ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: devonapple on February 04, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
-
I am wrong on the Internet! Official Word of Fred is that, yes, a "free tag" can be used to Invoke for Effect." My sincere apologies for being so stubbornly wrong on the threads in which this came up. Mea culpa.
Per Fred: "A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target."
-
So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?
I am wrong on the Internet! Official Word of Fred is that, yes, a "free tag" can be used to Invoke for Effect." My sincere apologies for being so stubbornly wrong on the threads in which this came up. Mea culpa.
Per Fred: "A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target."
-
I very much approve of this.
-
So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?
An Invoke is not the same thing as a Compel. But it is a blurry line. I'm hoping for clarification.
LATER EDIT: Oh my bad ... I just reread the above statement. That'll teach me to post without sufficient caffeine :P
"A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target."
-
Yay! Can we archive this somewhere?
-
Hmm, that can make maneuvers crazy-powerful.
-
Only if the GM allows them to be so.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear this.
-
Sooo
Andy and Bob vs. Charlie in a zone (Scene Aspect-Isolated Farm)
Andy uses Alertness to Declare "Wow, a Dried Up Well Covered By Rotting 2 By 4s is right over there!" X manuevers (Fists vs. whatever) to put Knocked Off-Balance on Charlie and Bob subsequently tags to invoke for effect...well, let's just say Charlie is going for a trip, and it ain't to the Bahamas...
-
Sooo
Andy and Bob vs. Charlie in a zone (Scene Aspect-Isolated Farm)
Andy uses Alertness to Declare "Wow, a Dried Up Well Covered By Rotting 2 By 4s is right over there!" X manuevers (Fists vs. whatever) to put Knocked Off-Balance on Charlie and Bob subsequently tags to invoke for effect...well, let's just say Charlie is going for a trip, and it ain't to the Bahamas...
I never liked Charlie anyway. Good riddance.
-
Could you provide the context in which Fred made that statement? I'm a little unclear about what he means by "an invoke triggers a compel".
I am wrong on the Internet! Official Word of Fred is that, yes, a "free tag" can be used to Invoke for Effect." My sincere apologies for being so stubbornly wrong on the threads in which this came up. Mea culpa.
Per Fred: "A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target."
-
Could you provide the context in which Fred made that statement? I'm a little unclear about what he means by "an invoke triggers a compel".
An Invoke for Effect can sometimes blur the line and act like a Compel (I Invoke for Effect my opponent's "Broken Leg" Aspect - he falls to the ground and gives up the fight). In this case, it becomes basically a Compel, to the detriment of the opponent, which is when Fate Points usually need to change hands.
So, if you are going to "free tag" that Aspect to Invoke for Effect, the GM basically pays the opponent the Fate Point on your behalf if it becomes more like a Compel.
-
So if you used a might or fist manouvre to do a judo throw on an enemy and give them the temparary aspect 'thrown' or 'shaken' I could then invoke the aspect so that they have to waste the next turn picking themself up or centering themselves is that about right?
-
The thing I'm looking for clarification on is centered around how "trigger" is used in the sentence. This makes it seem like the invoke-for-effect is not "acting like a compel", rather it's spawning a compel that is independent of the invoke-for-effect. I'm not sure of all the implications of one or the other, but if the invoke-for-effect is not simply acting as a compel, and the compel is strictly between the GM and the target, then it seems that the player is excluded from escalating the fate point bid beyond the first "freebie" as part of the tag. So that's why I was asking for the context of the quotation from Fred.
An Invoke for Effect can sometimes blur the line and act like a Compel (I Invoke for Effect my opponent's "Broken Leg" Aspect - he falls to the ground and gives up the fight). In this case, it becomes basically a Compel, to the detriment of the opponent, which is when Fate Points usually need to change hands.
So, if you are going to "free tag" that Aspect to Invoke for Effect, the GM basically pays the opponent the Fate Point on your behalf if it becomes more like a Compel.
-
I think in the example given if you invoked for effect the aspect broken leg you could make the enemy fall to the ground, but you couldn't stop the enemy getting right back up again.
-
So that's why I was asking for the context of the quotation from Fred.
Fred was answering this question:
Assuming someone has a legitimate opportunity to "free tag" an Aspect they have discovered, is Invoke for Effect one of the available options? Or is that "free tag" only good for a +2 or a reroll?
If there are situations when Invoke for Effect is eligible for the "free tag," where can one draw the line between an Invoke for Effect and a Compel?
As I see it:
Scene Aspects: Invoke for Effect if it benefits you, Compel if it hinders an NPC
NPC Aspects: Invoke for Effect if it benefits you, Compel if it hinders an NPC
Personal Aspect: Invoke for Effect if it benefits you
To which he replied:
Short form: yes. :)
Longer: A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target.
-
Cool. Thank you!
