Forgive me, as I only have 3 Fate3 actual play sessions under my belt.

Is paying to deny a compel necessary to the Fate point economy?
The complaints I’ve heard is that GMs could use compels to simply drain Fate points.

It seems compels have both a carrot and a stick. Wouldn’t just a carrot suffice?
On might argue the negative aspects may not then get much play, but with your “players can self-compel and compel other players” rules, I think they’d still get a workout.

-Dave

Yes exactly — that’s basically what I’m recommending here. I don’t see a really good reason to make the player pay to deny a compel, though I have not thought about it as deeply as some, so there may be a counter-argument coming.

I dropped making people pay to get out of compels early on, like a think the first session. Never looked back. If I escalate and they don’t want it I’ll just let them have an appropriate Aspect (inappropriately dressed) and let the FATE points fly tagging it.

Oh I’m embarassed! I completely missed your last two paragraphs.
That’ll teach me to read your excellent blog when I’m really busy at work! :)

Scott, that’s a cool solution — make the compel into an Aspect if you really want it as the GM. Thanks!

I find it works elegantly and plays into the regular gaming psychology. I hold up a FATE chip and then I’ll write down the Aspect on a card. One of them ends up on the table unless someone shows me I’m being too harsh.

As an added benefit the players know that if the Aspect gets tagged (after the first freebie one) they get paid.

I think buying off the compel gives weight to the transaction. If the player can simply ignore the compel with no cost, then there seems less incentive for the GM to offer them… which might lead to the GM simply making bad stuff happen with no compensation, al la your typical old RPG, and then the Fate Point economy stagnates.

Lenny Balsera’s recent blog posts about compels are really important, IMO. He emphasizes that Compels are complications, not forced courses of action. Ergo, I wonder that if players feel “railroaded,” then the GM is doing it wrong.

I’d really like to see the Evil Hat crew do a comprehensive rewrite of the whole body of rules surrounding Aspects. If we don’t see it in Dresden, then hopefully we will in thing FATEv3 “core” book.

Buzz, my experience is that the offer of payment is often enough to get a player to grab at the complication, but requires far less finesse in picking the compel. Consequently it seems to get at the same effect without having as many modes of failure.

The benefit of having players pay to get out of compels is this: It gives the player the choice of “complications now” vs. “complications later.” By giving up Fate points now, I’m setting myself up for being in a pinch at the climax of the session.

So, by having the choice of accepting or denying compels, I’m shaping the pacing of the session. I can have the “Die Hard” pacing where I get the crap kicked out of me, but come back and totally rock while winning the day. I could also have a caper-film style pacing, where everything goes smooth for a while, and then goes straight to hell at exactly the wrong moment. Also, there’s the Indiana Jones pacing where things go my way, then they don’t, then they do…

Choosing to buy off or accept compels is what gives me a measure of control over which pace my story plays at.

Does it really work that way, though, Lon? And often enough to outweigh the degree to which the compel generates pain at some tables? Maybe an actual play example would be compelling — I already have plenty for both compel failure and for pay-only compel success. I don’t really have any for pay-only compel success (that is, where payment to deny specifically turns out to be fun where unpaid denial would not).

However, if fate points move faster per session than they do at my table, this would probably make all the difference.

I’d let someone buy out if they’d like its just I don’t know anyone who likes that. They other two options pay (with escalation as needed) and taggable Aspects work much better for us.

If you view compels through the lens of TSOY secrets and you leave it in the responsibility of the players to earn their FATE points, you don’t necessarily have solved the problem. The whole compel mechanism smells a bit of a “paedagogical rule” that forces you to play your character like it’s written down or else you lose efficiency.

What I want to say is probably: “Moving compels out of the GM realm into the player realm may not be enough to appease all nay-sayers.” Further mitigation could be offered by allowing an easy or compelling (hah!) way to change Aspects – either in the form of key-like buy-offs or by allowing (some) changes between sessions.

