel. It's the players choice if he wants to go in without a gun or not.

Giving up the weapon is not the Compel.
The Compel is being placed in a situation where you must choose between not having a weapon you expect might be needed or having to deal with the difficulties of getting the weapon past the doors and/or the difficulties that will be caused once people inside realise that someone has a weapon.

[Haru]

No, I think the compel should be done when it becomes a disadvantage. Having your gun taken as such is only a disadvantage if you get into a serious fight in the club. But if you go into the club, talk to someone, go out, I don't think that warrants a fate point for not having a weapon.
If anyone else is smuggling in their weapons (and you'd therefore need your weapons yourself), the PC should be able to do so as well. Maybe by enforcing a roll when he enters(for example stealth, deceit or resources), or buying out of the compel to not have a gun, when the shit hits the fan. Or maybe by invoking his "always packin'" aspect to declare that the bouncer didn't find the small gun he always carries on his ankle.

[Mr. Death]

No, I think the compel should be done when it becomes a disadvantage. Having your gun taken as such is only a disadvantage if you get into a serious fight in the club. But if you go into the club, talk to someone, go out, I don't think that warrants a fate point for not having a weapon.

Well, yeah. If the GM is compelling you having a gun or not, there needs to be some tangible result of that, otherwise it's just a free fate point. You compel it if it's going to matter. My players have already learned that a compel not to have their weapon/focus item/whatever means they're going to get attacked.

If anyone else is smuggling in their weapons (and you'd therefore need your weapons yourself), the PC should be able to do so as well. Maybe by enforcing a roll when he enters(for example stealth, deceit or resources), or buying out of the compel to not have a gun, when the shit hits the fan. Or maybe by invoking his "always packin'" aspect to declare that the bouncer didn't find the small gun he always carries on his ankle.

Well, it all depends on the situation on this point. Is it a neutral ground? Then yes, the characters should have some opportunity to smuggle in if others are. If it's explicitly someone else's territory, it makes more sense for the "hosts" to be secretly armed while enforcing a weapons ban on everyone else.

[Tedronai]

If having their weapons be left behind forces characters who would otherwise have the legitimate viable option to solve a problem through the use of force to instead solve their problem by another means, then leaving their weapons behind has significantly narrowed their options, and is a legitimate, viable Compel, regardless of whether a fight actually breaks out or not.