It sounds to me in that context as if the compel is a "spin-off" of the invoke-for-effect, and would exclude the originating player from escalation. My gut reaction is that I'd like to run it myself as if the invoke-for-effect was itself a compel with a "freebie starting fate point". It deserves more noodling on it, though, and I think it might be a matter of it working better one way in some situations and another way in others.
Fred was answering this question:
To which he replied:
-
I don't have a problem with the idea of triggering a Compel via an Invoke for Effect.
But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?
For example, say a party is taking on a powerful Red Court vampire. And using for example the above Invoke to Compel of a foe spending his action getting up. Can a strong martial character just keep chaining maneuvers with free tags to keep the vamp down on the ground while his buddies beat at it?
Or another that concerns me ... can you use a maneuver to compel, or grapple, to completely remove someone's ability to defend and make their defense count as 0 (mediocre)?
Or worse ... can you use a maneuver to essentially completely disable them, a la grapple (which is a block), so that they cannot defend, attack, or do anything at all? The rules say that if someone is not focused on the target to keep the maneuver going, would it mean that the target to break out of it is 0?
Given the fair amount of GM fiat involved, does anyone else have any ideas as to how you would handle it as a GM? What logical limitations you'd put?
-
But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?
It's negotiable and situational. So the aspect Room on Fire might compel a BCV to spend one turn moving away from the fire, flee the zone, or even flee the fight entirely. It's up to players and GM to agree on how much that fire will affect the vampire.
-
I don't have a problem with the idea of triggering a Compel via an Invoke for Effect.
But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?
For example, say a party is taking on a powerful Red Court vampire. And using for example the above Invoke to Compel of a foe spending his action getting up. Can a strong martial character just keep chaining maneuvers with free tags to keep the vamp down on the ground while his buddies beat at it?
I would say that if a character is using his action to remove an opponents ability to act, he should be using a block, not a maneuver.
The book is pretty clear that you can't ever remove a persons ability to defend, so even with invoking for effect I wouldn't allow it. That situation is much better suited for taking a +2 against their attempt to defend.
There is a lot of GM fiat involved in what can work for invoking for effect, but a good guideline is that it shouldn't be unilaterally more powerful than other options. Invoking to block an action is the same as blocking an action, with the added bonus of the other guy having a negative aspect on him. Thats unilaterally more powerful than a block, so its out. Invoking to prevent a defense is unilaterally more powerful than invoking for a +2 against the defense, so it too should be out. And so on.
-
Hmm, Invoking for Effect is NOT a Compel. It's like a declaration. That means you can state some fact or circumstance beneficial to your character or some other fact about the scene. While of course this is negotiable in a group, I think it is too powerful to allow it to force particular behavior out of an enemy (well, probably compelling goons would be alright, since they aren't as important). So I would think it would be too much to say an aspect like "Loose Weapon Grip" could be invoked to make the enemy drop the weapon...to do that you'd have to do a compel and use a fate point since you are making an enemy take a disadvantageous action. On the other hand, if they have something like "Bad Luck" as an aspect, you could Invoke it to have them standing under a chandelier or over a weak spot on the floor. Setting the scene up around them to their detriment seems ok as an invocation for effect, but forcing them to take a particular action to their detriment seems like you need a fate point exchanged (otherwise disarming people, pushing them off a ledge, or the like is way too easy).
That's my thought on the matter.
-
So I would think it would be too much to say an aspect like "Loose Weapon Grip" could be invoked to make the enemy drop the weapon...to do that you'd have to do a compel and use a fate point since you are making an enemy take a disadvantageous action.
A tag does just that though, without a fate point. The enemy can still spend a fate point to ignore the aspect. If they take the compel though, they do not get a fate point since it is a free "tag". Remember the only way to get a free tag is to reveal or place the aspect, so that means a maneuver (When you could attack instead) or causing a consequence. It seem fair to me that if you hit a vamp hard enough with a shotgun, that he has to take a "broken leg" aspect, you can then tag it to invoke for effect that he can't run up to you and attack. You should be able to do it for free once, as you are the one who gave him the broken leg. Now though, it turns into a compel. The GM decides if he spends a fate point to ignore the pain and run up anyway, or if he doesn't want to spend it, he stays where he is and tries to throw something at you. Now if next exchange you want to invoke it again, you have to spend the fate point. Compel #2, That damn broken leg keeps getting in the way, but at least this time since the tag is not free, if the vamp takes the compel, he will get your fate point. Manhole cover #2 coming your way.
-
A tag does just that though, without a fate point. The enemy can still spend a fate point to ignore the aspect. If they take the compel though, they do not get a fate point since it is a free "tag". Remember the only way to get a free tag is to reveal or place the aspect, so that means a maneuver (When you could attack instead) or causing a consequence. It seem fair to me that if you hit a vamp hard enough with a shotgun, that he has to take a "broken leg" aspect, you can then tag it to invoke for effect that he can run up to you and attack. You should be able to do it for free once, as you are the one who gave him the broken leg. Now though, it turns into a compel. The GM decides if he spends a fate point to ignore the pain and run up anyway, or if he doesn't want to spend it, he stays where he is and tries to throw something at you. Now if next exchange you want to invoke it again, you have to spend the fate point. Compel #2, That damn broken leg keeps getting in the way, but at least this time since the tag is not free, if the vamp takes the compel, he will get your fate point. Manhole cover #2 coming your way.