Buzz, you’re right that I’m probably not using their language for Compels. I use them as accepted complications like Lenny discussed but there’s also the obvious pending complication that I’m about to screw you over with that your character maybe wouldn’t do based on what you’ve told me so far. I let you know its coming and when you plow right in there is an Aspect sitting there for people to hit. I don’t see this a railroading I see it as not blindsiding my players. The armor dinner party example above is what I’m talking about.

Harald,
I allow one Aspect to be changed per session (with good reason). Usually player don’t do that though. I have an optional rule where you may ‘break’ and Aspect in the session. It’s like a key buy off where you immediately change the Aspect and get 3 FATE points (like for a fully escalated compel). This is like a mini-concession and should have a tangible feeling of loss. Anyone may veto. The broken Aspects end up in my note book for plot hooks.

I guess I see buying off compels as the same sort of resource-management that players do in other RPGs in order to overcome obstacles. Under FATE, a good many of those obstacles turn into compels. Players burn FP just like they would HP.

Anyway, assuming you ditch the buy-off, how is the game impacted by the increased amount of Fate Points the player will have access to?

Buzz, I think we may have already unconsciously addressed the fate point balance in Diaspora by cutting the refresh to five. The rules in Diaspora generally reflect our experiences in play (at our table) and certainly the low refresh is part of that — we don’t use a lot of compels, partly because as-written they aren’t all that fun for us. So I don’t think it’s likely to change the total too much — I’d usually make one compel outside of tactical play per player max.

In tactical play, as noted in the post proper, buy-off doesn’t seem to be a problem at all so I’d keep it there. Thinking about it more, maybe I wouldn’t write it away with a rule but rather just acknowledge that if you don’t like it, dumping it doesn’t seem to be all that problematic.

Most of the Compel problems I’ve seen come from the same source as lots of FATE problems: players with too many Fate Points.

Making them free to resist nerfs pretty hard, in my opinion, Consequences. What, I’ve got a Broken Arm? Nah, doesn’t bother me a bit.

Also, players need to think a bit about what Aspects they’re taking. If they didn’t want “Addicted to Heroin” to be a problem for their character, they don’t really have anyone to blame but themselves.

Is it possible that the problem we’re describing is something *engendered* by Diaspora’s mini-games, as opposed to *saved* by them? I must admit that as someone who came to FATE via “Spirit of the Century”, I was shocked that the most frequent discussion of compels in Diaspora is the “compel to inaction” rather than the “compel to exciting complication”. In essence, what I see is an artificial economy created by the mini-game paranoia of not being able to act if you don’t save up some Fate Points, which isn’t something I experienced much in reading or playing SoTC. There was never a real fear that if one ran out of Fate Points one was going to be blasted into inactivity for a few turns, which in the mini-games can be critical, as you’re always “on the clock.” The “compel to complications” usually meant MORE adventure and more actions to take, not less. There’s something about sitting on the sidelines while the bad-guys whallop you for a bit as you’re compelled to inactivity that I find far more disenfranchising than being compelled to be in a spot of trouble because you might not have your armor handy, so you have to get creative.

Perhaps the issue is around just what we expect Compels to do in a game? I’ve always assumed they were to add color and complications, but I haven’t used them so directly to attack a character’s ability to act at all. Compelling “out of ammo” so that someone can’t use their Guns skill and has to instead rely on their weaker Fists skill, or go for a clever maneuver, is pretty different than compelling “out of ammo” so that they take absolutely no action of any kind. If Fate points are essential to shrug off a kind of compel-created paralysis, wherein you can’t even take sub-optimal actions but are left inert for a round, I can understand why players are less than eager to even entertain a compel in a dramatic scene–buying it off puts them one step closer to a dangerous paralysis in a mini-game. No wonder there’s some hoarding, and some sighing when compels come up; they’re worried it’s being used to drain their effectiveness, and so it’s like taking another form of stress, in this case more whimsically applied whenever the GM feels like it.

Let’s try this from a slightly different angle.

There are good compels. These are compels that lead to exciting interesting places and don’t feel like punishment or failure. Now why would anyone not take one of these? And would anyone balk at just being told it’s the case and ignoring the compel mechanism?

