FATE Core General

Hmm.
I'm trying to build an inventory system on top of Fate, for a nasty kind of setting. My concept was that I'd restrict attack/defense options depending on your gear, forcing teamwork outside of the frequent "buffer" and "murdercharacter that invokes buffs" archetypes.
I'm wondering if a series of Stunts per item/slot would be antithetical to Fate if a given character was objectively worse at dealing with a certain foe.

Interesting details here

For your Power Rangers game, you may want to capitalize on making Boosts more prevalent and powerful if acted on by a character that didn't create the Boost.

Get and real Fate system toolkit.
It's basically "How to hack Fate, manual," with lots of examples of how you could change basically any part of the rules.

Fate does not do well with inventory systems.

"I have a gun" in Fate means "I can do gun things".

"I have a gun that shoots explosive grenades that also give people anthrax" means "I can do gun things" too.

It's not really designed for that kind of crunch.

Speaking of martial arts
Are you just using core combat rules or are you using houserules or supplements
I'm curious because the only time I played a FATE based martial arts game it was this one so I'm wondering how well core stacks up

How about actions that capitalize on group actions? Joint attacks (all of them acting at the same time) and finishers, for instance.

Also how do I deal with a sort of game where the characters follow a certain archetype? Because that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

>I'm wondering if a series of Stunts per item/slot would be antithetical to Fate...
Giving everyone extended specialties and associated downsides in that vein can justify having bigger, more dangerous sorts of conflict that require more careful or thorough solutions and teamwork, but like says doing it exclusively through gear isn't necessarily the best idea.

Maybe borrow some of the 'mantle' and character type concepts from Dresden Files or Dresden Files Accelerated; those operate in that sort of capacity of having a more broad selection of baked in abilities and baggage to go along with them.

Loving that cover art. So the girl is San from Princess Mononoke; is the guy supposed to be anyone specific?

Correct, usually the type of weapon is pointless in the context of numbers.
I'm thinking I can challenge this by making objects like guns not just have stunts, but their own little array of "skills".
This can also be done through Aspects, of course. You could narratively deny someone the opportunity to shoot a target at 500 meters if their firearm is a "Pre-War Glock 20" or something but I wanted to articulate the upsides and downsides per weapon with more than a phrase, because if you don't impose specific usage restrictions, then a gun truly is just a gun.
Ultimately my idea is that you make a gun into a character with skills so you can make specific scenarios where certain ones aren't going to fare well and other times where they excel.

Archetypes aren't bad! They can be very fun, if you have with what the template the archetype offers is appetizing. People gravitate towards them in Fate anyway because of narrative consistency and imitation of other characters in media.

Tianxia does very little to discourage the "spam one action" type of combat that is endemic to Fate.

It is certainly no Legends of the Wulin.

Again, you could do this... but why?

I mean, I could add fate points and a system of compels to AD&D... but why?

Fate is literally all about articulating the upsides and downsides of EVERYTHING with a phrase.

So you've got a Pre-War Pistol. It can do gun things. It can make people die. You can't shoot six people at once with it. You can't lay an aspect like "on fire" onto someone. You can't shoot down a plane.

But my Three Barreled Laser Cannon can do all of those things... in a sense.

I roll the same skill though, and they deal the same "damage".

>Archetypes aren't bad! They can be very fun, if you have with what the template the archetype offers is appetizing. People gravitate towards them in Fate anyway because of narrative consistency and imitation of other characters in media.
Um you're right, they're not bad per se so long as I give the players enough options where to pick something. Thank you.

"I roll the same skill though, and they deal the same 'damage'".
That's the default way of things and I know that it's fair, from a char-gen/skill column economics perspective.
However, I'm trying to make certain weapons/attire/devices objectively more useful against certain foes to give Conflicts some more depth. I want players to dynamically swap and choose with more immediately-available options.
Going with descriptive Advantages and Attacks alone was fun and fresh but now I want to throw in some salt and Frank's Red Hot to the Fate Core Conflict subsystem.
This addition of mine won't be necessary to play the game but I think it will capture the setting better and make Conflicts much more hazardous.

"Fate is literally all about articulating the upsides and downsides of EVERYTHING with a phrase."
Almost the case, but this isn't followed 100%. If this were completely true about Fate, your character would be only a High Concept. Interestingly, I think some groups use Aspects-only gameplay, though. That must be a good time.