A tag cannot be used to compel, only to invoke. There's a difference between the two things. A compel is more powerful than an invoke as it forces someone to take an action. An invoke gives you a +2 bonus on an appropriate roll or you can make some sort of declaration, but you don't invoke compels, they are a different thing.
-
You can invoke for effect, so what counts as an effect, using the broken leg example you could argue that an appropriate effect of having a broken leg, or at the extreme end hamstrung is that the enemy falls over this seems a reasonable result of a broken leg, now you wouldn't neccessarily have to force her to give up her go that would be a compel, but you could argue that if she didn't give up her go then she would remain on the floor with all the limitation that brings, meaning that at the very least to get rid of the aspect fallen she would either need to spend a full action getting up or a supplemental action doing so at the GM's disgression.
-
So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?
Exactly this.
-
Exactly this.
Technically, you can't do that. If your group is ok with it, then you can, but that's a house rule. Personally, I think compels are pretty darn powerful, and compelling a non-mook shouldn't be done without an actual fate point spent. It should be significant, not something you can whip up with just a maneuver. Otherwise it seems to me that the value of fate points would be cheapened quite a bit.
That said, compelling a mook for free with a tag seems like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me, though maybe my opinion will change with more experience in the game.
-
Technically, you can't do that. If your group is ok with it, then you can, but that's a house rule. Personally, I think compels are pretty darn powerful, and compelling a non-mook shouldn't be done without an actual fate point spent. It should be significant, not something you can whip up with just a maneuver. Otherwise it seems to me that the value of fate points would be cheapened quite a bit.
That said, compelling a mook for free with a tag seems like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me, though maybe my opinion will change with more experience in the game.
You know that you're arguing with someone who helped actually create the game, right?
-
Technically, you can't do that.
Technically, wise guy, I can (as the publisher and one of the original creators of Fate, as well as a guy who has read the rules), and this has been the ruling we've put down about tagging for effect for several years now.
Merge the understanding of what a tag is (a free invoke) with the language about compelling other aspects on I believe YS107 and I believe the findings are clear.
-
You know that you're arguing with someone who helped actually create the game, right?
No, I did not.
However, the book does have a very clear distinction between invocations and compels. If a compel is type of invocation, then why does the book make a distinction? Might as well have three types of invocations if that's the case (one of them being compels). Certainly as far as the book says it, there's a distinct difference between the invocations and compels. So, I am going to stand by my position that what Iago said is not what the book says as best I can determine (e.g. it seems to be a house rule strictly speaking)*.
Given that, if he could expand on his thoughts on the matter, I'd appreciate it. Hmm, further, could one PC place an aspect on another PC, tag-compel and produce a fate point for that PC? (Obviously the normal rules regarding compels not being weak would have to apply to this).
*Which I do not have a problem with.
-
In case it's escaped people's notice:
iago = Fred Hicks = Evil Hat Publishing = as close to official word as you can get.
Oops - iago replied as I was typing this. Oh well, the introduction might still do a bit a good.
Richard
-
Technically, wise guy, I can (as the publisher and one of the original creators of Fate, as well as a guy who has read the rules), and this has been the ruling we've put down about tagging for effect for several years now.
Merge the understanding of what a tag is (a free invoke) with the language about compelling other aspects on I believe YS107 and I believe the findings are clear.
I am not being a wise guy...just perhaps a bit pedantic.
Hmm, rereading it again, I suppose the rules seem to indicate there are Invokes, Invoke for Effect, and Compels, and tagging only allows the first one. Whether right or wrong, that's what the book says. If you say they are all supposed to be the sort of thing you can invoke with a tag, then I suppose that should be something put on some errata at some point. Perhaps calling using a tag an Invoke, then have something like Invoke for a Roll (either +2 bonus or reroll), Invoke for Effect, and Invoke for a Compel.
Again, being a bit pedantic here.
Edit: Perhaps we should make a sticky and put stuff like this there. Unofficially Official Errata (and Clarifications) or something? (Or I suppose it might as well be official).
Edit2: If you want, I could comb through your posts and see if other things pop up and make a post with all that stuff, though perhaps someone who has been here longer would be more familiar with it.
Edit3: Or I guess you could expand on it from the tag angle, Tag for Invoke, Tag for Invoke for Effect, Tag for Compel, but I thought moving everything under "Invoke" made more sense when I wrote the above.
-
A tag is a free invoke.
A tag therefore can do anything an invoke can.
An invoke can invoke for effect.
An invoke for effect can target an aspect other than one directly possessed by the invoker.
An invoke for effect targeting an external aspect found on another character can thereby trigger a compel as the effect it's being "for effect" invoked.