There are bad compels. These are compels that are de-protagnozing or boring or otherwise make the player feel bad rather than good. Why would anyone do anything other than buy this off, and if that’s the case, is it fun to have no fate points and HAVE to eat this bad compel?

Given that even the best GM has a bad day, no matter how many good compels there are, there will be a few bad ones.

So what is the advantage in paying to deny the bad ones? And why would anyone pay to deny a good one?

“So what is the advantage in paying to deny the bad ones? And why would anyone pay to deny a good one?”

In the latter case, because, good as it may be, they have something they want to accomplish that encourages them to buy it off anyway.

Regardless, why let people’s good days and bad days boot the mechanic? It’s not the mechanic’s fault. :)

I think FATE products as a whole just need better guidance on how to Compel. Most of what Lenny posted recently was totally news to me.

I don’t think the problem is compels, I think the problem is -aspects-. In my experience, newer players to FATE fail to grasp the Janus-like duality of aspects. This is where I am at my most ruthless, pushing my players to give me examples of what their aspects mean to them, the ways in which they can be invoked and compelled. Ideally, I ask for a minimum of three instances for both sides of the fate point. This gets the player and I on the same wavelength, which mitigates resentment due to my hitting that player with a compel down the road. Too often players only work out the beneficial side of the equation, and eschew the disadvantageous. Work with your players to define their aspects in both their positive and negative lights, and the problems will vanish. Here’s an example from a character my niece created for an SOTC game. The player established that the character’s father was a doctor and noted ethnographer who aided in the creation of the Carrier Corps for British East Africa during the Great War.

MY FATHER’S DAUGHTER
INVOKE TO: assess or declare aspects of indigenous peoples; diagnose and treat illness or injury; organize and direct a large number of people toward a specific goal.
COMPEL TO: render humanitarian aid despite time pressures; shoulder a difficult burden out of duty to God, country and humankind; have trouble befall the eminent Doctor Thorne.

Nice. Very “Houses of the Blooded”, Trout. :)

This is a good analysis. I think, though, that from a system design perspective, it comes down to whether or not you *need* compels to have teeth. I think they’re toothless, or at least half-toothed, if there’s no price for denying them (even if people never exercise the denial option). And in the Dresden Files RPG, where constricting your fate point supply is a needed and vital part of the powers and stunts design, compels absolutely have to have a cost to deny — because those without fate points (a lot of the bad guys in the setting fit this bill) *do* have to accept them.

I think Lenny has commented elsewhere and extensively about how a “forced acceptance” of a compel is not a railroad, so I’m not going to get into that here. I think what people miss — a lot — is that the player still has a lot of authorship as to what happens when a compel lands on them and it’s accepted (necessarily or optionally). It’s not a “you do this one specific thing”. It’s “your actions must take this aspect into account.” That’s a constraint, but it’s not a limitation to a single choice. Limitation to a single choice is what makes railroading for me.

Good thoughts, Fred, thanks for chiming in! I think that the bottom line, though, is that for a lot of people paying to deny stings, even though it is perfectly logical and has a mechanical function that’s valuable. So the question is (and it’s per-table and per-game; no right answers), is the mechanical function worth the sting?

In Diaspora, at my table, the answer’s probably no. But that’s not a “right” answer. Just an answer. I guess what I want to do is grant permission: it’s perfectly okay to ignore the pay-to-deny rule if players don’t like it. It’s not essential to a good time.

Thinking over this some more my terminology was wrong. Fred’s comments and going back to Lenny’s recent discussions helped clarify this for me. The second issue I’m mentioning is just the available Tag to an Aspect that is relevant to the scene, not a Compel. I knew I wasn’t following the terminology correctly but it took me a bit to straighten it out. Sorry for the confusion.

Buzz wrote: “I’d really like to see the Evil Hat crew do a comprehensive rewrite of the whole body of rules surrounding Aspects. If we don’t see it in Dresden, then hopefully we will in thing FATEv3 “core” book.”

You’ll see it in Dresden. Does it go far enough? Won’t know until it’s out there.