Right, but why can't that be done non-mechanically?

You're fighting a werewolf. You've been told your Rusty Sword does no damage. Time to go get your Silver Hammer from Max's Well.

You're trying to shoot down an aeroplane. Your Pre-War pistol won't do it.

You're fighting goblins and they're swarming around your Tower Shield, laying the Aspect on you of "Crawling with Goblins". Time to drop the shield and pull out your Flail of Flailing.

Again, very true, and simple resolution.
The R-P-S elements could be, literally, Aspect-only but the advantage (or disadvantage) of statting up people and items is to create granularity beyond "yes" and "no" permissions.
I am not exactly pro-numeration and anti-Aspect. I'd just rather not have 4 Created Advantages stack up on an NPC and have him keel over immediately. I appreciate the players being creative narratively but it's very easy to stack +2s and give a narrative justification per instance. I'd rather have a given character perform better against a particular target (and worse against others) instead of giving yet another +2 or deal damage statistically equivalent to skill level.
CaA is a very simple tactic and good for keeping everyone egalitarian in combat but I want more fluctuation.

It's just a difference of taste; Fate conflicts got a little boring once I realized everyone could do the same thing but with a different description.

Or you can also say that you can't stack more than a +2 bonus onto something without spending a Fate point. And even then, nothing more than a +4 through it. Enough to ensure success from all but the most catastrophic of rolls.

Yeah I have something like that already integrated into the rule addendum

I'm hoping it encourages use of the other rules

Bump.

Single foes going down against a group is inbuilt to Fate system. That's why your usual BBEG should always come with grunts and officers to even out the battle, or use more creative approaches such as having multiple "hit locations" that track stress separately.

It also should be stressed that CAAs only last as long as they make sense, OR until they have been neutralized by an Overcome action. You can have mooks clearing them off to discourage simple spam, and/or give the opposition stunts or aspects that help removing them, immunize them to some types, or allow them to retaliate certain actions. Or there is something in the scene itself that discourages simple CAA stacking, like a time limit or a narrative purpose.

I want to overlay Fate onto other games. I believe that it has greater potential as a subsystem rather than as a game unto itself.

One house rule that I like is that CAA only adds a Boost on a Success with Style. It makes Success with Style consistent for all actions and it makes CAA less broken.

Two questions:

Is Fate a good introductory system for beginners to TTRPGS?

How well does Fate fare with two players? Can it be optimized?

On the one hand Fate is unconventional to more traditional styles of play but on the other hand it teaches you a new way to approach RPGs that can be spiritually translated into other games.

I think Fate can produce good players but such players should be warned that Fate is not like most RPGs.

Accelerated I think is better for beginners, it plays a lot smoother and ditches a lot of the needless codification and jargon from Core in favor of common fucking sense.

However you'll either want to emphasize you can't always use the same approach for every task, or use an alternate Approaches list. Either way you'll also want to make sure that the consequences of using certain approaches are realistic as well.

El bumpo with a question.

Let's assume I have a bestiary of sorts. Monsters have a set of skills like everyone, but also a set of aspects describing how well their species are at physical fighting and magical fighting (both split into offense and defense). This could allow me to have two or three monsters from the same species, with wildly varying skills because they may be adept at certain things better, but ultimately the species will determine how good they can get to be on physical and magical fighting.

I want to add "levels" of aspects, for example, if a monster with Mediocre Physical Offense tries to hit someone with an aspect that makes it clear that they can take the hit easily, they could invoke such aspect. On the other hand, someone with a Legendary Physical Offense will seriously harm someone with weaker defenses.

>Why not just use the species as an aspect?
Although the species is an aspect, it says nothing to the players.

>Why not just use skills?
Because even a monster with Legendary Physical Offense could have varieties within it. Players could find a weaker variety (less Fight skill) but the species is still super powerful.

Stunts are a thing, you know.

>it plays a lot smoother and ditches a lot of the needless codification and jargon from Core in favor of common fucking sense.
So do sourcebooks for Core. Generally I'd recommend playing a preconfigured flavor of Fate for your first game, Accelerated or otherwise. It helps you grasp a lot of the how and why that might not be well conveyed in the Core rules.

The discover action does nothing to prevent low-risk create an advantage actions.

