The tweak is that you can convert a failure into a success using a consequence:
http://groups.google.com/group/fsharprpg/web/consequences  It works well in F#
(where it's 1/2/3 instead of 2/4/6).  Only the players roll the dice in F#,
though (no opposed rolls), so I don't know how well it transfers to SotC or
Dresden.


Bill

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Bill Burdick <bill.burdick@...> wrote:
> The tweak is that you can convert a failure into a success using a
> consequence: http://groups.google.com/group/fsharprpg/web/consequences It
> works well in F# (where it's 1/2/3 instead of 2/4/6). Only the players roll
> the dice in F#, though (no opposed rolls), so I don't know how well it
> transfers to SotC or Dresden.

Did we chat about that at some point off-list? 'Cause that's
remarkably similar to something I'm going to have in my Fate
conversion of Levi Kornelsen's 'The Cog Wars'.

If we didn't, hey, parallel development... frickin' awesome.


-L

You mentioned working on Cog Wars, but not this mechanic.  Could have saved me
some trouble, there!  But hey, the fact that you came up with it too is very
encouraging to me; you know how I love to reality check my ideas, even though
I'll happily keep using mechanisms you don't like :).

Actually, what led me to the idea of using consequences to turn failure into
success was the realization that when you succeed in a conflict using the F#
RAW, you never end up with a consequence.  This didn't sit right with me,
because it seemed somehow less heroic than I like in my stories.  Heroes ought
to get beat up along the way to their success.

In fairness to F#, you CAN get beat up on the way; if you lose some conflicts,
you will probably end up with some consequences, but in an individual conflict,
you either win without consequences or you lose with possible consequences.  I
just wanted the full range of possibilities, because it makes the individual
scenes richer.

Oh, and it's so cool when players volunteer to have their characters beat up. 
It drips drama.

We were already using the 1/2/3 system, but just to avoid being taken out.  It
turned out to be only a small step to allowing players to buy a success with a
consequence.  It's such a weird thing to aim for -- traditional, blow-for-blow
RPGs handle this implicitly.  But I think this has a natural feel to it -- it
doesn't feel tacked on or anything.

So now the PCs in my campaign can enjoy consequences during their successes! 
What joy!


Bill


--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Bill Burdick <bill.burdick@...> wrote:
> > The tweak is that you can convert a failure into a success using a
> > consequence: http://groups.google.com/group/fsharprpg/web/consequences It
> > works well in F# (where it's 1/2/3 instead of 2/4/6). Only the players roll
> > the dice in F#, though (no opposed rolls), so I don't know how well it
> > transfers to SotC or Dresden.
>
> Did we chat about that at some point off-list? 'Cause that's
> remarkably similar to something I'm going to have in my Fate
> conversion of Levi Kornelsen's 'The Cog Wars'.
>
> If we didn't, hey, parallel development... frickin' awesome.
>
>
> -L
>

I'm awaiting moderator approval on the F# Google Group, so I'll put my 2¢ in
here.

Instead of spending tokens to increase aspects, I propose awarding an experience
point for every token spent. Experience points are then used instead of tokens
for adding and increasing aspects. This puts the incentive back to spending
tokens rather than hoarding them.

> Hi Moni!
>
> Your giant scorpion looks good and solid to me too.  I've added a
> couple of comments
> inline below.
>
> > I know I can ignore it and do it as seems fit, but I'm just afraid I
misunderstand
>> some of the rules or am missing balance reasons for some of them and would
like an
>> opinion.
>
> Definitely agree with your approach - I think with Starblazer it's worth going
the
> distance and creating your first "version" of a critter as a "full character"
type
> stat block, as you've done.  You can then tailor the critter stats to the role
you're
> seeing the creature playing in your game later - but statting it up completely
to
> start with is a good way to go, IMHO.

Thanks! And yes, that's my thought process for these. My main idea is
that for a given critter, I'd keep reusing the same stats, but make
them Minions, Threats or full on NPC monsters depending on the level
of challenge I want to give. Minions would have aspects but they would
only be able to use them if first compelled or tagged (so they receive
some FPs). For a NPC monster, though, they would have plenty of FPs to
use right away.
Similarly, stunts might be ignored for Minions and taken into account
for Threats and NPCs.

Of course, I would also make multiple qualities of a given creature,
just so I can have minions of various levels based on the same theme.

