[Diaspora] Some (FATE) rules questions

[Brad Murray]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:26 PM, EDG <edg at sfrpg.org.uk> wrote:

> So, Diaspora is the first time I've really run into FATE in any of its
> forms (as well as more narrativist gaming), and I'm getting a little stuck
> on some concepts. :)
>

First, regarding compels, this set of posts by Leonard Balsera (SotC author)
is the bees knees.

<http://lcdarkwood.livejournal.com/>


>
> I asked this on the SFRPG board but I'll ask it here too - I'm up to page
> 102 of the book and I'm still not really getting how Compels and the fate
> point economy work. I think I get how a player tagging his own aspect works
> - e.g. if someone was trying to fix a vehicle's engine during a firefight,
> and had the aspect "Works better under pressure" then he could tag that -
> spending a fate point to do so - when attempting his Repair roll and get a
> +2, right? (related question: What happens if he still fails the roll? Does
> that fate point he spent still get used?)
>

Tags and invokes happen after the dice hit the table, so presumably he
wouldn't spend the fate point unless it was going to get him what he wanted.


>
> I get impression that Compels are a way for the GM to use a PC's aspects
> against them, in order to make life more "interesting" for them (and in
> order to give them an opportunity to gain a fate point). But presumably not
> every aspect can be Compelled right? It seems obvious that something that is
> disadvantageous could be (e.g. "tells the truth all the time"), but I can't
> really see a way to compel something like the aforementioned "works better
> under pressure". Or am I just having an imagination failure there? ;)
>

Imagine players planning elaborately to make sure that everything goes
exactly right. The GM turns to the hypothetical player above and offers a
fate point, "This planning is a drag -- you work better under pressure". An
offer of a fate point if the player will skip or ignore the planning and
indulge his belief that it's all better under the pressure of unexpected
action.


>
> I've already got one answer for the next question, but I'd like to hear
> more views - should a GM be doing his darnedest to compel the PCs' aspects
> whenever he can, while the PCs similarly are doing their darnedest to try to
> tag their own aspects whenever they can? And I guess the GM isn't really
> actively trying to screw over the PCs in an antagonistic way, right?
> Basically how should the 'pacing' work when it comes to tagging/compelling
> aspects in the game? What should motivate the timing of when PCs' aspects
> are compelled by the GM?
>

I don't work real hard at compelling character Aspects. That's because my
players usually speak up and offer compels ("I think I'd probably 'shoot
first and ask questions later' if you gave me a fate point") and because
they usually aren't in need of more fate points. But if you can work lots of
compels in naturally without your players feeling antagonized, that's
awesome. You need to be making compel offers that are fun and attractive to
get away with that -- ones that don't feel like penalties.

You also might want to have a look at my blog entry on the topic --
especially the comments, which offer some really smart counterpoint.

<http://www.vsca.ca/halfjack/?p=479>

-- 
Brad Murray (halfjack)
VSCA Publishing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://box547.bluehost.com/pipermail/diaspora_phreeow.net/attachments/20100329/43339aed/attachment.html>