Full stop: all invoking actions at this point have concluded.
Since a compel has been triggered, however, the compel machinery remains in motion.
Compels are negotiated and run between the GM and the target.
It resolves however it resolves.
Sometimes the target accepts it.
Sometimes the target rejects it.
Sometimes the target and GM determine, y'know what? This is weak sauce and doesnt count and the compel doesn't carry through.
This is the last I'm saying on the topic -- I've had like five different people email me about this over the last week and would've hoped more folks were pooling their notes on this. I'm a bit sick of the question, a bit sick of answering it, and would appreciate it if folks asking for some official-word advice (a concept I don't much love) would maybe not argue with me when I come around to give it.
-
I guess I just think the terminology in the book is unclear which is probably causing the confusion. I don't mean any offense by that.
If I understand you correctly, a Compel is essentially a type of Invoke For Effect, though it can be initiated on oneself or by the GM to cause a complication of some sort (which a normal Invoke for Effect cannot be done). Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).
I'm sorry about being so pedantic, I am just trying to clarify this fully in my head (Invoke for Effect is a bit vague in the rules, only explicitly mentioning declarations). Seems like that is a clarification worth stickying or the like. Again, no offense intended.
Anyhow, you don't have to respond, of course (if you are anything like me, then you probably read those dang threads that annoy you after you say you aren't responding anymore). I am sure others will respond to this post about whether I am following all this correctly.
-
Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).
Close enough. If invoking for effect creates a situation that is "compel worthy" it can lead to a Compel. At that point you play out the Compel as usual.
-
I would like to second that threads like this one where we get a WORD OF FRED about an important issue gets stickied.
I know that for the most part the same questions keep getting asked over and over again.
How about a mod or Iago himself stickies them so the madness does not repeat itself?
-
Or we could take it upon ourselves to comb the board and find them, instead of having them have to do it. A thread with all of them similar to Woj in the spoilers section would work well- they could sticky it, we maintain it.
-
Or we could take it upon ourselves to comb the board and find them, instead of having them have to do it. A thread with all of them similar to Woj in the spoilers section would work well- they could sticky it, we maintain it.
I like my idea better.
Wading through 60 posts with keywords you're looking for is a lot more aggravating than a few stickied threads.
And at the end of the day, we WANT more people to play so we can have a bigger community and more games going. Not only that, I'd prefer that less people have cause to bug Fred (myself included) about simply answered things and the community could just police its own.
-
Hey, Fred.
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to answer questions like this. It's above and beyond the call of duty, and some of us very much appreciate you doing it. For me, at least, it's one of the things that keeps me coming back to Evil Hat.
That and the awesome games.
-
Well, I want to chime in and say that I don't think pedantry is bad, especially when its goal is to clarify a murky topic. I definitely agree with you that there is a lack of clarity in how this is presented in the DFRPG books. And as you say, this may be criticism, but it's certainly not intended to cause offense.
But, back to the pedantry at hand. It seems to me from Fred's sequence example above that while there might be some similarity between the play on aspects between an invoke (specifically "invoke for effect", which I now understand to be clearly a subset of invokes in general) and a compel, the bridge between the "invoke for effect" and the compel highlights that they are two separate things, not just in how they are defined, but separate instances of separate things in the sequence example. The "compel" that is triggered by the "invoke for effect" carries on after the "invoke for effect" has completed. The sequence example indicates the "effect" that is being specified (i.e. what is being created by the "invoke for effect") is the actual compel, and then that is run between the GM and the object of the "invoke for effect".
I feel that I now have a much better understanding of these concepts. Understanding the intention of the source material, rather than dictating to us how we should play helps us better determine whether it's appropriate for our play-style and group. To me, that's the value of an "official answer". So, for me, this has been a very productive discussion.
As far as "pooling our notes" goes, I've been editing a document that I keep for my players that keeps all of the clarifications and examples I've used with regard to the mechanics and terminology of Aspects, including the input from other folks and threads like this. It's linked here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23117.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23117.0.html)
Comments and criticism always welcome.
-S
I guess I just think the terminology in the book is unclear which is probably causing the confusion. I don't mean any offense by that.
If I understand you correctly, a Compel is essentially a type of Invoke For Effect, though it can be initiated on oneself or by the GM to cause a complication of some sort (which a normal Invoke for Effect cannot be done). Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).
I'm sorry about being so pedantic, I am just trying to clarify this fully in my head (Invoke for Effect is a bit vague in the rules, only explicitly mentioning declarations). Seems like that is a clarification worth stickying or the like. Again, no offense intended.
Anyhow, you don't have to respond, of course (if you are anything like me, then you probably read those dang threads that annoy you after you say you aren't responding anymore). I am sure others will respond to this post about whether I am following all this correctly.
-
It should be noted that you can't Invoke for Effect leading to a compel without first succeeding in the Maneuver or Declaration roll required for the Aspect to be there in the first place.