>> Stunt : Tremorsense (custom stunt : +2 Alertness and knowledge of enemy
position as
>> long as the scorpion and enemy touch the ground)
>
> Nice stunt!  I may steal that for my games... ;-D

It was stolen from D&D already. Maybe it'll end up coming full circle?
XD


> > - Starblazer seems to say "5 stress boxes" unless it's a small creature. On
that one, I follow a rule closer to Minions : quality determines the base number
of stress boxes (2 here) and endurance/resolve add to it. It's a "house rule" I
use for my more regular creatures (animals and humanoids).
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.  As I hinted above, IMHO it's more to do with the
role you see the critter playing in the game.  A "fully statted" critter with
the 5 stress boxes, 3 consequences, full skill pyramid, aspects, and stunts, is
a *significant* foe which will involve a good involved combat session to handle.
Also, numbers will tell *very* quickly - especially if you're using d6-d6, then
Fate points will get burned to survive the combat if the scorpions approach your
PCs in number.

Little note here : I misremembered my own house rules there. I
actually have minions start with a single stress box with
Endurance/Resolve adding to it. Only NPCs get starting stress boxes
based on their quality.

So minions remain as low threats, but a NPC "King of Scorpions" would
definitely be quite something to behold.


> Second up, you could nominate a scorpion as a "leader" (either full stat or
the minor version above), and then attach minions (of appropriate quality) as
you want.  This gives you a lot of fine tuning - you can still have waves of
critters appearing over the hill, but the PCs mow through the minions in a
satisfying way to start with, then finish up taking on the meaty leaders at the
end.  Also makes for tactical play - can the PCs work out which scorpion in a
group is the leader?

It's amusing that in both SotC/Starblazer and 4e DnD, where opponents
have roles like this, I've always seen people state these roles in a
meta-gaming way. But you're right, it would be even more interesting
*not* to know, unless some visual cue or other knowledge gave you a
hint.

> Last, you can do the opposite, and soup up the critter for a "mother" scorpion
in a hive somewhere - up the pyramid, add a few advancements, give it Fate
points, etc, cool aspects, etc.  Then it can be the climax of the session.  Also
- and to be used sparingly! - you can stat up the big mother scorpion as a
Threat.  There are some interesting side effects of mixing critters and Threats,
where sheer size and monstrous special abilities outweight simple skills and
stress boxes.

If I remember correctly, having Starblazer Threats would be similar to
having multiple NPC monsters... which would be quite something indeed.

> Partly judgement, then.  But, to start with, I think you're definitely right
to stat up the "core" critter by the book, then fine tune as appropriate.

Thanks for your comments!

> Cheers!
>
> Sarah

- Moni

One of my players also suggested this -- there must be a conspiracy!  I think
that's an interesting idea.  I wonder what Hunty thinks...

BTW, I approved your membership.  Maybe I should have sent you a msg telling you
that, though.  Sorry!


Bill



--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "John Powell" <john@...> wrote:
>
> I'm awaiting moderator approval on the F# Google Group, so I'll put my 2¢ in
here.
>
> Instead of spending tokens to increase aspects, I propose awarding an
experience point for every token spent. Experience points are then used instead
of tokens for adding and increasing aspects. This puts the incentive back to
spending tokens rather than hoarding them.
>

Hi all,

I'm running a scenario where it looks like there's shortly to be quite a bit of
"Blocking" going on, mostly using suppressing fire, etc.  I've been reading both
SotC and Starblazer trying to see if I can find some hints as to how many
targets a block can affect, and can't see any clear guidelines.

For example: I'm laying down blocking fire with a firearm.  People have to make
rolls to overcome the block, taking up their action for an exchange, before they
can get on with what they were originally doing.  How many people is that?  If a
single person lays down suppressing fire, is it just a narrative decision how
many people get affected?  Do I just wing it?

Otherwise, it seems a mighty powerful way for a single character to basically
take a whole swathe of opponents out of action for a while.

Cheers!

Sarah

--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "sarah650213" <sarah.newton5@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running a scenario where it looks like there's shortly to be quite a bit
of "Blocking" going on, mostly using suppressing fire, etc.  I've been reading
both SotC and Starblazer trying to see if I can find some hints as to how many
targets a block can affect, and can't see any clear guidelines.
>

The examples on pages 60 and 61 should give you a good idea.  The 2nd example
says that the hero was blocking a small number of guys from exiting the 3
possible doorways.  That was assessed as a -2.  The -2 seems to be for covering
a wide area not for the number of people being blocked.

