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

Re: [FateRPG] [SOTC] Compel/Tag Clarifications Sought

Expand Messages
  • Jim Henley
    Fred, thanks. This is tremendously useful feedback. I appreciate it. Something I fell into when we started playing SOTC was chaining together invocations and
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Fred, thanks. This is tremendously useful feedback. I appreciate it.

      Something I fell into when we started playing SOTC was chaining
      together invocations and tags and compels almost like go's in DITV.
      e.g.

      "I get a +2 result."

      "I get +3."

      "I'll invoke my Fights Like a Girl because I'm stomping on his instep.
      That gets me up to +4."

      "Well I'll invoke Takes a Licking and Keeps on Ticking because Oskar
      is tough like that. Now he's at +5."

      "I'll tag his Sexist Pig aspect because he lets his guard down since
      I'm a woman."

      Etc.

      How far can the above chain proceed before it's Not the SOTC Way?

      Thanks,


      Jim

      On 11/2/06, Fred Hicks <evilhat@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jim Henley wrote:
      > > Bill objected that if I was going to compel the
      > > aspect, the time to do it was *before* he rolled, and certainly before
      > > he spent a fate point. Looking at the compel section, I figured he had
      > > a point there - compels are mostly about restricting behavioral
      > > *choices*. We kicked around the question of whether it would have been
      > > okay to compel the aspect *before* he started the ladder maneuver
      > > without coming to a firm conclusion.
      > >
      > It'd be OK to compel it before or, even, after the roll. However, it's
      > not cool to compel an aspect after a roll if the player has spent fate
      > points in order to make that roll a good one. But by the text, I
      > believe, it's OK to compel and invoke aspects *at any time*.
      >
      > And as in your case, I think it's entirely right-thinking to decide that
      > you guys don't want the option to compel aspects after a roll's been
      > made to be on the table. That's sort of a "social contract" thing.
      > > Then we considered the question of tagging his aspect for effect.
      > > Bill's contention, and he appears to have a point, is that tagging
      > > aspects for effect is something *characters* do, and the examples seem
      > > to back him up.
      > Tagging is something the player and his character do in synergy with one
      > another, inasmuch as any PC-aspect interaction fits that bill. The
      > PC-aspect interaction has to exist as a precondition for being able to
      > use relevant aspect actions with said aspect. Right?
      > > Since the GM (me) didn't have a character involved in
      > > the simple action, I didn't have any ammo to tag with. Scenes and
      > > locales can have aspects, but they don't have fate points, right?
      > Ah, I see what you're talking about now. You're talking about the GM's
      > right to interact with aspects. It's true that (my take is that) the
      > GM's got unlimited FP for doing compels, her power to invoke and tag
      > should be funnelled through the limited FP supply of her NPCs. But your
      > dude who's trying to escape could certainly tag the "Just a Kid" aspect
      > in order to get a bonus to overcome the broken ladder, since he's
      > interacting with the effects the Kid's exercising on the environment,
      > dig? There's a sort of "transitive" property going on here. Kid
      > interacts with ladder, making it less viable; Barker interacts with the
      > ladder, and can take advantage of the Kid's disadvantages in order to
      > overcome the ladder's reduced effectiveness.
      >
      > So I might do it like this:
      >
      > Kid runs a blocking action (making it difficult to escape). He can tag
      > the Rickety Ladder aspect in order to improve this block.
      >
      > Barker then rolls separately to overcome this block when he moves to
      > escape. Because the Kid created the block, and Barker's interacting
      > with the block, he can tag aspects of the Kid's in order to gain an
      > advantage (reroll or +2) to try to beat the blocking roll and, thus, get
      > his ass onto that ladder in a functional way.
      >
      > Dig?
      > > On a
      > > quick reread, it appeared that the GM in his own person can't tag an
      > > aspect for effect; he can only do so through an NPC.
      > >
      > Sort of irrelevant. When a PC tags an aspect for effect, he causes the
      > GM to then run a COMPEL on the targeted character. But the GM always
      > has the power to run a compel on any target. This effectively means
      > that the GM doesn't need to "tag for effect", because that mechanism is
      > subsumed by her greater power of compelling.
      > > IOW, it appears that Bill was right and, in that specific
      > > circumstance, I had no valid way to cause trouble for him with that
      > > aspect at that time. Acting directly against the ladder was a clever
      > > way around potential aspect trouble on Bill's part. Is that the case?
      > >
      > Nah, I don't agree. The GM has strong powers to affect the scene and to
      > directly address the player's compellable aspects. I point again to my
      > blocking/overcoming example above as the way I think it "should" go, but
      > YMMV.
      >
      > Fred
      >
    • Jim Henley
      ... Jon, thanks for the ideas. It s a big help. Actually, at that point I didn t particularly want Herr Barker to get away, though your ideas for how to do it
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 11/2/06, Jon Moyer <doombringer333@...> wrote:
        > IMO, like any other compel, the GM can tag aspects for effect and the player can "buy out" by matching the Fate point.
        >
        > I think the larger issue is that you wanted Herr Barker to escape, but the player did not. I probably would have choked down my impulse to make Herr Barker get away and just let KS have his way with him (if KS wins the overall conflict, of course). No matter how KS handles HB (he puts him behind bars, kills him, etc.), Herr Barker can always come back, in one form or another; perhaps he breaks out of prison, or one his admirers/offspring takes up the mantle, or whatever. And beating HB may have larger consequences - perhaps his superior(s) are pissed off, or he was feeding starving children and now they're pissed off that KS killed their surogate dad, etc. It's a case of "Yes, but ..." (ie, "Yes, you killed Herr Barker. But, vampire lord Vincent Von Vorovik his angry at the loss of his favorite pawn")>>