No game that allows only one action a turn does that, it's a simple effect caused by specialization. If you're really good at one thing you should use it whenever it's applicable.

LotW gets around this by letting you make as many actions as the dice allow.

I agree with , it seems like you just need to have a better understanding with your players as to what the stakes are for each roll.

If I were to use stunts I'm better off with skills, but this still doesn't solve my issue: I need to give everyone information about how strong species are relative to each other.

If relativity between species is what you need, than a requisite "Aspect: Species: ______________" on the character sheet tends to be enough. You invoke and compel as appropriate.

Precisely. I know that this is good enough. However, it gives zero information because everyone has to agree on what this means beforehand. What if I have players who have no idea what this even means? What if the GM doesn't know? How can I tell that this is stronger than that from that alone? That's why I was thinking on giving an additional aspect to give precisely this sort of information, based on what matters: their physical and magical prowess.

Use variations of Weapon and Armor ratings.
Isn't that what you want? Monster doing more damage on successful hit?

>What if I have players who have no idea what this even means?
You tell them?
>What if the GM doesn't know?
You tell them?
>How can I tell that this is stronger than that from that alone?
You say so?

Fuck user, are you literally retarded?

This was supposed to go for Sorry. I'm dum dum.

You could use some alternative of Scale. Two creatures with Legendary Strength going at it equal out and don't get any real advantage over each other but a creature with Legendary Strength against another without it gets a big bonus.

That's why the races would also need to be described. To put a similar example, if someone has an aspect that declares them a vampire, everyone knows the potential compels and invokes. Racial aspects have to work the same way: everyone needs to be on the same page on what they MEAN.

Now before someone points out about Fate Point costs and aspects: exactly. It is about narrative importance. If race A is stronger than race B but nobody uses the aspects in a conflict, it means they weren't deemed narratively important by those who told the story. If FP are expended to invoke an aspect, it means the narrator describing the scene decides the leverage given by the aspect is narratively meaningful and worthy of highlighting in THIS particular action.

In traditional games bonuses are always present. If Fate, a bonus comes into play when you decide it is narratively significant and pivotal in turning a failure into success. (Traditional RPG bonuses are very specific; whereas aspect invoke bonus comes into play whenever it is agreed that the invoke is valid.)

>everyone has to agree on what this means
Yes that's the whole point of Fate, you deciding together what the story is
>beforehand
Not really, you can figure it out as you go.

I should also point out that I'm not talking about stunts here at all; those bonuses are naturally always present.

My group does setting work before actual play (or just uses existing worldbooks), but it might be interesting to create as you go... that of course asks for trust inside the group, and not your "DM versus Players" antagonistic relationship.

Back to the original problem:

I need the skills to be easily modified for each individual or groups of individuals. Stunts will be more akin to powers rather than... well, skills (as per Core). I need the constant of species though: a species will be as powerful as an aspect saying how powerful they are as species.

This is what I'm thinking about, but I need something to make it mechanically applicable. I was thinking on translating this "Legendary Strength" as an aspect, but, how? Do I just use " " like that? Is there something, maybe, more flashy? Because if someone with Legendary Strength hits something with weaker defenses, they could just invoke the aspect.

The issue is how to tell everyone what is better than that. In short, giving everyone a shorthand reminder of "you can actually invoke this against that" without any ambiguity.

And not everyone is comfortable with doing things on the fly, at least not all the time.

I would rather have those bonuses be present just when it's important to the narration.

Something that doesn't sit right with me:

If my GM Compels me I can either gain or lose 1 Fate Point with no middle ground.

That essentially means that the game not only rewards you for accepting a Compel (good) but it also punishes you for refusing it (bad). What's more, if you have no Fate Points to Refuse a Compel then you are forced against your will into accepting a Fate Point in exchange for a turn of events you don't want. A loss of agency sounds like a big no-no.

In game, accepting a Compel moves the story forward in a new way that complicates your character but karma is on their side (Fate Point gained). Refusing a Compel means nothing happens but karma is still against them (Fate Point lost). That sounds like a bug.

I believe that Fate Points should move the story forward whenever they are exchanged. Refusing a Compel does not do that and that's why I believe it should cost nothing to Refuse a Compel.

>not your "DM versus Players" antagonistic relationship

Again, Fate is built on that assumption. It's quite different to most RPG dynamics.