Mitch

John Powell wrote:
  >Instead of spending tokens to increase aspects, I propose awarding an
experience point for every token spent. Experience points are then used
instead of tokens for adding and increasing aspects. This puts the
incentive back to spending tokens rather than hoarding them.<

I have a similar mechanic with a different game system - basically, if
you get nominated for good roleplay/good gameplay (and not just a great
line or funny OOC comments) you get to draw a chip (out of a bag) that
adds extra dice to your pool. The majority of the chips represent std
dice, but some chips represent instant success or the equivalent of
eliminating consequences. If they agree with the nomination, the GM
replenishes the chips drawn 1:1 by type (pull an instant success, an
instant success gets put in).

XP has nothing to do with this - it's all about adding enjoyment to the
game for yourself and others. But theoretically, said chips could be
hoarded as well.

So they have an expiration date - when the Scene/Chapter is over (per
GM), unused chips go back into the bag. The chips used for replenishing
the bag don't get removed either - what doesn't get used just makes it
easier to get Cool Stuff. It's up to the player to find their own
balance between saving and spending, investing for the whole group, and
IC/OOC time...

XP/Fate points are a completely separate chip - I've ripped the XP
system from Agon and count it as 10 Successes = 1 Advance, improving
Stats at new level cost (as well as intervening levels) in Advances - or
saving the Advance and using it as a Fate Point on a 1:1. These also
expire - if XP isn't spent, it drops to the normal level of Fate Points
for the character at the start of the next Act/Book. The GM can also
advance the Stats of a character based on good gameplay and what gets
used the most (cf. the untrained skill system from RuneQuest).

Yes, the players all have cheatsheets of what color chip does what and
how all of these work. So far, it's had the desired effect - the
sessions are tighter in play, there's more creative problem-solving
going on, yadda yadda yadda: generally, it's all better.

I'm rambling, but hopefully there're some ideas to harvest. I'm also
looking for other ways to make this even tighter.

Heya Sarah,

As I read over the blocking rules in Starblazer again, I am thinking
that maybe the approach to the rule you indicate might be a bit too
broad.  When you declare a blocking action, you are only able to block a
very limited set of actions. Also, my reading of the rules would
indicate that if you manage to overcome the block, then you move on to
perform the action the block was aimed at.

For example, Bill the Space Marine decides to "Spray blaster bolts along
the corridor to keep the Mutant Space Pirates from shooting at us."  He
rolls his Great (+4) Guns skill, getting a Fantastic (+6) result after
dice, aspects, etc.

The Mutants act, and have to beat a Fantastic result to be able to shoot
at Bill and his squad of intrepid space adventurers, with Guns, or
Resolve, or some other GM-specified skill. Whether or not they beat the
block, they've used their action. But if they DO beat the block, they
can go ahead and shoot, in that same action.

Alternately, if Bill had instead been trying to keep the Mutants  from
moving down the corridor towards them (since they have wicked huge acid
dripping claws), and gotten the same Fantastic (+6) result, then the
Mutants  would have to beat that result with Athletics or Resolve, or
some other GM-specified skill. Even though moving one zone usually does
not usually take up an action, in this case it would, because they are
being blocked. If they can't beat the block, they are done for the
action. If they DO beat the block, then they can move and attack with
their claws normally.

Your mileage may vary, but that's how I interpret it.

Dan



sarah650213 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running a scenario where it looks like there's shortly to be quite a bit
of "Blocking" going on, mostly using suppressing fire, etc.  I've been reading
both SotC and Starblazer trying to see if I can find some hints as to how many
targets a block can affect, and can't see any clear guidelines.
>
> For example: I'm laying down blocking fire with a firearm.  People have to
make rolls to overcome the block, taking up their action for an exchange, before
they can get on with what they were originally doing.  How many people is that? 
If a single person lays down suppressing fire, is it just a narrative decision
how many people get affected?  Do I just wing it?
>
> Otherwise, it seems a mighty powerful way for a single character to basically
take a whole swathe of opponents out of action for a while.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> | Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
> | SOTC * http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit
> | DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

We filed blocks off in Diaspora. That is, instead of blocks, we expect
tactical use of Maneuver to place zone Aspects, and then compels
against those Aspects to force halts, deny fire, and so on. This
reduces the rule set without reducing the effects that can be modeled
and consequently carries forward the balance "successes" in those rule
atoms rather than introducing complexity that might create imbalance
and uncomfortable edge cases. It also increases teamwork, or rather
rewards it more effectively.