For example, someone mentioned the Aspect of Loose Gun Grip. Well, what led him to have a Loose Gun Grip in the first place? If the target is a trained gunman, for example a bodyguard for hire or a soldier, the odds of him having a loose grip should lead to a either a declaration of some fiendish difficulty (Superb+) or a logical maneuver to disarm him which requires closing to melee range with the gunman (as opposed to, you know, standing by some crates and not getting shot). Or shooting him with a butter cannon or something.
And even there, once you've placed that Aspect on him, you and the GM (and the GM and his NPC) negotiate the terms of that Compel, so a GM could simply say no go because he thinks it's too powerful an effect. The latter is where I have some concerns. I'd like to ensure I'm being fair with players and playing a balanced game.
That being said, while a Compel is negotiable, you can still Invoke for a reroll or a +2. So even if the gunman with a Loose Gun Grip does *not* drop his weapon, you can still claim his poor grip is affecting his aim and tag that to give your own defensive roll a boost by implying that the gunman's shot went a little high. No GM would prevent that.
-
It's a fundamental principle that an aspect has to exist before you can invoke it whether for a vanilla invoke, invoke for effect, or compel, right? However, you can Invoke for Effect leading to a compel with an aspect that already exists. It's not necessary that the aspect be created with a Maneuver or Declaration. It could be guessed, or discovered via assessment.
It should be noted that you can't Invoke for Effect leading to a compel without first succeeding in the Maneuver or Declaration roll required for the Aspect to be there in the first place.
For example, someone mentioned the Aspect of Loose Gun Grip. Well, what led him to have a Loose Gun Grip in the first place? If the target is a trained gunman, for example a bodyguard for hire or a soldier, the odds of him having a loose grip should lead to a either a declaration of some fiendish difficulty (Superb+) or a logical maneuver to disarm him which requires closing to melee range with the gunman (as opposed to, you know, standing by some crates and not getting shot). Or shooting him with a butter cannon or something.
And even there, once you've placed that Aspect on him, you and the GM (and the GM and his NPC) negotiate the terms of that Compel, so a GM could simply say no go because he thinks it's too powerful an effect. The latter is where I have some concerns. I'd like to ensure I'm being fair with players and playing a balanced game.
That being said, while a Compel is negotiable, you can still Invoke for a reroll or a +2. So even if the gunman with a Loose Gun Grip does *not* drop his weapon, you can still claim his poor grip is affecting his aim and tag that to give your own defensive roll a boost by implying that the gunman's shot went a little high. No GM would prevent that.
-
It's a fundamental principle that an aspect has to exist before you can invoke it whether for a vanilla invoke, invoke for effect, or compel, right? However, you can Invoke for Effect leading to a compel with an aspect that already exists. It's not necessary that the aspect be created with a Maneuver or Declaration. It could be guessed, or discovered via assessment.
Oh Of course. Mind you, the 'guessing' part is only used in the case of a secret Aspect already being on that character. It's basically an Assessment where you toss the GM a Fate point and hope you're right. But you can't use that in place of a Declaration for Aspects that are not already there. It's unlikely any gunman you come across would have Loose Gun Grip by default, for example.
Incidentally, how do you guys handle consequences on NPCs? For example, if a PC hits an NPC hard enough to give him a consequence, do you straight out tell the PCs what the Aspect is? Do you roleplay it so that they can easily guess?
-
I want to make sure I understand this so providing an example. Please let me know if this is correct or incorrect.
Rijek Immonen - White Court Virgin has placed an aspect of "Blind Rage" on mobster Johnny McBad. Later, Rijek decides to Invoke For Effect on this aspect and since it has not yet been Invoked, he Tags it for free, stating that Johnny strikes out at random this turn. Since this is a compel against Johnny's aspect Blind Rage and Rijek's player is Tagging it, the Fate Point economy is purely between the GM and Johnny, so if I as GM accept this compel, then I give Johnny a fate point and if Johnny doesn't want to strike out in Blind Rage, then he must remove a fate point from his pool (or I as the GM must remove a fate point from my general pool if Johnny has none).
-
I want to make sure I understand this so providing an example. Please let me know if this is correct or incorrect.
Rijek Immonen - White Court Virgin has placed an aspect of "Blind Rage" on mobster Johnny McBad. Later, Rijek decides to Invoke For Effect on this aspect and since it has not yet been Invoked, he Tags it for free, stating that Johnny strikes out at random this turn. Since this is a compel against Johnny's aspect Blind Rage and Rijek's player is Tagging it, the Fate Point economy is purely between the GM and Johnny, so if I as GM accept this compel, then I give Johnny a fate point and if Johnny doesn't want to strike out in Blind Rage, then he must remove a fate point from his pool (or I as the GM must remove a fate point from my general pool if Johnny has none).
Pretty much ... although if you go with the go with Fate point swapping rules, then Johnny would not get a Fate point for accepting a Compel since no Fate points were spent in the first place on the free Tag.