        Jon, thanks for the ideas. It's a big help.

        Actually, at that point I didn't particularly want Herr Barker to get
        away, though your ideas for how to do it without leaving the player(s)
        feeling frustrated are good ones. We were close to the end of the
        evening and I was content to let Barker get caught. Mostly I had a
        sense that I hadn't been compelling enough - the PCs were low on fate
        points for much of the evening - so I was more practicing the
        compelling mindset. This was only our third session, and in addition
        to still absorbing the plain text of the rules, we're still figuring
        out the context and habits that make it functional.

        Best,


        Jim
      • Fred Hicks
        That s the SOTC way, far as how I play goes. :) (Just don t forget to give the Sexist Pig a FP for that tag!) Fred
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          That's the SOTC way, far as how I play goes. :)

          (Just don't forget to give the Sexist Pig a FP for that tag!)

          Fred

          Jim Henley wrote:
          > Fred, thanks. This is tremendously useful feedback. I appreciate it.
          >
          > Something I fell into when we started playing SOTC was chaining
          > together invocations and tags and compels almost like go's in DITV.
          > e.g.
          >
          > "I get a +2 result."
          >
          > "I get +3."
          >
          > "I'll invoke my Fights Like a Girl because I'm stomping on his instep.
          > That gets me up to +4."
          >
          > "Well I'll invoke Takes a Licking and Keeps on Ticking because Oskar
          > is tough like that. Now he's at +5."
          >
          > "I'll tag his Sexist Pig aspect because he lets his guard down since
          > I'm a woman."
          >
          > Etc.
          >
          > How far can the above chain proceed before it's Not the SOTC Way?
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
        • Jim Henley
          Okay, I m sort of reconfused a bit. It seems that you can t get too far into one of those chains until the GM is compelling an aspect after the player has
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Okay, I'm sort of reconfused a bit. It seems that you can't get too
            far into one of those chains until the GM is compelling an aspect
            after "the player has spent fate points to succeed," which I thought
            was our red line, per the previous e-mail. Admittedly in the example
            chain I put together, the implied GM/player positions are such that
            that doesn't happen. But what if the PC is the Sexist Pig and the
            girl-fighter the NPC?

            Just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

            Best,


            Jim

            On 11/2/06, Fred Hicks <evilhat@...> wrote:
            >
            > That's the SOTC way, far as how I play goes. :)
            >
            > (Just don't forget to give the Sexist Pig a FP for that tag!)
            >
            > Fred
            >
            > Jim Henley wrote:
            > > Fred, thanks. This is tremendously useful feedback. I appreciate it.
            > >
            > > Something I fell into when we started playing SOTC was chaining
            > > together invocations and tags and compels almost like go's in DITV.
            > > e.g.
            > >
            > > "I get a +2 result."
            > >
            > > "I get +3."
            > >
            > > "I'll invoke my Fights Like a Girl because I'm stomping on his instep.
            > > That gets me up to +4."
            > >
            > > "Well I'll invoke Takes a Licking and Keeps on Ticking because Oskar
            > > is tough like that. Now he's at +5."
            > >
            > > "I'll tag his Sexist Pig aspect because he lets his guard down since
            > > I'm a woman."
            > >
            > > Etc.
            > >
            > > How far can the above chain proceed before it's Not the SOTC Way?
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > >
            >
            >
          • Fred Hicks
            ... In your example (where I may have missed something), you weren t compelling to cancel that success. You were responding to tags invocations with tags and
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim Henley wrote:
              > Okay, I'm sort of reconfused a bit. It seems that you can't get too
              > far into one of those chains until the GM is compelling an aspect
              > after "the player has spent fate points to succeed," which I thought
              > was our red line, per the previous e-mail. Admittedly in the example
              > chain I put together, the implied GM/player positions are such that
              > that doesn't happen. But what if the PC is the Sexist Pig and the
              > girl-fighter the NPC?
              >
              > Just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
              In your example (where I may have missed something), you weren't
              compelling to cancel that success. You were responding to tags
              invocations with tags and invocations of your own -- increasing the
              opposing difficulty in response to the player increasing his effort to
              overcome the difficulty.

