Discussion  - 
Tell me about Compelling. It's teeth are in the story, correct? There isn't actually a mechanical aspect to it? (There doesn't have to be, just checking.)
Brian Engard's profile photoFred Hicks's profile photoKenji Ikiryo's profile photoMick Bradley's profile photo
There is a mechanical aspect to it.  Look on page 75 to find out all about it.  Basically, you choose an applicable aspect, explain why it's relevant, and offer a complication.  The player then has two choices.  A) accept the complication and get a fate point, or B) pay a fate point to resist the compel.  It's one of the cornerstones of the fate point economy, and knowing when and how to compel is the skill that helps to move the game and story along.  There's not a dice mechanic, if that's what you mean.  But fate points are an integral mechanic in fate, so this helps to tailor your players' available fate to do other things.
I get how the compel works. I think my question would have been better to ask 'is there a mechanical part to the consequence ' Which again, there dosen't have to be. 
Gary F
No a consequence is completely narrative. I try not to make it something easily resolved with a fate point or a situation that requires multiple fate points to succeed. Like I don't compel a never backs down aspect to force someone to pick a fight in a biker bar. 
While I agree with you Gary (and was preparing to write just this response), there are times when it gets fuzzy, i.e. a compel against an aspect that would put the PC at a disadvantage when doing something mechanically.  I think in those cases, there might be a mechanical aspect to it. 
By "consequence" do you mean "fictional consequence"? Like, you compel my "Groovy Polyester Wardrobe" and offer me a Fate Point, and you say, "I think the Nylon Mafia would like to have a word with you..." I accept the Fate Point, and then we create fiction about my big lapels and the Nylon Don.

If that's what you mean, then yeah, it's a fictional consequence, not a mechanical one. You don't mark stress or get a temporary Aspect put on you or anything. You just have to worry about who's going to garrote you with some pantyhose.
I'm experimenting with things, obviously. Do you think it would offend you, as a Fate player, if I played with a TYPE of compel that does have more defined consequence  I have something neat in mind, but I don't want to slaughter a sacred cow. 
Given the game's system is about "narrative control/influence" isn't compeling causing a fictional consequence a mechanical one in itself?
I think it's mostly a matter of fictional consequences that force characters into making risky/poor decisions. Those decisions will likely escalate conflict or put the characters in situations where they might face mechanical consequences.
Gary F
Kenji but in that case the mechanics are already there, the compel just sets the stage for them to be used. Like if my diplomat is a mean drunk he may make some enemies at a cocktail party and that could have a mechanical effect, but it doesn't give enemies a free invoke or a bonus in a conflict that wasn't already there. Frequently an invoke isn't anything the player might not choose to do on his own.
Tobie, sure. Of course. I'm not trying to discount story as a wonderful (or terrible) reward at all. 
I like my burgers with extra holy flavor. I mean, I'd have to see it in practice to say for sure. The main thing that leaps to mind is that compels require a player to decide that the offered complication is worth a Fate Point. If you're instead saying something like "Lose 10 hit points, get a bennie" I think that's a harder sell.
Gary, to give a more concrete example, if a PC is in a fight and gets a consequence of bruised calf, and then after taking out his opposition has to escape a flaming building and needs to jump a beam, you could compel the injury to ramp up the tension by making what might normally be an easy obstacle into something that they might worry about.  But that's only if you can make a mechanical consequence out of the compel.
Is is mostly a narrative thing. So if a character was trying to pick a lock into a warehouse using burglary, the compel could be that someone saw them trying to do it and called the cops. Now there are cops on the scene looking for someone breaking into the building. Instant complication.
Sure sure. This is a PVP type mechanic, because face-to-face social conflict is important to emulate the genre I'm going for. (Telanovela, anyone?) So the short version is that I offer you a Fate point and call out an Aspect of yours and a Skill. You describe a moody flash back to when your Aspect screwed you, or how you got that way, whatever. Now you either take my Fate point and now can't use the Skill against me. Or you don't take the point and you get hit with a little penalty. Either way. I lose the Fate Point. 
(Stacey, this is totally from the conversation we had.)
One if the things I like the most about Fate is the total lack of sacred cows in the system. The system is a toolkit, and everything is there to be tweaked for your game,

Which brings me to another of my favorite things about Fate, which is how incredibly robust the game is. It's really hard (impossible? You decide!) to break, no matter how far you turn the dials. IME, of course.

So for me, no, I would not be offended as a Fate player if there were types of Compels that had more mechanical effects. Especially if I could use those same Compels against the bad guys! :-) 
Gary F
I think that messes with things in an interesting way. So I like it.
I guess it could work. It feels like it will be a very austere Fate Point economy, because no matter whether you choose to take the FP or not, you're accepting a penalty.

The other thing to consider is that FATE's skills are pretty flexible, being really a bundle of related actions. So, tapping out on a skillset is tricky on a lot of levels.

