This is mostly relaated to Icons, but I guess it appleis to Fate based game in general.

I'm finding the whole area of Compels problematic. I think I get it in principle and I do like the notion of Aspect having a negative side, I just find it hard to see how to be implement them in a way that is consistent, fun and doesn't involve every time a lot of negotiation.

The thing is, even though positive Aspects (Qualites) are freeform in nature, their usage is mechanically very tight. The usage of negative Aspects (Challenges) is all down to judgment, negotiation, GM fiat and above all remembering the damn things in the first place.
 
I did some more reading on Aspects and Compels. I found a good discussion between about them by the very authors of both SotC and Dresden Files here

http://lcdarkwood.livejournal.com/3824.html
http://lcdarkwood.livejournal.com/3858.html
 
It's rather long, but the gist of it is that it's all about consequences. Compels really need to have teeth otherwise its just roleplaying your character as usual.

Interesting read. Not sure it helped.

If anyone has actual examples of Compels that worked well in play and sort of consequences that went with accepting the Compel I'd love to see them.

I've been back and forth on this whole aspect thing and it just seems to me something that would slow down the game and take it out of itself given the people i've played with. That's not a perkorative, it's a fact: aspects work for some people but for me i can see the game becoming more about the aspects than the actual characters.

It seems a lot of people have had trouble with compels and it went into different directions to make them work for a given game/group of players.

The negotiation is going to be a sticky point if players don't see complications as fun. It also shows that compelling in a fun way is a skill that takes honing. If a compel feels fun then it looks more like a carrot than a stick. But maybe at its core it's the same difference between a CoC player who wants his PC to read the Necronomicon and another who really wants his PC to finish the adventure unscathed? Some people see the fun in extra trouble at the table, some don't.

It seems that letting players deny compels for zero cost would evacuate a lot of negotiation time. But the corollary seems to be that the fate chip economy should be pushed toward scarcity. And/or conflicts should be real tough in order to make players crave for chips.

Another, limited version, of compels would be to use them as "loose a turn, take a chip" mechanic. That's how they show in Diaspora. Some say they lack teeth when used this way. I think it makes more sense for a consequence (say a wound) than for character defining aspects.

Some felt better by putting more words into them: exploring during chargen what are legit compels for each aspect. That's how they're used in Houses of the Blooded for instance.

Quote from: boulet;398070Some felt better by putting more words into them: exploring during chargen what are legit compels for each aspect. That's how they're used in Houses of the Blooded for instance.

That might be a better way of doing it, at least you get the negotiation over with outside the game itself.

Agreed, but down the sink goes the idea of short descriptions that spark spontaneous interpretation during the game. I believe that's what aspects were meant to be... which probably doesn't matter to you

I generally look at them as 'Bad things you are alright with working against you in play.." things like disadvantages in other games, only with more teeth you've chosen to allow.

Don't like a negative compel? Make sure not to put down a negative aspect that can be interpreted that way--discuss the intent with the GM, make sure you are clear on its effective use, for or against you.

In the course of any game the GM will bring tons of adversity to the game in the form of various obstacles, opponents and dilemmas; that's his job.

I just feel there is a messy dividing line between when it just regular adversity and when said adversity slides into Compel territory.

And the moment it becomes a Compel you have to frame the adversity differently. Instead of just saying "this is the situation , deal with it", you have to ensure that if they do accept the Compel and the Fate Point reward, there will serious consequences and same time they should have the option to decline the Compel, which means to say that there has to be away to diffuse the situation without serious consequences - that is the player is paying a Fate Point for after all.

So in a way what was a fluid, organic situation has to be boxed into something much formal - and that is a best case scenario in which there is no negotiation around what the Aspect in question really means and  how it should apply in current situation.

That for me is messy.

Contrast this with positive Aspects. Although totally free form in nature, when it actually comes to use them in play the mechanics are crystal clear and it doesn't usually break the flow of play or require a lot of judgement calls.

I guess that is really the difference. Positive Aspects are a tool for the players to use.