Brad,

Yeah, I dig it. You’d probably break a DF game by doing that, but I can see how Diaspora might survive it just fine. I *do* think that the “compel to inaction” fits your definition of a “bad compel”, though. I don’t buy that (paraphrased) “everyone accepts that you have to skip a turn in a board game” argument — I tend to regard skipped turns as bad board game design too.

I think when it comes down to it, my perspective is that compels shouldn’t cancel actions; they should focus them.

Sorry about the rapid-fire commenting. I just realized a final paragraph for the above:

In light of that, I’d suggest that the correct tactical play compel is not “I make you lose an action”; it’s “I reduce your list of options.” So I could see a compel taking away the ability to move, or to block, or to attack, or to maneuver in a highly tactical set-up, where you’re using Fate as your engine for something boardgame/wargame-like; and I’d regard that as more like the good compels, because they don’t eliminate the ability to do anything, they limit the choices of what to do … which could force someone to change up their tactics. That’s a more interesting story, there, than “and then they were paralyzed”. But rooted to the spot, fighting for their lives? Forced to abandon the attack and try for a tactical retreat? That’s got me.

So Fred,
What do you do with the social situation Brad mentioned? It’s not related to a character Aspect. I ‘think’ mechanically the resolution is a scene Aspect, something like “No Suit, No Tie, No Service” that you’d tag against the playing character. Is that right?

Yeah Fred I think we are aligning — a combat compel that says “you can’t move” but leaves open shooting or maneuvering might be more satisfying to a lot of people. It changes the pace a little but it won’t break anything. And it will be more fun for a lot of people.

Buzz, that character predates HOTB by over a year. The recommendation that players provide sample invokes and compels for their aspects I believe I got off the FATE mailing list… if it’s not actually somewhere in the SOTC rules themselves. I haven’t read them again lately to see if it is.

Just commenting, not accusing, Trout. :)

“There are good compels. These are compels that lead to exciting interesting places and don’t feel like punishment or failure. Now why would anyone not take one of these? And would anyone balk at just being told it’s the case and ignoring the compel mechanism?

There are bad compels. These are compels that are de-protagnozing or boring or otherwise make the player feel bad rather than good. Why would anyone do anything other than buy this off, and if that’s the case, is it fun to have no fate points and HAVE to eat this bad compel?”

This is a false dichotomy — you’re proposing that a compel must either be a softball that doesn’t really affect the character, or an un-fun asshole move that absolutely screw the character, and not in a good way. That’s just bad GMing, and, as others have said, that’s a problem with the GM, not the system.

A good compel should be something along the lines of “Boy, I bet it must be tough to listen to this guy go off when you’re a Proud Barbarian of the Steppes, huh?” instead of “You’re a Proud Barbarian of the Steppes, so you punch the guy in the mouth.” The first leaves it up to the player how that aspect will affect things, while the second is dictatorial. And nobody should be paying a Fate Point to be told what to do by the GM.

When I explain aspects to new players, I describe them as what comes naturally to the character. Sometimes what comes naturally can help you, and that’s when you pay a Fate Point to invoke your aspect. “I must’ve done better than that — I’m a Proud Barbarian of the Steppes!” Sometimes what comes naturally is a hindrance to you, and that’s when you can make a choice. You go can go along with your nature and be disadvantaged somehow in exchange for a Fate Point, or you can pay a Fate Point to go *against* your nature, to pretend like that isn’t actually an established part of your character. If the latter, it’s the point in the story where the reader or viewer might go, “Huh, that’s an odd thing for him to do, considering he’s a Proud Barbarian of the Steppes.”

If Fate Points are your narrative currency, then it should cost you to act contrary to your own personal narrative. You chose to take that aspect knowing full well that sometimes it’d work in your favor, and sometimes against. If embracing it isn’t free, then denying it shouldn’t be, either.

Nope, Mike, that’s not what I’m proposing (softballs vs. assholes), but I can see how you might read it that way. But thanks for your insights!