So, for "blocking fire":

Marines are outside the airlock, about to enter.
Defender A: "I fire into the airlock as it cycles, keeping their heads
down" [Maneuver: Weapons check to place 'Keeping heads down' on the
airlock zone]
Caller: "Roll against target value zero" [dice are rolled, evaluated
as success. Caller notes the new Aspect on the map and gives it an
open check box for free tagging]
Marine A: "I'm going to make a move check to enter the airlock."
Caller: "Compels?"
Defender A: [holding up a fate point] "Yeah, it's raining lead in
there -- you hold up outside until the automatic fire subsides."
Marine A: [giving one of his own fate points] "Yeah right -- we are MARINES!"
Caller: "Roll you Agility for movement then" [Dice are rolled, the
marine enters the airlock]
Defender B: "I fire on the marine that just entered."
Caller: "Compels?"

...and so on. Defender B, if not compelled to inaction, might well
free-tag the covering fire Aspect to get a solid hit. The important
thing is that the Marine gets to decide whether or not to pay for his
ability to ignore the covering fire, using the same mechanism we see
all over the game. The fate point economy gets ramped up and
story-relevant decisions abound.

--
Brad Murray (halfjack)

Moderation is a memory

Hi Mitch, Dan,

Thanks for the sound advice!  We just got through playing the session in
question, and blocking did indeed come up.  We played that beating the block was
an action; once you'd beaten the block, you could act the next round.

It worked okay, but only because no one took advantage of the loophole; we had
limited characters (4 not 40), and it was NPCs doing the blocking, so no one
tried to do *another* block immediately after the first, which would have been
annoying!  Also, I didn't put any mods on the Block; if I'd've read your post
beforehand, Mitch, I'd've probably used a -2 or -3.

Dan - I do like your interpretation, and I think I'll try it next time.  If it
wears well, that might be my default way of running blocks - it feels a bit
better over having characters wait until the next round before they can act.

I had one question in my mind, though: once you create a block, do you have to
roll every exchange that block is in effect, do you think, or is one roll
enough, and you just have to "maintain" it.  I ask because it took 3 exchanges
for everyone to break through; I just ruled that the initial roll was good for
all 3 exchanges, and the blocking NPC was therefore taken up with that action
and couldn't do anything else.

Cheers!

Sarah


--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, DC Ansell <danielcansell@...> wrote:
>
> Heya Sarah,
>
> As I read over the blocking rules in Starblazer again, I am thinking
> that maybe the approach to the rule you indicate might be a bit too
> broad.  When you declare a blocking action, you are only able to block a
> very limited set of actions. Also, my reading of the rules would
> indicate that if you manage to overcome the block, then you move on to
> perform the action the block was aimed at.
>
> For example, Bill the Space Marine decides to "Spray blaster bolts along
> the corridor to keep the Mutant Space Pirates from shooting at us."  He
> rolls his Great (+4) Guns skill, getting a Fantastic (+6) result after
> dice, aspects, etc.
>
> The Mutants act, and have to beat a Fantastic result to be able to shoot
> at Bill and his squad of intrepid space adventurers, with Guns, or
> Resolve, or some other GM-specified skill. Whether or not they beat the
> block, they've used their action. But if they DO beat the block, they
> can go ahead and shoot, in that same action.
>
> Alternately, if Bill had instead been trying to keep the Mutants  from
> moving down the corridor towards them (since they have wicked huge acid
> dripping claws), and gotten the same Fantastic (+6) result, then the
> Mutants  would have to beat that result with Athletics or Resolve, or
> some other GM-specified skill. Even though moving one zone usually does
> not usually take up an action, in this case it would, because they are
> being blocked. If they can't beat the block, they are done for the
> action. If they DO beat the block, then they can move and attack with
> their claws normally.
>
> Your mileage may vary, but that's how I interpret it.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> sarah650213 wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm running a scenario where it looks like there's shortly to be quite a bit
of "Blocking" going on, mostly using suppressing fire, etc.  I've been reading
both SotC and Starblazer trying to see if I can find some hints as to how many
targets a block can affect, and can't see any clear guidelines.
> >
> > For example: I'm laying down blocking fire with a firearm.  People have to
make rolls to overcome the block, taking up their action for an exchange, before
they can get on with what they were originally doing.  How many people is that? 
If a single person lays down suppressing fire, is it just a narrative decision
how many people get affected?  Do I just wing it?
> >
> > Otherwise, it seems a mighty powerful way for a single character to
basically take a whole swathe of opponents out of action for a while.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > | Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
> > | SOTC * http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit
> > | DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sarah,

Again, this is my interpretation, but I run it that a block action only
lasts till the blocker's next action. So to keep up the block, you'd
have to take a block action again, with a new roll. If you want to do
something more lasting, then you'd do a maneuver instead to put a
taggable aspect on the scene, like "blocked door" or something.