And since it is a Compel, it's essentially a negotiation process, so a GM could simply refuse your description of the Compel or suggest you Compel differently. There's a great deal of GM fiat in a Compel, which could be considered a good thing since it allows the GM to subtly guide the story where he wants to go without railroading.
-
Pretty much ... although if you go with the go with Fate point swapping rules, then Johnny would not get a Fate point for accepting a Compel since no Fate points were spent in the first place on the free Tag.
Iago said that the following was correct:
So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?
So Johny DOES get a fate point, as with any compel. Basic compel rules don't change...if you are compelled, then you get a fate point (the only except to this principle, as I understand it, are in cases of debt).
-
Iago said that the following was correct:
So Johny DOES get a fate point, as with any compel. Basic compel rules don't change...if you are compelled, then you get a fate point (the only except to this principle, as I understand it, are in cases of debt).
I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.
Mind you, note that this is only the case on the free Tag. Every other Invoke for Effect involves a Fate point expenditure. But the creation of a brand new Aspect, via either a Declaration, Assessment or Consequence, should reward the person who created it and disadvantage the victim. If the victim is disadvantaged, then it makes no sense to reward him with a Fate point since it's a mechanism designed to offer a future advantage to balance it out.
-
My interpretation is that the GM conjures a fate point for this that is essentially spent on the player's behalf. Otherwise the comment about "..and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel" doesn't seem to have any meaning.
I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.
-
I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.
That's the part with the GM acting in your stead as far as Fate point economics are concerned. (It was Fred Hicks, one of the authors of the RPG who said this was correct...that's who Iago is).
-
I think one of the greatest things I've walked away with, from this thread, was one of the most confusing, and worrying aspects of the particular wording found throughout the book.
Throughout the book, you hear mentioning of spending Fate Points, rampantly throughout the setting. But you only hear of the free "tag" in a few pages of the book. My unfortunate bullheadedness quite possibly could have blinded me to greater insight. It seems that the system intends for you to be primarily spending Fate Points, due to its massive amount of mention. But, you also can begin to think that "tags" or free invokations, are not as prominent in the system, thus more rarely used.
In reality, its just an attempt to not confuse the reader. Any mention of "spending a Fate Point" could potentially be replaced, with the use of a taggable aspect. Thus, does the system become so much more malleable and workable. Thus does resources of the players (and villains) become so much less easily depletable..
Thus the system makes itself clearer by the day...
My apologies for my mindless ranting.. I don't particularly care if anyone else really takes from this. It is my own way of admitting my own tunnel vision in certain aspects, as well as thanking iago = fred for his clarification upon the rules.
Thank you...
-
I think one of the greatest things I've walked away with, from this thread, was one of the most confusing, and worrying aspects of the particular wording found throughout the book.
Throughout the book, you hear mentioning of spending Fate Points, rampantly throughout the setting. But you only hear of the free "tag" in a few pages of the book. My unfortunate bullheadedness quite possibly could have blinded me to greater insight. It seems that the system intends for you to be primarily spending Fate Points, due to its massive amount of mention. But, you also can begin to think that "tags" or free invokations, are not as prominent in the system, thus more rarely used.
In reality, its just an attempt to not confuse the reader. Any mention of "spending a Fate Point" could potentially be replaced, with the use of a taggable aspect. Thus the system makes itself clearer by the day...
My apologies for my mindless ranting.. I don't particularly care if anyone else really takes from this. It is my own way of admitting my own tunnel vision in certain aspects, as well as thanking iago = fred for his clarification upon the rules.
Thank you...
Yes, that is my understanding. A "tag" is essentially a one-use coupon that can replace a Fate Point for a given aspect. This "virtual" Fate Point can be used with that aspect in any way a normal Fate Point could.
-
In a wonderfully creative and entertaining set of books, I find the flaw that bothers me most is that as a reference book I'd like to see everything having to do with invokes and compels to be collected in one place in a more technical fashion. The wonderful stuff in the sidebars and annotations should not, in my opinion, be a replacement for admittedly dry rules references.
I think one of the greatest things I've walked away with, from this thread, was one of the most confusing, and worrying aspects of the particular wording found throughout the book.
Throughout the book, you hear mentioning of spending Fate Points, rampantly throughout the setting. But you only hear of the free "tag" in a few pages of the book. My unfortunate bullheadedness quite possibly could have blinded me to greater insight. It seems that the system intends for you to be primarily spending Fate Points, due to its massive amount of mention. But, you also can begin to think that "tags" or free invokations, are not as prominent in the system, thus more rarely used.
In reality, its just an attempt to not confuse the reader. Any mention of "spending a Fate Point" could potentially be replaced, with the use of a taggable aspect. Thus the system makes itself clearer by the day...
My apologies for my mindless ranting.. I don't particularly care if anyone else really takes from this. It is my own way of admitting my own tunnel vision in certain aspects, as well as thanking iago = fred for his clarification upon the rules.
Thank you...
