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

Re: [FateRPG] Re: I Don't Compel

Expand Messages
  • Landon Darkwood
    ... I don t want to comment on the text too much before release, but strictly speaking, the idea (at least as far as I interpret it) is to reward a player for
    Message 1 of 31 , Apr 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 4/5/06, Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes@...> wrote:
      > I always thought that the idea
      > was to reward the player for having an interesting character, and allowing
      > those interesting parts to come out.

      I don't want to comment on the text too much before release, but
      strictly speaking, the idea (at least as far as I interpret it) is to
      reward a player for allowing his character's aspects to *meaningfully
      limit his choices* and, perhaps as a default by-product, *create
      worthy consequences for hard choices*. The degree to which that parses
      into your phrasing is, well, for you to decide. :)

      In my mind, the key difference between that and rewarding FPs for
      good, aspect-accurate roleplay has to do with those consequences and
      the degree to which a compel highlights choices that a person cannot
      subvert. Hence, interesting RP that mainly contributes color isn't, by
      default, a criteria to award FP by. (You can do it anyway, optionally,
      but that's all you and your local self.)

      So if "I Always Watch My Friend's Back," for instance, I won't get an
      FP every time I jump to a companion's defense. But I could get one if
      doing so allows the bad guy to get away with the Plot Device we've
      been trying to recover. The flexibility comes in that the game text
      allows both player and GM to initiate this process, to elevate a
      choice up as having *meaning* worthy of using the system. On the
      player's side, it's more like a flag for the GM: make this important.
      And then the GM grins evilly, and will. You can look at it, in that
      sense, as the voluntary raising of stakes.

      In practice, I've found, this is a lot simpler than my explanation is
      probably making it sound. I'm betting you're going to read the thing
      and go, "Yeah, so I can just keep playing the way I have been."

      > Can a player refuse to take the point, and refuse this sort of compel?

      Technically, once the compel process is initiated, refusing the compel
      costs you an FP. Once you throw down, you're committed one way or the
      other.


      -Landon Darkwood
    • Judd Goswick
      ... I would say that the deal is this - if they are equal aspects - no fate points (it evens out). The cool part is if Aunt Gert is a 2 box aspect, but Betty
      Message 31 of 31 , Apr 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 4/6/06, Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes@...> wrote:
        For instance, I once created a situation where a player had to choose
        between going after something related to one Aspect, or something related to
        another Aspect (classic dilemma bang).

        I would say that the deal is this - if they are equal aspects - no fate points (it evens out).  The cool part is if Aunt Gert is a 2 box aspect, but Betty Sue is just 1.  Now, the choice is, pay an FP to abandon Aunt Gert long enough to save your girl or get an FP for revealing under stress that Aunt Gert was always 2 boxes with you and now Betty Sue knows where she stands, which sets up future compels when she calls you on it.

        This way, drama gets preserved.  The player gets an FP for setting up future problems either way...  A good bang should have a meaningful choice, but one where there are uneven priorities is a bit more dramatic, so the FPs come into play....(no pun intended)

        --
        Judd M. Goswick
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.