Dan

sarah650213 wrote:
> Hi Mitch, Dan,
>
> Thanks for the sound advice!  We just got through playing the session in
question, and blocking did indeed come up.  We played that beating the block was
an action; once you'd beaten the block, you could act the next round.
>
> It worked okay, but only because no one took advantage of the loophole; we had
limited characters (4 not 40), and it was NPCs doing the blocking, so no one
tried to do *another* block immediately after the first, which would have been
annoying!  Also, I didn't put any mods on the Block; if I'd've read your post
beforehand, Mitch, I'd've probably used a -2 or -3.
>
> Dan - I do like your interpretation, and I think I'll try it next time.  If it
wears well, that might be my default way of running blocks - it feels a bit
better over having characters wait until the next round before they can act.
>
> I had one question in my mind, though: once you create a block, do you have to
roll every exchange that block is in effect, do you think, or is one roll
enough, and you just have to "maintain" it.  I ask because it took 3 exchanges
for everyone to break through; I just ruled that the initial roll was good for
all 3 exchanges, and the blocking NPC was therefore taken up with that action
and couldn't do anything else.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sarah
>
>
> --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, DC Ansell <danielcansell@...> wrote:
>
>> Heya Sarah,
>>
>> As I read over the blocking rules in Starblazer again, I am thinking
>> that maybe the approach to the rule you indicate might be a bit too
>> broad.  When you declare a blocking action, you are only able to block a
>> very limited set of actions. Also, my reading of the rules would
>> indicate that if you manage to overcome the block, then you move on to
>> perform the action the block was aimed at.
>>
>> For example, Bill the Space Marine decides to "Spray blaster bolts along
>> the corridor to keep the Mutant Space Pirates from shooting at us."  He
>> rolls his Great (+4) Guns skill, getting a Fantastic (+6) result after
>> dice, aspects, etc.
>>
>> The Mutants act, and have to beat a Fantastic result to be able to shoot
>> at Bill and his squad of intrepid space adventurers, with Guns, or
>> Resolve, or some other GM-specified skill. Whether or not they beat the
>> block, they've used their action. But if they DO beat the block, they
>> can go ahead and shoot, in that same action.
>>
>> Alternately, if Bill had instead been trying to keep the Mutants  from
>> moving down the corridor towards them (since they have wicked huge acid
>> dripping claws), and gotten the same Fantastic (+6) result, then the
>> Mutants  would have to beat that result with Athletics or Resolve, or
>> some other GM-specified skill. Even though moving one zone usually does
>> not usually take up an action, in this case it would, because they are
>> being blocked. If they can't beat the block, they are done for the
>> action. If they DO beat the block, then they can move and attack with
>> their claws normally.
>>
>> Your mileage may vary, but that's how I interpret it.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> sarah650213 wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm running a scenario where it looks like there's shortly to be quite a bit
of "Blocking" going on, mostly using suppressing fire, etc.  I've been reading
both SotC and Starblazer trying to see if I can find some hints as to how many
targets a block can affect, and can't see any clear guidelines.
>>>
>>> For example: I'm laying down blocking fire with a firearm.  People have to
make rolls to overcome the block, taking up their action for an exchange, before
they can get on with what they were originally doing.  How many people is that? 
If a single person lays down suppressing fire, is it just a narrative decision
how many people get affected?  Do I just wing it?
>>>
>>> Otherwise, it seems a mighty powerful way for a single character to
basically take a whole swathe of opponents out of action for a while.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> | Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
>>> | SOTC * http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit
>>> | DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> | Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
> | SOTC * http://www.evilhat.com/?spirit
> | DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Michael McLawhorn <mhoram@...> wrote:
> What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'?  Should a player ask to be paid off for
> accepting the compel unprompted?

If he's playing it to his detriment and he asks (or hints hard) for a
fate point, I'd give it to him. The first couple times.

--
Brad Murray (halfjack)

Moderation is a memory

Hey Faters,

   I've been struggling with understanding the intersection of compels and voluntary roleplaying.
Suppose that a character has a manuever used against him, say might to knock a bookcase
onto him making him PINNED.

   Now, it seems to me if the character's player wants to act normally I should compel for a FP.
However if they decide to act pinned and do only actions appropriate to being pinned (rolling
athletics or might to get free for example) should they still receive the payment for the compel from being
pinned? 

What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'?  Should a player ask to be paid off for accepting the compel unprompted?