Negative Aspects are a tool (primarily) for the GM to use which just doesn't seem to fit in my GM toolkit.

They are not two sides of the same coin, they don't work even remotely in the same way.

Quote from: Soylent Green;398150Negative Aspects are a tool (primarily) for the GM to use which just doesn't seem to fit in my GM toolkit.

They are not two sides of the same coin, they don't work even remotely in the same way.

In essence like I said above, its a tool the player chooses to give to the GM, if they don't want the GM using it, then they shouldn't take that aspect. Part of the reason I like SOTC is it talks about aspects being both positive and negative.  The player should give a handle that goes both ways, it isn't always positive and it isn't always negative. Like "Loves Mary-Jane Watson-Parker" or "Deeply committed to Mutants as Part of the greater Community" can work both as positive aspects, and negative ones. Players should ideally see moments and trigger it themselves AGAINST themselves. Compels are to make it happen when the GM does step in to shift play.

I for example made a character who was a pulp version of Moon Knight (very vaguely) who served Mahes, the Egyptian God of Summer Heat. He was also knows as the Lord of the Knife, and the Lord of Massacre. I could take "Lord of the Knife" to indicate my PC was good with knives, as part of his being a servant of Mahes (in the Manner of Moon Knight,) on the other hand a Gm could compel me to go overboard with a knife when pressed into a corner. Making my PC slip and kill someone we needed information from, because of the Lord of the Knife aspect. (Lord of Massacre actually refers to his summer heat aspect, not his representation of always carrying a knife.)

If I'd taken "Servant of Mahes, God of Summer Heat" as a player I could tag it to feel comfortable on a terribly hot summer day, but the GM could compel me to suffer chill more deeply. Or make tracking easier.

Compels are usually used for social behaviors, but that's all they are, tagging an aspect the player has chosen.

Okay, how can I put this, bearing in mind I'm still trying to figure this out myself.

It's not the principle that I have a problem with , i.e., the player flags areas he wishes to be challenged on (although I my experience often what players say they want and really want is not always the same thing - but let's set that aside for now). I like that bit.

The part I'm not happy with is the implementation, the playing out of the Compel and it's consequences in game. Specifically its having to switch from framing and running a scene in mostly intuitive way to framing the scene in much more rigorous, mechanical way.

A Compel, as I understand it, has a fairly formal structure. It's not simply a matter of reminding a player he has a flaw and expect them to roleplay accordingly. Nor is it just a -2 penalty to a specific action.

Effectively a Compel takes the following form (and this is straight from the horse's mouth):

1. Something happens to compel aspect X.
2. The player accepts the compel with action Y, and
3. Bad thing Z happens.
-OR-
2. The player buys off the compel with action Y, and
3. The character avoids bad thing Z.

If you don't follow this form you risk giving Fate Points cheaply or railroading the player. Even if you do follow this formula, chances are that the cost of Z is going to be pretty inconsistent because it's so very situational. It's messy.

But that's what I mean by "it's a tool for the GM". It is the GM who (mostly) chooses when to use it and has to do the work to implement the Compel. Where as with invoking positive Aspects, it's the players who deal with the mechanics of it.

I suspect, as with many things, once you GM Compels often enough it becomes second nature and the structure of it starts to blend more naturally into the scene. In practice I'm not sure I run enough games in any one year for me to get to that point (we have a GM-rich group), and not every game I run is going to be Fate.

Self compel might be the solution in your case. If players crave fate chips enough (opposition is tough and they use them fast), if they chose aspects that are easy to compel, if the GM is concilliant enough to go for consequences (Z) that have teeth but are acceptable... it should work.

Maybe you need one player that shows example. Maybe the compel points are available on the table and the simple fact that a player reach for them means "I've got an idea for a self compel". Maybe the (Z) is proposed by the player first and accepted or elaborated by the GM, also a GM can still refuse if it's inappropriate/weak sauce.  

A concern I have is how much data a GM is supposed to survey (PCs aspects) to be proactive with compels. It makes sense to delegate to players, or at least share the load.