A worldbuilding session 0 where you each flesh-out a nation or planet or race or whatever and talk about how they interact with each other is a super good idea though. Diaspora (a hard sci Fate 2e system) does that.

giving everyone a shorthand reminder
I find it hepful to have index cards for Aspects that come up a lot. Just throw them on the table.

>And not everyone is comfortable with doing things on the fly, at least not all the time.
It'd only be on the fly until you establish, through play, what the Species Aspect is usually good for.

>
>more flashy?
I think you're overcomplicating things here. You really want to keep Fate mechanics as simple as possible so you can resolve a dice roll and then get back to the story

>Refusing a Compel does not do that
Enough reason to make it cost a FP. Not pushing the story forward is good enough of a reason to make it cost something.

Remember that progress can only be done when moving the narrative forward, not keeping it stale. And this also applies to milestones. You're basically delaying the approach of a new milestone.

>I find it hepful to have index cards for Aspects that come up a lot. Just throw them on the table.
I'm talking about character aspects not situation ones.

>It'd only be on the fly until you establish, through play, what the Species Aspect is usually good for.
It's something that will happen often, not once in a while. May as well cut some slack.

>I think you're overcomplicating things here. You really want to keep Fate mechanics as simple as possible so you can resolve a dice roll and then get back to the story
I'm not intending on adding anything to the game. If anything my intention is to add an extra aspect and be done with it.

Regarding invoking and compelling and aspects; in my view the basic justification goes like this. When you do not invoke or compel, you are saying "the aspect exists and is affecting the outcome, but not enough here to make a difference." When you do compel or invoke, you are saying "the aspect exists and will make a difference here."

If you want players that are going to go into other games caring more about making characters rather than statblocks, it can be a good choice.

Not saying other games encourage this, stop typing that angry message, user.

Fate points are as much about sharing creative control than they are about narrative character arcs.

There isn't a loss of agency when you're out of FP to refuse compels with as much as you've used up all your agency for a while.

While it's true that losing the FP to no effect does not immediately move the story forward, it does change the pace. Chances are good the tide will soon turn against them.

If the story did not move forward but now I'm out a Fate Point what was accomplished?

I think the mechanic is at the very least half-baked, a betrayal to the system's concepts. A superior mechanic would move the story forward whether a Fate Point was gained or spent.

I feel more like it's an excuse to make players play their characters. If your character has a flaw that they're addicted to a drug, they should be in danger of relapsing. No one takes the addiction flaw in Shadowrun, then complains when they fail a roll to avoid indulging. It's the same with Fate. You have character flaws, and those flaws are GOING to come up whether you like it or not.

> No loss of agency
> Agency was used up
Which is it? Other RPGs let me control my character 100% of the time.

I understand the spirit of the game but I believe that there being no in-game effect for Refusing a Compel, nothing to move the story forward, is a flaw to be improved upon.

You didn't lose agency, nigga, you spent it not doing something.

The only RPG you can do whatever you want all the time is freeform. Anything with rules stipulates what you can and can't do in certain circumstances. Don't make silly assertions.

Then add an effect. Something like the Limit Breaks in Exalted, perhaps? You avoid your flaw for so long that you risk going into a frenzy of that flaw?

Don't compare this game to others because this is a different beast altogether.

They let you control your character 100% of the time, and the story nearly 0% of the time. This game is more like 80%-30% on each end because it's more about storytelling. FPs are about having the agency not on your character but on how the story turns out.

There is an in-game effect for refusing a compel: you make the story go forward as YOU want it instead of being forced to have it go otherwise. You pay on FPs, which is your ability to modify the story. If you run out of FPs, you run out of the ability to modify the story until you accept a compel.

There is an in-game effect. Your character is LOSING WILLPOWER/PHYSICAL ABILITY TO RESIST THEIR FLAW. They might get more jittery or irritable. Their luck might be running out, as a coincidence keeps the compel from happening, perhaps. Their body is getting weaker as that old wound or broken bone that never set right starts to act up.

That is the in-game effect. Maybe you should start, ya know, roleplaying it instead of moving the goalposts when three different anons prove you're a retard.

>LotW gets around this by letting you make as many actions as the dice allow.