Those sound like maneuvers, not compels.  If someone pulls a successful
maneuver, then you are subject to the Aspect created, and they tag it the first
time for free.  If they want to dive out of the way of the falling bookcase and
their Athletics roll failed to beat the maneuver's quality, spend Fate pts to
boost your roll.  But once you are "Pinned", you need to comply with the Aspect
until it's removed.  Likely that means they'll get 1 free tag, or else you'll
need to make a Might roll push the bookcase off of you if you get to act before
they tag the Aspect.  If the maneuver was a fragile aspect (only a success, not
Spin), it automatically vanishes after the first free tag.  If it's sticky
because the maneuver achieved Spin, you'll need to do something to get out of it
or else they can keep tagging it with any Fate pts they have.


--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Michael McLawhorn <mhoram@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Faters,
>
>    I've been struggling with understanding the intersection of compels and
> voluntary roleplaying.
> Suppose that a character has a manuever used against him, say might to knock
> a bookcase
> onto him making him PINNED.
>
>    Now, it seems to me if the character's player wants to act normally I
> should compel for a FP.
> However if they decide to act pinned and do only actions appropriate to
> being pinned (rolling
> athletics or might to get free for example) should they still receive the
> payment for the compel from being
> pinned?
>
> What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'?  Should a player ask to be paid off for
> accepting the compel unprompted?
>

Hi everyone,

I've a related question on Compels and free choice, namely what do people do
with Compels when the person being compelled has no Fate points left.

It came up recently in a game by accident, and left a bad taste, to the extent
that we houseruled almost immediately.  Basically I compelled a player, unaware
that player had no Fate points left, which of course was tantamount to saying
"you must act this way, you have no choice".  It might be in keeping with the
letter of the rules, but in the situation (a moment of high tension) it
certainly felt counter to the spirit - like I'd just removed all player control
of their character!  We decided on that occasion the player could turn down the
Compel without having the Fate point, as otherwise it felt a bit too "meh".

What do you guys generally do in this instance?  I can appreciate in many cases
it's a question of the players not "getting" what's going on with Compels, but
all the same this situation felt pretty stark...

Cheers,

Sarah



--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Michael McLawhorn <mhoram@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Faters,
>
>    I've been struggling with understanding the intersection of compels and
> voluntary roleplaying.
> Suppose that a character has a manuever used against him, say might to knock
> a bookcase
> onto him making him PINNED.
>
>    Now, it seems to me if the character's player wants to act normally I
> should compel for a FP.
> However if they decide to act pinned and do only actions appropriate to
> being pinned (rolling
> athletics or might to get free for example) should they still receive the
> payment for the compel from being
> pinned?
>
> What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'?  Should a player ask to be paid off for
> accepting the compel unprompted?
>

I don't charge a Fate point to resist a Compel.  Instead, I say that the
distraction and effort to resist causes a -1 supplemental action penalty on
their next action if they refuse, and they get a Fate point if they accept. 
I've found that the lure of a Fate point and the -1 to next action are
sufficient to get players to accept fun and appropriate compels, but not overly
punishing (or leaving no option) if they really don't want to.

Tom


--- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "sarah650213" <sarah.newton5@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've a related question on Compels and free choice, namely what do people do
with Compels when the person being compelled has no Fate points left.
>
> It came up recently in a game by accident, and left a bad taste, to the extent
that we houseruled almost immediately.  Basically I compelled a player, unaware
that player had no Fate points left, which of course was tantamount to saying
"you must act this way, you have no choice".  It might be in keeping with the
letter of the rules, but in the situation (a moment of high tension) it
certainly felt counter to the spirit - like I'd just removed all player control
of their character!  We decided on that occasion the player could turn down the
Compel without having the Fate point, as otherwise it felt a bit too "meh".
>
> What do you guys generally do in this instance?  I can appreciate in many
cases it's a question of the players not "getting" what's going on with Compels,
but all the same this situation felt pretty stark...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Michael McLawhorn <mhoram@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Faters,
> >
> >    I've been struggling with understanding the intersection of compels and
> > voluntary roleplaying.
> > Suppose that a character has a manuever used against him, say might to knock
> > a bookcase
> > onto him making him PINNED.
> >
> >    Now, it seems to me if the character's player wants to act normally I
> > should compel for a FP.
> > However if they decide to act pinned and do only actions appropriate to
> > being pinned (rolling
> > athletics or might to get free for example) should they still receive the
> > payment for the compel from being
> > pinned?
> >
> > What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'?  Should a player ask to be paid off for
> > accepting the compel unprompted?
> >
>

Hey guys!

Here is an idea: How will it affect the the game if you create Stunts for
skills, as specialisations? For instance Riding skill will have a Specialisation
called Mounted Combat...

Im still trying to get my head around FATE, and im loving it. I think my biggest
challenge is understanding  Aspects and designing them.

anny ideas?