Let me try it again, then:

“There are bad compels. These are compels that are de-protagnozing or boring or otherwise make the player feel bad rather than good. Why would anyone do anything other than buy this off, and if that’s the case, is it fun to have no fate points and HAVE to eat this bad compel?”

Bad compels are pilot error, not a mechanical failure. Being able to refuse compels for free compensates for a bad GM call, but that’s just facilitating — worse, *accepting* — more bad GMing.

Buzz, your tone wasn’t accusatory. Was just adding clarification. Really must find that SOTC reference, though. Darn sure it’s in the book. It may not recommend specifically the course of action I chose, but I know it strongly suggest player and GM be on the same page where aspects are concerned. Rather than asking my players after the fact, I just hard-code it into the process of creating a character’s aspects. :)

“Does it really work that way, though, Lon? And often enough to outweigh the degree to which the compel generates pain at some tables? Maybe an actual play example would be compelling — I already have plenty for both compel failure and for pay-only compel success. I don’t really have any for pay-only compel success (that is, where payment to deny specifically turns out to be fun where unpaid denial would not).”

A couple of examples that might help.

The first one is form an actual SOTC game, and it illustrates the tactical back-and-forth that’s possible with the compel action (and especially raises, which IIRC are absent from Diaspora). I had a player who clearly had the Aspect [Greedy for FATE points] – he spent them like water to fuel his Mysteries Stunts, and so he quickly developed a habit of paying to deny when I tried to compel, expecting me to raise, in order to get more FATE points out of it. I let him do it a couple of times, paid the raises, then put a light little Compel on him during an important scene – and as expected, he put up a chip to deny, and I raised. He denied again, grinning and expecting me to raise a final time to let him get three FATE points…and I grinned back, reached out and took the chips he had offered for the deny. The look on his face was worth it. I’m usually not antagonistic – but it was all in good fun and we both were able to take it that way. The brinksmanship can be a lot of fun for some folks.

Now that’s a pure game-rules example that doesn’t say anything about the story, because thats the level he was playing with FATE points at – the tactical playing-piece level. If you really engage with the characters, though, then compels (and denies) are a really powerful way of making a statement about your character. Or more properly, its Aspects that make a statement about your character, but compels and denies are how you refine (or refute!) that statement.

So you’ve got a character who is a bit of a [Coward]. Every time you offer that compel you are allowing him to define his character – he’s reinforcing that Aspect and getting rewarded for it: ‘Yep, he sure is a coward!” But characters that never change, never grow are boring. So you’re also offering him a choice every time you pull out that compel: he gets the choice to say “No, this (whatever is going on) is something that’s more important to this character than his cowardice”. And as a GM, if you’re playing at that level, then you need to sit up and take notice, because if you’re playing that way then this is the moment in the movie or the TV show where the character overcomes his baser nature and does something unexpected, and it’s an important character moment. When he changes that Aspect, that moment should be part of the basis of it, or be reflected in the change.

…I think I almost talked myself into making denies more expensive.

Now, if you’re playing a different kind of story, I can also see the value in free denies. To pull a Dresden Files example in, if I were Harry’s GM I would just set out a token and let the player know “Hey. Annnnny time you want it, you can just reach out and take that fate point. It’s yours. All you need to do is be [Tempted by Lasciel].” And maybe partway through the session, when things were getting rough for Harry, I’d put another token on. Just to remind everyone it was there. And at the end, when he’s low on fate points and up against a big bad, well, I just might quietly put a third token out there and we’d all know what it meant. And that would be awesome too. It’d probably work well for any kind of “temptation” scenario, like the Dark Side of the Force.

I’m still working out in my head the exact difference between these two scenarios, and I have rambled on enough for a comment so I will step aside and see what everyone else has to say.

How about giving the player a choice of buying off the compel by either spending a FATE point OR taking a (temporary) free-taggable aspect? Then the table can decide how they want to play.

@drnuncheon:

That [Temoted by Lasciel] example is just plain awesome. The slowly upping the temptation as things got scary or desperate is prime example of how compelling [heh] you can make the FATE system. I’m so anxious to break my players into the system, showing them how they can be active participants in the games instead of just characters in the GM storyline.