No, you're retarded. LotW "gets around this" by putting actual decision making into the gameplay. Even taken at its most contextless white room combat, figuring out how to best utilize your River, managing your Chi, minimizing harmful Chi Conditions while trying to leverage beneficial Chi Conditions, and trying to take advantage of Laughs and Fears bonuses make it far, far more interesting than "Roll your best stat against his best stat over and over until someone loses," like what FATE does.

Having to decide how to spend your dice is indeed part of why LoTW's combat is excellent, but boiling it down to "You can make lots of actions, which is how it doesn't feel like you're just doing the same action over and over" is an insultingly bad summary of the decision tree involved when playing with LoTW's ruleset.

No it isn't you worthless faggot. The only reason any of the shit you mentioned matters is that Wulin's dice pool allows you to take multiple relevant actions on any given turn. If all you could do was move and attack or move and change the terrain then it would play out exactly the same as your average game of fate.

Again,
>Chi Condition management
>Chi management
>Laughs/Fears jockeying

You are plain and simply wrong.

So I take it that there is an art to Compelling.

Chi conditions are so easy to game they have almost no effect on the actions you take until three of them are in play, chi management isn't any more complex (and is much less oppressive) than fate point management, and laugh/fears is the thing in the game MOST dependent on being able to take multiple actions.

If you could only take one a turn the only way to take advantage of L/F would be to know multiple styles (so you could switch every round) or to use your turn that round to MAYBE change the battlefield to favor you.

Have you even played Wulin?

>If we changed the entire nature of the system to be more like this garbage system, the former system would be totally the same as the latter one!

I see you have gone full FATEfag. When confronted with facts, they often become agitated and angry.

I am sorry FATE's gameplay is garbage, but no, it would not be magically made better if you could take two or three actions per turn instead of one, because it lacks the depth of gameplay necessary to make anything other than spamming your best action a good choice at all.

How can I stat out a mind upload running on a computer in this system?

Same way you stat literally anything else.

Only thing that makes me mad is when people capitalise Fate.

>I am sorry FATE's gameplay is garbage
You really took this long to reveal yourself as a troll, didn't you? 5/10 because you fucking derailed the thread.

You mean as in Shadowrun? I don't know how it works so if you could describe it better I would probably help.

>You really took this long to reveal yourself as a troll, didn't you?

I don't see how stating a blatant fact is trollish. We've already established that the best option is FATE is just to spam the action associated with your highest stat over and over. Introducing multiple actions to FATE's gameplay does nothing to change this lack of gameplay depth; at best, you would take supplementary actions that would help you spam your best action. At worst, you'd just spam more of your best action.

FATE's gameplay is extremely lackluster, and literally anybody who has not drank the koolaid realizes this.

More like Greg Egan's "Diaspora."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)

Fate isn't a tactical game, mate. Unless you're telling a really uninteresting story your "best action" isn't viable in all situations.

It's alright, I'm sure you'll find someone to actually play a RPG with some day. Just try not to get too armchair-theoretical about rulebooks you read.

It's not the facts you tard but your lack of willingness to actually discuss. You just want to be right.

Fine, be right, Fate is all you want it to be. What now? We're not going to stop playing it because you say so.

Please summarize what's important from there.

>No, you're retarded. LotW "gets around this" by putting actual decision making into the gameplay. Even taken at its most contextless white room combat, figuring out how to best utilize your River, managing your Chi, minimizing harmful Chi Conditions while trying to leverage beneficial Chi Conditions, and trying to take advantage of Laughs and Fears bonuses make it far, far more interesting than "Roll your best stat against his best stat over and over until someone loses," like what FATE does.

And keeping track of all those pointless things is what brought me over to FATE, more specifically FAE.

I like playing actual characters instead of spreadsheets.

The mind uploads of that setting:

>the citizens,[2] intelligence as disembodied computer software running entirely within simulated reality-based communities known as polises.[3] These represent the majority by far of "humanity" in the novel, followed in a distant second place by the gleisners. Together with vast networks of sensors, probes, drones and satellites throughout the Solar system, they collectively make up the Coalition of Polises, the backbone and bulk of human civilisation. They interact primarily in virtual environments called scapes, through the use of avatars or icons. The citizens of the Coalition view the gleisners and their colonial aspirations as puerile and ultimately futile, believing that only "bacteria with spaceships. . . knowing no better and having no choice" would attempt to deface the galaxy with mass colonisation, especially if virtual realities afford limitless possibilities at a small fraction of the total resource-consumption.

>I like playing actual characters instead of spreadsheets.

That doesn't actually mean anything. I am sorry to hear that your brain is too limited to handle anything but the most basic and lackluster of p&p game systems. Perhaps you should check out Risus so you can be even happier.

What does "the story" have to do with the objectively best mechanical measures to take due to the extreme simplicity of the system making them readily apparent and easily achievable? You're speaking far too vaguely.

Is there any difference from their physical guise? You could just stat the characters as normal and let the game play within a more virtual environment. That is, unless this is unsatisfactory for some reason.

Hey, leave Risus alone. It didn't do anyone harm.

What I'm really getting at is how to use the extras mechanic to represent a Citizen as computer software, as anything that could threaten a Polise would be an overkill threat and thus viruses/hacking/software complications make for better threats. The game would take place in the latter half of the novel where there is another galaxy to explore.

Do you really need an extra here?

I'm assuming that all players are polises. There is no need for any extras, all it takes are narrative permissions. Players are polises, and they can fight whatever threat. Citizens are just weaklings that get taken out in one hit, and the results are to be narrated (in this case, death).

Am I missing something else here?

Fate's fine with 2 because you don't need "roles" to be "successful" (not dying, in most TTRPG scenarios?)
Something I find hilarious is that new players fare better than TTRPG vets in this system because the veteran mind is trying to take old concepts and re-orient the previously learned vocabulary and actions into Fate terms, while the new guy doesn't have to re-orient his brain at all; he just learns.

Might mean the new guy has a harder time with future non-Fate RPGs...

Wait, I knew that this was familiar. You're playing Diaspora, aren't you? Diaspora has an official Fate release, but the one released is Fate 3e. For 4e someone in Veeky Forums did a nice conversion, which I'm reposting right here.

The girl's called Wolf-Eyed Yue.
The guy's pic-related.

>No, you're retarded. LotW "gets around this" by putting actual decision making into the gameplay. Even taken at its most contextless white room combat, figuring out how to best utilize your River, managing your Chi, minimizing harmful Chi Conditions while trying to leverage beneficial Chi Conditions, and trying to take advantage of Laughs and Fears bonuses make it far, far more interesting than "Roll your best stat against his best stat over and over until someone loses," like what FATE does.

>What does "the story" have to do with the objectively best mechanical measures...

Your time would be better spent on something like a Euro-style boardgame rather than an RPG, I think.

How do Fate Points, Stunts, and Free Invocations affect the dice as they add up? I'm pretty sure they render the dice almost meaningless the higher they go because of the bell curve.

I'm talking about playing in the setting of a 1997 hard scifi novel by the same name.

But thanks for this pdf, it looks very useful as a starting point for tweaking mechanics.

>as a starting point for tweaking mechanics
For tweaking mechanics you should first read Core and then Toolkit. A link for both is in the OP.

The players would be Polise citizens, sapient computer software running in the extremely shielded/armored super computers that are called "polises."

If all you need is to make things more threatening/less threatening for players, either use aspects and invocations, use narrative permissions, compel a lot... Most things that you think you would need extra mechanics for are things that just require the correct narrative touch.

Why do you need an extra again? To make citizens (players) be threatened by viruses, etc?

Since all invocations are +2 or reroll, they linearly add to a curve, seated at that comfortable 0. I believe invokes used to be "weighted" at +1/+2/+3 or something based on their relevance to the Aspect in the older versions but a veteran will have to correct me.

Stunts are too unpredictable to really factor into this math but the Fate creators succeeded at having invokes matter A LOT towards efficacy, and not necessarily dice throwing.

>I believe invokes used to be "weighted" at +1/+2/+3 or something based on their relevance to the Aspect in the older versions but a veteran will have to correct me.
Not a veteran but I think I read that this indeed happened. Hell the rules for it are in the Toolkit.

That must be where I originally read it; I was going a little crazy looking in my Core rulebook to see if it was from there.

I want to rewrite the Core rulebook so badly...

>Fifth Action

Fuck Ryan, its only makes things more confuse.

Why would you ever want to refuse a compel? Compels target your character's flaws, and those are the ones you want to roleplay. Refusing a compel is like saying 'I'm going to take a break from my character', it's completely against the very idea of roleplay.