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM, gnosistika <gnosistika@...> wrote:
> Here is an idea: How will it affect the the game if you create Stunts for
> skills, as specialisations? For instance Riding skill will have a
> Specialisation called Mounted Combat...

I don't think it breaks anything, but having the Aspect "Heavy cavalry
commander" or something might give you similar mechanical results and
not increase complexity.

--
Brad Murray (halfjack)

Moderation is a memory

Howdy folks,

I can see Andy's point about the player having the choice to keep that
last Fate point or spend it. On the other hand, a compel is meant, at
least in part I think, to reward players for having a neat aspect that
advances the storyline. In a case where a player was out of Fate points,
I'd still offer compels, but if the player declined, in my game, he just
wouldn't get the fate point (or points, if I wanted to make it really
tempting) offered for the compel. I really think compels should always
be a choice, never a mandatory imposition of action.

If you are out of Fate points, you've lost a lot of your leverage to
effect events in the game already, and most likely you are going to be
pretty eager to suck up all the compels the GM is willing to throw your
way. Further, if you are smart, you are already scanning your character
sheet for aspects to offer the GM compelling ideas.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Going back for a moment to what the original poster said, it can
sometimes be hard to run aspects imposed by manuevers, or aspects on a
scene. A lot of gamers (me most certainly included) have a tendency to
want to apply modifiers to in some way simulate reality. Aspects as such
really don't lend themselves to this, at least not in the "checking our
list of appropriate modifiers" mode of many other games. The key to
aspects that I try to keep in mind is that they are story tools. If you
think that bookcase lying across the character's legs should modify an
action, offer a compel. The player can take it or not, fate points
change hands, and then game on. It's a truly beautiful and elegant
mechanic, but it does take some getting used to. Just keep in mind that
compels are (or should be) always an option.

You'll know that your players really 'get' it when they start suggesting
compels you could offer their characters, based on aspects of all sorts.

Take care,

Dan

Andrew Whincup Krusty77 wrote:
>
>
> Sarah,
>
> I may be harsh and old school, but it's not your fault that the player
> ran out of Fate Points. They knew what they were doing when they spent
> their last one. When it comes to Compels, FPs represent the
> character's ability to overcome their weaknesses, or the limits put on
> them by the environment. If your out of FPs, then you've run out of
> that ability. This is especially the case if the Aspect your were
> compelling was a character one: they came up with it, they knew it
> might get compelled, they knew it might come up in play.
>
> Having said that, the most important question you need to ask yourself
> whenever you compel is "is this interesting?" If you answer yes, then
> go ahead with the compel, regardless of the FPs the players have in
> the bank. Yes, they have no choice in accepting the Compel if they've
> none left, but they did have the choice to spend their last one.
> Remember that, by accepting the compel, they've got an FP back again
> so they'll be able to resist in future.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* sarah650213 <sarah.newton5@...>
> *To:* FateRPG@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, 11 May, 2009 8:08:35
> *Subject:* [FateRPG] Re: Compels and Roleplaying
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've a related question on Compels and free choice, namely what do
> people do with Compels when the person being compelled has no Fate
> points left.
>
> It came up recently in a game by accident, and left a bad taste, to
> the extent that we houseruled almost immediately. Basically I
> compelled a player, unaware that player had no Fate points left, which
> of course was tantamount to saying "you must act this way, you have no
> choice". It might be in keeping with the letter of the rules, but in
> the situation (a moment of high tension) it certainly felt counter to
> the spirit - like I'd just removed all player control of their
> character! We decided on that occasion the player could turn down the
> Compel without having the Fate point, as otherwise it felt a bit too
> "meh".
>
> What do you guys generally do in this instance? I can appreciate in
> many cases it's a question of the players not "getting" what's going
> on with Compels, but all the same this situation felt pretty stark...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sarah
>
> --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups .com <mailto:FateRPG%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael McLawhorn <mhoram@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Faters,
> >
> > I've been struggling with understanding the intersection of compels and
> > voluntary roleplaying.
> > Suppose that a character has a manuever used against him, say might
> to knock
> > a bookcase
> > onto him making him PINNED.
> >
> > Now, it seems to me if the character's player wants to act normally I
> > should compel for a FP.
> > However if they decide to act pinned and do only actions appropriate to
> > being pinned (rolling
> > athletics or might to get free for example) should they still
> receive the
> > payment for the compel from being
> > pinned?
> >
> > What about 'Cornered' or 'On Fire'? Should a player ask to be paid
> off for
> > accepting the compel unprompted?
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Going through one by one. As always, your mileage may vary.
> If character A manuevers to put Pinned (or perhaps 'Cornered') on
> character B, I know that A can free tag that for a +2, can he
> alternatively free-tag it for a compel?  (Giving B a FP in exchange
> for accepting the compel, or letting B buy out of the aspect with a
> FP?  Or does the aspect remain)

