Timeline for How can I word an aspect that I can potentially veto being compelled without using an X-Card?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2022 at 18:10 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Yeah, I have to downvote because the problem isn’t frequency of compels, and this answer’s analysis that it’s impossible rests on that perfect frequency of compels being impossible. It’s not about frequency, and not impossible, so I have to downvote for inaccuracy. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 18:51 | comment | added | AncientSwordRage | I've edited my question. Does that help you understand my situation better? | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 15:07 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Percival First, I would point out that your summary just now makes no mention of quantity (compelled enough Vs not enough) while your answer is essentially torpedoing the question on the basis of quantity. Meanwhile, I would point out that the distress is entirely based around not having a perceived "fair" way to navigate the aspect being brought up in a way the querent doesn't want to follow through with — this is in fact the problem needing a solution. It's not impossible or a contradiction, it needs advice on how to navigate it. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:58 | comment | added | Percival | @doppelgreener The OP freely admits they want to use an aspect that distresses them. They admit they want to be compelled but would be upset if compelled in the 'wrong way'. They admit they don't know what the 'wrong way' is, but that if it occurs it will cause them lots of distress. Even the suggestion of it will distress them, so simply refusing the compel isn't a solution. They also would be distressed if they aren't compelled to use the aspect. Discussing the aspect with the table is also distressing. This is all from the OP's own post and comments. What am I missing here? | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:52 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Percival I would beg you to reread the question as having nothing to do with quantity. Say someone has an abusive childhood background — having that come up in some ways and not others would be good or distressing, and we need a suitable safety valve. The summary as quantity is so off the mark as to have entirely not read or understood the question, and I'm concerned it's leading to downvotes on the question. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:45 | comment | added | Percival | @AncientSwordRage I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but the system already has that built in: if someone compels you to do something that distresses you, you simple refuse the compel. However from my understanding, you don't want to do that because that causes you to have to pay a FATE point. So I keep circling back to: why are you putting yourself in this position. You know that aspects come with compels. You know that certain compels will cause you distress. You know that it's impossible for the people to know ahead of time which compels those are. What is the goal here? | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:43 | comment | added | doppelgreener | I've downvoted this because it's incorrectly summarising the querent's situation, so the answer (based on that incorrect summary) is incorrect and in fact potentially inappropriate. I'm concerned it's to the detriment of this question as a whole getting a helpful answer. I'd strongly urge you to reconsider and review the situation; in spite of the upvotes this answer desperately needs to be reconsidered and revised. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:13 | comment | added | AncientSwordRage | I can think of plenty of positive aspects that can be twisted to be negative. I'm not asking that a group of people figure out when that is or isn't ok but I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to worth with the system and the group to smooth over the occasions I'm uncomfortable with a certain twist. The alternative is using the X-Card (which as far as I'm aware shouldn't need prior warning) which abruptly circumvents the issue, and the group, instead of addressing it which I'm anticipating causing more friction. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 13:47 | comment | added | Percival | @AncientSwordRage Do you feel like this is a reasonable request though? You seem unable to define ahead of time what you would and wouldn't tolerate, so how the heck do you expect a group of people (none of whom are you) to figure that out on-the-fly in complex scenarios? I still think you need to take some time and figure out what exactly you're getting out of bringing this aspect into your game. You're imposing a lot of work and social pressure on your RPG group to bring this aspect into your game, so what's the payoff? What is the ideal outcome of this aspect being in your game? | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 12:46 | comment | added | AncientSwordRage | Let me address what I can here: "You want to apply an aspect to your character that is personally distressing to you". No, I want to apply an aspect that could be personally distressing depending on how it's handled. Also: "If the players and the GM compel it too often, don't compel it often enough" it's not about the amount, it's about how it's handled. I can't predict how others will handle it, thus I wanted to find out if there's a way to create a safety net of sorts. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 12:38 | history | answered | Percival | CC BY-SA 4.0 |