-
I'm pretty sure the GM is backing the free-tag Invoke for Effect with a Fate Point from his own pile.
-
I'm pretty sure the GM is backing the free-tag Invoke for Effect with a Fate Point from his own pile.
Fred stated that the Compel is between the GM and the target for purposes of Fate point economy. Not that the GM gives a fate point for a Tag initiated Compel.
Please note the last paragraph from the Tagging section (YS106):
"Tags, even if they are to a character's detriment, do not award a Fate point like a normal invocation would. If no Fate point was spent, there's no Fate point to pass around."
-
So what you're saying is essentially that the target of the compel off of a tag would not receive a fate point for accepting the compel, but if they wanted to buy it off they'd still have to pay a fate point to the GM?
I think that's consistent with the example as well.
Fred stated that the Compel is between the GM and the target for purposes of Fate point economy. Not that the GM gives a fate point for a Tag initiated Compel.
Please note the last paragraph from the Tagging section (YS106):
"Tags, even if they are to a character's detriment, do not award a Fate point like a normal invocation would. If no Fate point was spent, there's no Fate point to pass around."
-
"Tags, even if they are to a character's detriment, do not award a Fate point like a normal invocation would. If no Fate point was spent, there's no Fate point to pass around."
I guess I should change TANSTAAFC (There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Compel) with TANSTAAFFP (...Free Fate Point), eh?
-
Fred stated that the Compel is between the GM and the target for purposes of Fate point economy. Not that the GM gives a fate point for a Tag initiated Compel.
Explain how that is different. What does the first part mean? Seems to me it can only mean that the GM handles paying a Fate Point if the Compel is accepted or taking one if it is resisted.
I don't accept what the book says on this, because it is pretty clear based on what Fred said that the book doesn't properly cover this.
Page 106 says Invocations can be used for Effect, but a Compel, as written, is NOT an Invocation technically speaking, so it isn't going to necessarily follow the same rules here.
So Tagging works like this as I understand it:
You can use a tag to Invoke for a +2 bonus, a reroll, or for Effect. In these cases, you under no conditions give a fate point to another party. However, using a Tag to Invoke for Effect can be used to make a Compel, in this case the GM pays the Compelled target one Fate Point if they accept (or takes a Fate Point if they resist), as per normal Compel rules (which are technically not Invocation rules).
Or you could think of Tagging as allowing Invokes of all sorts and Compels, but in the case of compels fate points are still received by compelled targets. I am not sure what the most succinct way to word it is.
-
I think for my campaign I'm going to give the fate point to whomever it goes, even if it is from a tag. It just seems more fair that way to me. I just want to point out that one thing no one has mentioned that everyone might want to consider. Which ever you choose it should work both ways. If a player can do it to a npc, said npc (especially if said npc is important) should be able to do it to said player. If a player tags an aspect for effect or compel or whatever, and your group is going with the "no fate point spent, none gained" concept, and the npc doesn't get a fate point, then make sure the group knows that if GM does the same thing to a player the player will get no fate point out of it. Talk it out with your group. Maybe your group won't like the fact they might not get fate points out of something. I believe that the more fate points floating around, the more interesting the story can get because fate points equal narrative control.
Explain how that is different. What does the first part mean?
I don't accept what the book says on this, because it is pretty clear based on what Fred said that the book doesn't properly cover this.
Page 106 says Invocations can be used for Effect, but a Compel, as written, is NOT an Invocation technically speaking, so it isn't going to necessarily follow the same rules here.
So Tagging works like this as I understand it:
You can use a tag to Invoke for a +2 bonus, a reroll, or for Effect. In these cases, you under no conditions give a fate point to another party. However, using a Tag to Invoke for Effect can be used to make a Compel, in this case the GM pays the Compelled target one Fate Point if they accept (or takes a Fate Point if they resist), as per normal Compel rules (which are technically not Invocation rules).
Or you could think of Tagging as allowing Invokes of all sorts and Compels, but in the case of compels fate points are still received by compelled targets. I am not sure what the most succinct way to word it is.
In Fred's example the tag is not being used for a compel. It is being used as an Invoke for Effect. If said Invoke for Effect does something to the recipient that would be compel worthy, then the GM would compel it. So the player is Invoking for effect, The GM is compelling it for better story.
-
I think for my campaign I'm going to give the fate point to whomever it goes, even if it is from a tag. It just seems more fair that way to me. I just want to point out that one thing no one has mentioned that everyone might want to consider. Which ever you choose it should work both ways. If a player can do it to a npc, said npc (especially if said npc is important) should be able to do it to said player. If a player tags an aspect for effect or compel or whatever, and your group is going with the "no fate point spent, none gained" concept, and the npc doesn't get a fate point, then make sure the group knows that if GM does the same thing to a player the player will get no fate point out of it. Talk it out with your group. Maybe your group won't like the fact they might not get fate points out of something. I believe that the more fate points floating around, the more interesting the story can get because fate points equal narrative control.
