Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FateRPG] Re: More Expansions?

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan Lang
    ... I ve been thinking about this, and wondering what felt off about it for me. Then I noticed that there seems to be an implication that you can Invoke an
    Message 1 of 38 , Mar 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:

       

      On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jonathan Lang <dataweaver@...> wrote:
      Not "used once" or "invoked or compelled once"; "invoked once". To be fair, a case could be made that the wording was written under the assumption that a Boost is usually going to be Invoked; that's its intended purpose.

      If you can make up a good compel from a boost, more power to you. (Emphasis on "good" - remember those sentences! Fill in the blanks!)

      If you can make up several good compels, you're probably a better Fate player or GM than I am.

      If, as a result of you being so awesome, that boost is paying story dividends, I don't have a problem with you deciding it should stick around. Invocations and compels are not mechanics that operate in symmetry. More story is good. Get there any way you can.

      I've been thinking about this, and wondering what felt off about it for me.  Then I noticed that there seems to be an implication that you can Invoke an Aspect at any time just by spending a Fate Point, but a Compel requires a change to the narrative by its very nature.  Which, as Lenny said, inherently limits when and how they can be done; but it also means that every time a Compel comes up, you get more story.  

      IMHO, the same ought to be true of Invokes.  Or rather, every Fate Point transaction ought to require some sort of impact on the narrative, whether it be an Invoke, a Compel, or even using a Skill in an unusual manner.  That's the whole premise behind Fate Points in the first place: they're there to give players a means of influencing the narrative beyond what their characters do with their Skills.  

      Free Invokes should be exempt from this, of course: you've already impacted the story when you did whatever it was that earned you the Free Invoke in the first place (or _someone_ has, if it was passed to you).  But if you're spending a Fate Point to get an Invoke, you ought to justify it by some sort of story development.  

      And this answers a question I had posed in an earlier thread: namely, when do you use an Aspect passively to influence opposition levels, and when do you grant a Fate Point to escalate the opposition?  Answer: if you're not introducing any new story developments to the narrative — you're just using the existing Aspects as is — then just use the Aspects to set the level of opposition, without doing anything with the Fate Point economy.  If _something happens_ in the scene that emphasizes (or introduces) an Aspect in a way that interferes with an Action, then bump its opposition by 2 and give the player a Fate Point.  
    • Jon Lang
      ... Yep; which is a big part of why I m comfortable with no, but being a possible Tie result: it *is* splitting hairs, as yes, but and no, but are a
      Message 38 of 38 , Mar 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:
         

        On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jon Lang <dataweaver@...> wrote:
        One of our rolls is going to have to be a "no" of some sort; but it can be a compensated no, where that person doesn't get what he was after but does get something useful.  

        Sure, I feel you, but it's sort of splitting hairs at that point. 

        Yep; which is a big part of why I'm comfortable with "no, but" being a possible Tie result: it is splitting hairs, as "yes, but" and "no, but" are a hair's breadth apart from each other, and it's largely a matter of perspective as to which is which.  

        --
        Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.