    My answer: Generally, in my games compelling aspects is something the
GM does. That doesn't mean that someone can't suggest a compel to the
GM, either for his own or somebody else's aspects, whether personal,
imposed by a maneuver (either fragile or sticky) or scene-based.
>
> If A fails to free tag the aspect and player B tries to act in spite
> of the aspect, should the GM autocompel?  (If yes, then it doesn't
> make much sense for A to free tag and waste his +2)
     My answer: I'm not sure what you mean by autocompel. But certainly,
if an aspect, especially a sticky one, has been placed on someone, then
the GM should treat it like any other aspect. If the situation seems
like a reasonable or fun time to compel an aspect, go for it.
>
> One person suggested that only with Spin can a maneuver put an
> enduring aspect on someone.  Is that true?  Also, the same poster
> suggested that the target of a maneuver gets a defensive roll...is
> that right?  I thought you only got defensive rolls against attacks.
     My answer: Both SOTC (starting at pg.72) and Starblazer (starting at
pg.233) talk about maneuvers and putting aspects on others. Usually to
put a sticky (enduring) aspect on somebody, you need a point of spin,
but its specifically noted as up to the GM. The examples in both books
do a pretty good job of illustrating how to handle some common
manuevers. In general, if you are putting an aspect on someone
specifically, its treated like an attack, and is handled by an opposed
roll. If you are just trying to slow somebody down, its treated like a
block, using a simple roll, and does not place an aspect on the person.
>
> Now suppose B's player voluntarily accepts the consequences of the
> aspect put on him without complaint or gamemaster poking.  Should he
> be given the FP for being compelled by the manuever anyway?  Or does
> he need to grouse and/or provoke the compel to get the FP?  Is
> sacrificing a single action (Say to get out of Aspect 'Entangled')
> good enough to earn a compel FP, or does it need to be a more
> extensive inconvenience?
     My answer: There are no 'default' consequences of having an aspect
placed on you. If Player B wants an aspect of any sort to have an effect
on an action he is taking, then he is requesting a compel from the GM,
which is fully within his rights. It's up to the GM to decide to offer
the compel, and if he does, then it follows the normal method of
offering the player a FP for accepting and playing within the compel.
Using a manuever to get rid of an imposed aspect, whether sticky or
fragile, very much depends on the situation, but doesn't in and of
itself require the use of FP, or require a compel from the GM.
>
>
> When should the GM trigger compels vs. players or gm characters having
> to spend FP to tag for effect?
     My answer(s): This is two different questions, I think. Generally, a
GM should offer compels to players any time an aspect can reasonably
effect a situation, but he or she isn't required to do so. (For which,
with my terrible memory, I am quite grateful.) GM characters don't
usually get points for compels, at least in my games, but they do get
points if someone spends FP to tag one of their aspects.

Take care,

Dan

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:24 AM, gnosistika <gnosistika@...> wrote:
> Here is an idea: How will it affect the the game if you create Stunts for
skills, as specialisations? For instance Riding skill will have a Specialisation
called Mounted Combat...

You might look at http://evilhat.wikidot.com/stuntless-rules for some
examples of the bones under the stunt system.  A +1 in a large bonus.
Spending a Fate Point gets you a +1, +2 with an Aspect tag.  So a
specialization like "sword combat" for even a +1 could replace a lot
of FP expenditure.  That in turn would relieve pressure to have
Aspects compelled.  I would avoid this---but a Stunt called "Mounted
Combat" that let the character use Ride in place of Weapons sounds
great!

Houses of the Blooded has some very clear examples of Aspect phrased
to grant great power to characters and to provide a stream of Fate
Point income from compulsion.

-Brian

--
Brian Sniffen
http://evenmere.org/~bts/
<bts@...>

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Brian Sniffen <bts@...> wrote:
> I would avoid this---but a Stunt called "Mounted
> Combat" that let the character use Ride in place of Weapons sounds
> great!

I agree; this pattern (use Skill X in place of Skill Y) is a great
template to follow for Stunts.

--
Brad Murray (halfjack)

Moderation is a memory

The example on how to handled "Blinded" as a temporary aspect granted by a
maneuver gives some pretty good guidance on this, I think.  It explicitly talks
about compelling it.



Cheers,
Roger

So what do you mean by "designing" aspects? There isn't really a
predefined list.

David Dunham
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein