Tactical Compels

I enjoy tactical mini-games in tabletop RPGs that help to break up a larger freeform narrative. For example, in Fate Core, the conflict mini-game is utilized to allow for more tactical thought via zones, which make positioning and distance relevant.

Wrath of the Autarch has four such mini-games (diplomacy, infiltration, skirmish, and warfare), which take inspiration from the mini-games in Diaspora as well as the conflict rules of Fate Core. Much of this post was written after recent playtests of the warfare mini-game, but it could apply to other structured resolution systems as well.

I grapple with how to handle compels in these sorts of structured mini-games. Compels make sense to me outside of those more structured parts of the game (and I include Fate Core conflicts here), but during the mini-games I find them less satisfactory. When I switch to this more structured mode of thinking, I prefer less GM fiat, and allowing compels tends to bring in lots of fiat.

There's also the issue that compels aren't designed as levers to alter mechanical structure within those mini-games.

For instance, compels are "help the kid in distress" or "you're a wanted lady, here come the guards", not so much "end your movement" or "move to this zone because of this situation" or even "you show up two turns after the conflict has started". However, I'm interested in exploring the pros and cons.

It seems like there are a few options in dealing with compels in highly structured situations that have less GM fiat.

No Compels

Many different sorts of tactics are already possible just with a combination of the basic Attack, Defend, Create Advantage, and Overcome Obstacle actions as described in Fate Core.

Aspects can be created in zones to serve as blocks or barriers, or allow for various parties to perform defense rolls. Supplementing these actions with a form of Success with Cost that allows for success in exchange for consequences further makes compels unnecessary.

It could also be supplemented with the sort of tactical stunts that +Sophie Lagace has been blogging about for the War of Ashes RPG.

The one downside is the limited flow of fate points, which could be undesirable if the mini-game is epic (like a large warfare scene). Fate points would still move about by invoking aspects on target characters (or units, in warfare). But that results in a dwindling pool.

Limited Actions

In Diaspora, compels during the mini-games just have limited uses, also reducing the need for GM fiat. For instance, in the warfare mini-game, they can be used to end a unit's movement if an aspect justifies such a thing. There is no GM fiat at all in the Diaspora warfare mini-game.

It seems possible to twist this dial infinitely, so additional effects could be added for different mini-games.

Glow in the dark FTW!

The downside here is that a list of mechanical effects for compels may create a pretty complex mini-game without much added benefit.

It seems like the effects would have to be carefully thought out with the benefit of getting a fate point, but there may be some room for interesting ideas.

Done well, there may be some interesting options. Compelling that cavalry unit to slow it down while it marches through the fens is a good idea to allow your archers time to fire, but if the cavalry unit makes it to the archers, having lots of extra fate points to spare won't be too fun for the archers!

It's also easy to not do them well. For instance, ending a unit's movement is fine if you're controlling armies with many units, but nothing is more boring than losing your turn if you don't get many to begin with.

Actually, while writing this blog post, I found the following entry by +Brad Murray regarding the choices of compels in Diaspora mini-games: http://www.vsca.ca/halfjack/?p=479. Good stuff, and very much the sorts of things I've been thinking about lately.

Negotiated Compels

It might be possible to allow for any action given a more open negotiation framework. Off-hand, it seems like this could slow the game down unless there is a healthy dose of GM fiat to keep things in check.

Even with GM fiat, though, allowing compels to have any mechanical effect seems like it would invite abuse.

Thoughts

My current feeling is that compels aren't really worth it for these mini-games, since it seems like most situations could be handled without them. If an avenue for gaining fate points is really needed beyond getting your aspects invoked against you, it might be easiest to just offer a thematically appropriate avenue depending on the mini-game. Of course, I can't think of any off-hand.

Diplomacy in Wrath of the Autarch

I'm still thinking of ways to make the diplomacy mini-game in WotA a little more flexible.  Currently, what I have involves the players taking turns trying to gain support from leaders of an opposing group, while under time pressure in the form of a hard limit on the number of turns.  The more outlandish the request, the more support is needed from the leaders.  This is monitored by a support track that each leader is placed on.

The WotA diplomacy mini-game has been pretty fun, but it has a number of tricky elements.  One is that it's pretty rigid, since it involves only opposing leaders with whom you are trying to gain support.  I think that element will always be there - diplomacy is about coming together and gaining support.  However, there are occasionally other people involved (third party antagonists), who serve mainly to gum up the works and create obstacles.

The other element that is tricky is balancing the mini-game for different numbers of players.  As it stands, if there are more leaders than players, they can use the Create an Advantage action to make it very difficult for the players to succeed.  I accommodated this by adding extra turns if there are fewer players, but they still can get overwhelmed pretty easily.

There are other options out there - for instance, Fate Core's conflict rules can handle social conflict.  I'm not as fond of using the conflict mechanics, because it just feels like "fighting with words", and I would prefer a different aesthetic.  What I have does feel a little more like diplomacy, since there are issues raised and addressed, and overall support levels calculated.  I also feel like it's close to being right, so I may do some more fiddling before looking at larger overhauls.

Really, the "third party antagonist" issue and the "scaling for players" issue may be closely related.  It might need to be solved by having a limited pool of actions for the GM rather than one action for each character the GM controls.  If the number of actions was based on the number of players, that might scale it pretty well, while also giving flexibility to having different sorts of opposing characters.

All the players could take their turns, then the GM gets to activate one character for each player - either leaders raising issues and debating or a malevolent third party intent on obstructing the character's intentions. Or, actions could be taken in order of the Society skill as they are now, but the GM would still only get some number of characters based on the number of players.

So, setup would consist of selecting opposing leaders as well as interested characters from third parties (like the Autarch).  Each leader would still be placed on a separate track, and if their support is gained, some amount of Influence is added to the total support.  Depending on the mission, the amount of total support gained after the number of turns has elapsed determines success or failure.  The key thing about diplomacy is that it's less about success or failure than about building relationships and setting up potential future problems.