Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In FATE, compels of aspects are primarily a narrative tool, and as such don't usually have mechanical trappings in the consequences. But is this a hard and fast rule? I saw someone ask this question, and it shed a question on the way that I used them in some rare cases.

Example: 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. As he attempts to hurdle the beam, you could compel his slash to the calf consequence to make the attempt harder.

Is this a valid use of a compel? Or would it have to be purely narrative, i.e. you have to find another way because your calf wound makes it impossible for you to make the jump?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

As he attempts to hurdle the beam, you could compel his slash to the calf consequence to make the attempt harder.

That's a valid use, but it's not a compel. It's invoking your opponent's aspect for your roll. (Or for the fixed difficulty.)

A compel would be preventing the leap in the first place...

Player: "I'm going to leap the beam"
GM: holds out fate chip, "That slash in your leg seems to indicate you'll not be able to leap"

If the player accepts, he's not supposed to leap at all; if he rejects, he hands over a fate chip and makes the leap at no difficulty.

Quoting from the "Fate Basics" PDF:

Invocations -- Spend a FP to Invoke an Aspect. The Aspect may belong to the acting character, the defending character, the scene, or an object involved in the action.

Invocations have one of two results. The active player gets +2 to the roll or may reroll the dice and keep the new result. FPs are spent after the roll is made, and each Aspect may be Invoked only once per action.

On unrolled actions, Invocations simply add +2 to the Skill’s rating.

When Invoking an Aspect belonging to another character, any FPs go to the player of that character once the action resolves.

Note the ability to invoke an opponent's aspect.

Declarations -- The player spends a FP to make some narrative detail related to the Aspect a fact. The GM has the final say on what is and isn’t allowed, but players should be able to make moderate alterations to the story this way.

Declarations do not involve any sort of roll.

Compels -- The third thing about Aspects is that they can be disadvantageous. This is in the form of a Compel. Compels dictate some constraint to behaviour.

When one is made, the GM offers a FP. If you accept it, you accept the constraints. If not, you must turn down the offered FP and spend one of your own.

Note that Compels don't involve die rolls at all.

It's also worth noting that many Fate system games have consequences as a limited form of aspect - the player can't invoke them, but everyone else can invoke or compel them, or declare based upon them.

At the most basic -
— A compel is a "you can't do that, here's a fate point."
— An invoke is "+2 for one side by paying a fate point to the other side" and can be in either direction, but is done AFTER rolling.


Also note there is a difference in the ending fate point total for negations...

If you compel, the player will end with either +1 or -1 fate points - depending on whether he accepts or rejects the compel.

If you invoke, there are three possible outcomes - accepted, accepts but negates with another aspect, or rejects. Accept and fail gives them +1 fate points; negate with other aspect comes out neutral - invoking the second aspect costs only 1 fate point, effectively canceling the invoke. Rejecting the invoke outright costing 1 fate, for a final total down by 1.

Also note the sequencing - Invoke is AFTER rolls, while compel is before.

To give an example of how it works as an invoke...

Player: "I'm going to jump that flaming beam"
GM: "Roll - it's Good difficulty"
Player: rolls. "Made it with a Great result"
GM: holds out fate chip. "That slash in your leg hurt a lot, and you didnt' get as far as you thought - only a fair result"

Player Response 1: "Ok, I failed." Takes the fate point"

Player response 2: takes fate point, the hands it back, saying "Sure, it hurts. But my 'boxer's constitution' lets me tough it out."

Player response 3: picks up one of his own, instead, and tosses it to the GM. "It may hurt, but not enough to impede me from making it over."

share|improve this answer
up vote 4 down vote accepted

This question was the result of a discussion on G+. After I asked here, Fred Hicks dropped by with his take on the situation.

Compelling is purely narrative- the teeth are in the story to steal from the OP on that thread. Invoking is highly mechanical; there are three things you can do on an invoke; add to a roll, re-roll, or make the opponent's life difficult.

Onto Fred's answer:

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.

So, the way to use a mechanical effect via invokes as the GM from the reading seems to be to use your NPCs, or to use Fractals. A character invokes.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.