1. Yeah, I can't punch you now with my Great Fists, but I can still shoot you with my Good Guns.
2. Does it cost more to neutralize a Superb skill than an Average one?
3. If I'm playing aggressively, I want to neutralize your higher skills. If that's so, the compelled player has to decide: do I use a weaker skill but with a boost, or do I use my higher skill with a penalty. The math on that needs to be provocative, or else these choices may feel toothless.

These are not reasons to stop, mind. But they're things that jump out at me.
it all comes down to flavor and what you want the compels to do and how you want them to work mechanically. The old was requires you to actually pay the compel off if you do not want to accept it. I love the flashback thing cuz it adds so much drama into the type of scenario you want to run. So you could make the flashback and automatic consequence on the person, which you could then use for free next round.
Reading this, taking it into account, yes. I actually cut it down to seven skills. And this is all built into my Face-Off social conflict thing, so out side of it it seems weird. 
FWIW, +Filamena, I can't see anything wrong with the idea you're describing, especially in the sense of genre-emulation. In fact, to emulate the kind of soapy social conflict you're going for, what you describe seems the most elegant solution. Awesome!
Gary F
Also, just FYI, I'm hoping to see the hackiest hacks that ever hacked a hack. I want to see how far the system can be pushed in all sorts of directions. I love what I'm hearing so far. Because while I'm interested in playing all of these settings as written, I'm even more interested in mining them for ideas.
+Filamena Young If you want to talk to someone in more specific terms about Fate rules stuff, I'm usually available on Gchat. For what it's worth, your idea has legs and is similar to something I've been thinking about. 
Compels are not a sacred cow. Fuck with them as you see fit.

I do think a little care needs to be taken with any mechanical consequence because hard mechanics often have some unexpected emergent features, but that just means you should playtest your idea a little.

In an environment with, say, 9 or fewer skills, I'm expecting those skills to have a certain amount of overlap, which is a tick in favor of your idea working fine: my acid test here is whether shutting down a particular skill would leave a character without any options for how to address a particular problem. 
Thanks Brian! 

Fred, thanks for dropping by! I found (after talking to Rob a bit about potential skills) what I had to do was flip what skills did to emulate the genre well. So rather than having skills tell you what the character is doing, you end up coloring how the character does it. So you throw a punch with Dangerous, that changes the story and the story goodness differently than if you throw a punch with Power. I'm thinking because I'm softening the system around skills, I can harden systems a bit elsewhere. If that makes any sense. 
"How skills" as opposed to "What skills" are the basis of a potential future thing that may show up on the Kickstarter if the current stretch goals get cleared -- so you're certainly treading what I'd call safe and smart territory there. :)

Totally makes sense.
Hints! They're what's for dinner! Except it's the kind of dinner that makes people hungrier! Like subtraction soup!
Score! you and your fans are such a big supportive base. I joked on twitter about getting a Fate Core tattoo. Not sure how joking I am anymore. :D
It will be totally weird to me if you put a logo I designed on your skin. Weird and kind of fucking awesome, mind you. :)
I've been thinking for a while about getting a Fudge die tattooed on my arm (the one that doesn't already have a d20 on it).
Seriously, tho, yeah: the Fate community is why Fate is as strong as it is. Sure, system, it's good, etc, but man... the fans.
+Fred Hicks Totally agreed, but don't sell yourself short- you pop up like this and support the fans at every turn.  It's a big circle of gaming goodness. :)
I didn't say the community wasn't partly a result of some specific positioning and participation efforts on my part! ;) But I can't take too much credit.
I now know what tattoo I'm getting for my mid-life crisis ink!
+Fred Hicks While you're around- are Invokes GM facing moves?  Or character facing (using character to mean NPC and PC) only?
I need an explicit example in order to parse the question. 
Corporal Jenkins came upon an enemy soldier while looting an estate. A fight ensues, and during the fight the enemy gives him a rather bad slash to his calf (moderate consequence). Jenkins finishes the enemy with a riposte to the chest, but as he looks around notes that the knocked over a sconce, starting a blaze around them. He tries to escape the inferno, but a blazing beam blocks his way.  The GM thinks this would be a good time to add dramatic tension by taking advantage of his wound to make an easy jump harder.  Can the GM invoke the aspect?  Or would that be a compel?
That's a compel the way I read it, and wouldn't be "to make the jump harder", it'd be "to suggest that the injury is making it such that he needs to take a different path."

Now, if the burning beam was modeled as a character, so to speak, such that it's rolling a skill or what-have-you against the character trying to cross it, maybe I could see an invoke working (assuming you looked at the beam as having some kind of fate point or free invoke) to improve the results of that opposing skill roll. 
Ah!  The use of a fractal as the beam.  Ok, I get it, and you answered another question in that answer also.  Thanks for the clarification!
+Brian Engard  - probably either on my upper arm or the underside of my forearm. Or, if I get drunk first, on my chest.
Add a comment...