              The line gets crossed when a COMPEL shows up in that to change the
              character's course of action -- to abort his effort to succeed, on which
              he's spent fate points. But so long as you're sticking to invoke and
              invoke-equivalent (i.e., tagging) actions, you're fine.

              Fred
            • Jon Moyer
              One thing you can try is that compelling an aspect can give you a -2 to your roll (like how invoking an aspect can give a +2). It s not a by the book
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                One thing you can try is that compelling an aspect can give you a -2 to your roll (like how invoking an aspect can give a +2). It's not a "by the book" solution, but it may be another option.



                ----- Original Message ----

                From: Jim Henley <jimhenley@...>

                To: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com

                Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 11:26:43 AM

                Subject: Re: [FateRPG] [SOTC] Compel/Tag Clarifications Sought



                Okay, I'm sort of reconfused a bit. It seems that you can't get too

                far into one of those chains until the GM is compelling an aspect

                after "the player has spent fate points to succeed," which I thought

                was our red line, per the previous e-mail. Admittedly in the example

                chain I put together, the implied GM/player positions are such that

                that doesn't happen. But what if the PC is the Sexist Pig and the

                girl-fighter the NPC?



                Just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
              • Fred Hicks
                ... I d recommend against it. As noted earlier, compel FPs are limitless, while NPC FPs for tags and invocations are restricted supply. When talking about
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jon Moyer wrote:
                  > One thing you can try is that compelling an aspect can give you a -2 to your roll (like how invoking an aspect can give a +2). It's not a "by the book" solution, but it may be another option.
                  I'd recommend against it. As noted earlier, compel FPs are limitless,
                  while NPC FPs for tags and invocations are restricted supply. When
                  talking about escalation chains like this, that limited supply is an
                  important check & balance against the GM going hog-wild.

                  Fred
                • Jim Henley
                  ... So, restating: Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to increase oppo by +2: Good! Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to buy an outright
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 11/2/06, Fred Hicks <evilhat@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Jim Henley wrote:
                    > > Okay, I'm sort of reconfused a bit. It seems that you can't get too
                    > > far into one of those chains until the GM is compelling an aspect
                    > > after "the player has spent fate points to succeed," which I thought
                    > > was our red line, per the previous e-mail. Admittedly in the example
                    > > chain I put together, the implied GM/player positions are such that
                    > > that doesn't happen. But what if the PC is the Sexist Pig and the
                    > > girl-fighter the NPC?
                    > >
                    > > Just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
                    >
                    > In your example (where I may have missed something), you weren't
                    > compelling to cancel that success. You were responding to tags
                    > invocations with tags and invocations of your own -- increasing the
                    > opposing difficulty in response to the player increasing his effort to
                    > overcome the difficulty.

                    So, restating:

                    Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to increase oppo by +2: Good!
                    Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to buy an outright failure: Bad!

                    Right?

                    Best,


                    Jim
                  • Fred Hicks
                    ... That s terminologically drifted. You never compel to increase opposition. Compelling is something you do to a character s aspects to force a choice (of
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jim Henley wrote:
                      So, restating:
                      
                      Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to increase oppo by +2: Good!
                      Tag/Compel after player has spent fate points to buy an outright failure: Bad!
                      
                      Right?
                        
                      That's terminologically drifted.  You never compel to increase opposition.  Compelling is something you do to a character's aspects to force a choice (of which 'outright failure' is a kind of force, as you term it).

                      Invoking and Tagging are the only aspect options that provide for a +2. 

                      So, your restart, to be terminologically correct, should be phrased:

                      • In the person of an NPC, Tag or Invoke to increase opposition by +2 before or after the player has spent fate points: Good!
                      • As the GM, Compel to force a choice, such as failure on the primary task, before the player rolls to attempt that task: Good!
                      • As the GM, Compel to force a choice, such as failure on the primary task, after the player rolls to attempt that task: Bad!
                    • Jim Henley
                      ... Ah. Perfect. I believe I totally Get It now. Thanks very much for walking me through this. Best, Jim
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 11/2/06, Fred Hicks <evilhat@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > That's terminologically drifted. You never compel to increase opposition. Compelling is something you do to a character's aspects to force a choice (of which 'outright failure' is a kind of force, as you term it).
                        >
                        > Invoking and Tagging are the only aspect options that provide for a +2.
                        >
                        > So, your restart, to be terminologically correct, should be phrased:
                        >
                        > In the person of an NPC, Tag or Invoke to increase opposition by +2 before or after the player has spent fate points: Good!
                        > As the GM, Compel to force a choice, such as failure on the primary task, before the player rolls to attempt that task: Good!
                        > As the GM, Compel to force a choice, such as failure on the primary task, after the player rolls to attempt that task: Bad!

                        Ah. Perfect. I believe I totally Get It now.

                        Thanks very much for walking me through this.

                        Best,


                        Jim
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.