Evocation Grab

[LokiTM]

In my campaign last night I had a situation where one of the PCs wanted to snatch an item out of the hands of a ghoul. It was a sword and scabbard that the ghoul had just stolen from an NPC.

The PC has spirit channeling and was standing across the room (same zone). I treated this as the strength of the evocation in shifts vs. the ghoul's roll + might.

Thoughts on that mechanic or suggestions on other ways of modeling it?

In game the character easily succeeded on the attempt, spent a fate point to make a declaration that there was a garbage chute right nearby, and dumped the sword out of reach of the ghoul.

[devonapple]

That sounds like the simplest way to do it.

If it helps, think of it as the PC using a Spirit Evocation Offensive Maneuver to place the Aspect "Disarmed" on the Ghoul (defended against by the Ghoul's Might) and then using a Fate Point to Invoke for Effect/Compel that Aspect to get rid of the weapon.

[Sanctaphrax]

YS page 208 talks about disarming maneuvers.

But why does a ghoul even need a sword? They've got claws.

[Drachasor]

That sounds like the simplest way to do it.

If it helps, think of it as the PC using a Spirit Evocation Offensive Maneuver to place the Aspect "Disarmed" on the Ghoul (defended against by the Ghoul's Might) and then using a Fate Point to Invoke for Effect/Compel that Aspect to get rid of the weapon.

Hmm, even though this is an example in the book, I find it very odd.  Technically you can be "disarmed" like this and still use your weapon.  The book example has the compel to be to make what they are wanting to do not work if it would require a weapon.  Very odd.  Going by the book, you can't actually take something away from someone else, it would seem.

I think I prefer you way better, since you can spend a fate point to make the person actually be disarmed (we could make the aspect, more properly, be "nearly disarmed" or "loose grip" or something).  A fate point would complete the action.

[devonapple]

Hmm, even though this is an example in the book, I find it very odd.  Technically you can be "disarmed" like this and still use your weapon.  The book example has the compel to be to make what they are wanting to do not work if it would require a weapon.  Very odd.  Going by the book, you can't actually take something away from someone else, it would seem.

I think I prefer you way better, since you can spend a fate point to make the person actually be disarmed (we could make the aspect, more properly, be "nearly disarmed" or "loose grip" or something).  A fate point would complete the action.

My way is basically the same as the book example. I think the player in the OP just got more bang for the buck by getting rid of the weapon in one instant move. Theoretically, the players perhaps SHOULD have:

1) Declared the "Trash Chute" Aspect
2) Evocation Maneuver to place "Disarmed" Aspect
3) Spent a Fate Point to Invoke for Effect the "Disarmed" Aspect
4) Spent a Fate Point to Invoke for Effect the "Trash Chute" Aspect

But I think the way it worked was also alright.

[Sanctaphrax]

Dammit, man. You use your 666th post on that?

I even went to the trouble of asking you a silly question on another thread once I saw that you had 665 posts.

By the way, I think that you can Invoke for Effect using a tag. I'm not certain, but it seems much more fair to players who want to make interesting maneuvers.

[devonapple]

Dammit, man. You use your 666th post on that?

Dammit! I wasn't even paying attention - bibliophile estimated it'd be a couple weeks... damn.

Edit: I guess the "Devil is in the details," eh? 

[LokiTM]

Thanks for the feedback.

In answer to your question Sanctaphrax, the ghoul did not want to use the sword, he had been paid to steal it. He was just carrying it, not wielding it.

I think I would make it more difficult if it was being wielded so as to not make it too easy to take away IOP.

[bobjob]

Here's how I'd do it, but please correct me if my thinking is wrong. I'm preparing to run a game, so I'm still trying to suss out the rules.

1. Place evocation maneuver on target (Disarmed)
2. Ghoul gets to defend against maneuver using roll + might
3. Tag the aspect for free since it was newly introduced with the maneuver.

Basically the same way of doing a regular disarm maneuver, just using magic. Might even add in another roll to catch the item once the ghoul has been successfully disarmed. This is essentially how devonapple suggested, but instead of spending the fate point to invoke disarmed, you tag it.

[devonapple]

3. Tag the aspect for free since it was newly introduced with the maneuver.
This is essentially how devonapple suggested, but instead of spending the fate point to invoke disarmed, you tag it.

What do you mean *specifically* when you say "tag it"? It sounds like you want to Invoke for Effect, and that's always a Fate Point to perform, even if you just discovered or Created the Aspect. "Free tag" is only good for a +2 or a reroll.

In fact, you are essentially Compelling the NPC's "Disarmed" Aspect, so he gets the Fate Point.

The board needs a phrase like TANSTAAFL: maybe TANSTAAFCOIFE (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Compel Or Invoke For Effect).

[bobjob]

Perhaps the deficiency in my knowledge is based on the fact that it doesn't explicitly say that you have to spend a fate point to tag for effect. I've looked all over the book in concerns to maneuvers and what to do with aspects and if it's there, I'm just not seeing it. From what I see with maneuvers, you can tag (or invoke it or which ever you'd prefer) once for free once it's created. Seems to my reckoning that is how all temporary aspects work, at least once.

[bobjob]

Correction, it doesn't say you have to pay a fate point to tag a maneuver aspect for effect.

[devonapple]

Correction, it doesn't say you have to pay a fate point to tag a maneuver aspect for effect.

I don't think this is supported by the rules, but I've sent Fred an email - hopefully he can clear up any misunderstandings about it. I'll reply when I get a response.

[Watson]

If one takes a step back to look at the disarming separately, I thought that the example in the rule book (YS208, where a maneuver is made to place an Aspect, DISARMED, on an opponent) was a bit strange and seemed too powerful at first. But after thinking about it, the following two things made me both understand and accept it (without the need to spend Fate Points to actually disarm the opponent).

First, see the Aspects as “hard facts” – this is some kind of “truth” about the game world (not just words or phrases that might be true). This is true for all Aspects, not just the ones created through maneuvers (i.e. being DISARMED is as true as having the High Concept Aspect WHITE COURT VAMPIRE ASSASSIN). This means that if the opponent has the Aspect DISARMED placed on him, he is disarmed (in addition to the fact that the Aspect can be tagged as usual). For him to remove the Aspect, he has to make a maneuver and get rid of the Aspect (i.e. take up his weapon).

The second thing is that the maneuver is done instead of an attack. The roll is opposed by the same (or at least similar) skill (not a fixed difficulty), meaning that the “attacker” is placing an Aspect on the target instead of causing stress on the target. At the end, the attacker gets a disarmed target and an Aspect that he can tag instead of a number of stress that could take him out of combat. In case the attacker would like to try to disarm an opponent using his bare hands, the difficulty would be increased even further.

[LokiTM]

I like this line of thought. Interestingly it leads to exactly the same test and dice roll that I used. I am on the fence as to whether this could be a free "tag for effect" or whether it would require spending a fate point to compel the disarm.

The sidebar on YS 107 makes it clear that this is a bit of a murky call. YS209 seems to suggest that having the weapon completely gone would be a compel.

In this case, the PC did not want to simply disarm the ghoul, he wanted to simultaneously take possession of the sword himself. I am thinking that goes beyond simple "effect" to the realm of "compel" and should have cost the fate point. In any case, the fight was over in the next exchange and he had a couple of points left so there would have been little to no game impact.