That will just encourage players to place aspects on each other and avoid ever doing it on enemies. Same net effect, pretty much, but they don't have to give the enemy a Fate point. Remember that to tag you have to use an action to place the Aspect (typically), and that's not a trivial sacrifice.
In Fred's example the tag is not being used for a compel. It is being used as an Invoke for Effect. If said Invoke for Effect does something to the recipient that would be compel worthy, then the GM would compel it. So the player is Invoking for effect, The GM is compelling it for better story.
Which is for all intents and purpose a tag being used for a Compel (GM taking or supplying a Fate Point to the target as needed).
-
Yup, I'd apply the same rules in both directions. Remember, a new negative Aspect should at least once prove to be decidedly disadvantageous to the player or NPC gaining it. Or else, you'll have players who will actively try to acquire Mild Consequences to get some fresh Fate points. Getting hit with a negative Aspect should never be taken lightly.
Although given the whole Free Will vs Nature aspect of this game, I'd still allow a player or NPC to buy out of a Compel by spending a Fate point. But note that that Fate point buy out goes *only* to the GM and not the initiating player as per the standard Compelling Other Aspects section (YS107): "Once the initiating player spends the fate point, he does not get it back even if the target buys out of the compel". Same rule applies for a Tag, just with the difference that the Tag means the initiating player did not have to spend a Fate point.
-
Can you get a free tag mild concequences i thought to get any use of them you had to spend a fate point, I thought it was only extreme you got a free tag of.
-
Then again, Fred does go out of his way to indicate that the compel is not the same as the invoke-for-effect. So it would not contradict YS106 if it's the compel that involves the giving of the fate point.
Fred stated that the Compel is between the GM and the target for purposes of Fate point economy. Not that the GM gives a fate point for a Tag initiated Compel.
Please note the last paragraph from the Tagging section (YS106):
"Tags, even if they are to a character's detriment, do not award a Fate point like a normal invocation would. If no Fate point was spent, there's no Fate point to pass around."
-
That will just encourage players to place aspects on each other and avoid ever doing it on enemies. Same net effect, pretty much, but they don't have to give the enemy a Fate point. Remember that to tag you have to use an action to place the Aspect (typically), and that's not a trivial sacrifice.
For me I look at it from the series point of view. During the escalation to the final confrontation Harry is constantly being beat on (and starts gain fate points from the all the consequences and compels he's getting) and then goes uber and wins (dumping a lot of the faint points he just gained to win). The gaining a fate point even if tagged, for me anyways, is more in sync with that. Plus it would depend on the group. I don't believe my group would abuse it like you think.
Which is for all intents and purpose a tag being used for a Compel (GM taking or supplying a Fate Point to the target as needed).
Yes and No. It is partially semantics, like you say, but it would limit things to a certain degree too. A compel coming straight from the PC could have a much wider ranges of effects, or be much harsher. The compel from the GM would IMO be in a narrower frame of things seeing as the GM would only do the compel if they see it as appropriate and apply a potentially more subtle effect. Plus, as I see it, it also effects if the effected party will get the fate point. If your going with "no fate paint spent, none gained" then the effected party would not get the point from the Invoke for effect, but since the GM initiated the compel the target would get one from the compel.
I mean no offense, and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're coming from the perspective that this is a big loophole and could be exploited. I see it as what would be a better story, and what would everyone enjoy better. If that means that A tag could be essentially be used as a compel, I'd go with it. But I still retain all my rights to say to a player "Okay, now your abusing it."
-
Can you get a free tag mild concequences i thought to get any use of them you had to spend a fate point, I thought it was only extreme you got a free tag of.
All Consequences can be free tagged. The only thing that makes Extreme ones more noticeable is that they force you to create an *additional* Aspect which replaces one of your existing phase Aspects for as long as that Consequence remains.
-
Nice that makes my fighter considerably stronger than I thought he was as long as hit the first time I can tag the concequences to hit the second thanks for inform.
-
The initiator of ANY Invoke or Compel that targets another does not get a Fate point if a Fate point is payed off to ignore it. It's pretty clear from the line I quoted.
I'm not concerned in the sense that I see every player as a dangerous twink in the making (although we have all dealt with those in the past, no doubt). What I am implying is that every victim of a *freshly created negative Aspect* should not be rewarded for the initial Tag used to take advantage of it. It's, in my opinion, quite explicit on page 106. Be careful to stay within the spirit of the rules and not try to find a loophole in the semantics to justify circumventing that.
1) Fred stated that a Tag could be used for an Invoke for Effect leading to a Compel.
2) The section on Tagging states that no Fate point is rewarded for Tagging to a character's detriment.
3) Ergo, Tagging on an Invoke for Effect that leads to a Compel does not reward a Fate point to it's victim.
As for the Harry comparison, most of the bad stuff that tends to happen to Harry is mostly due to Compels on existing Aspects, such as the fact that he is headstrong and has a tendency of sticking his foot in his mouth. Also, even when a Consequence becomes an issue for him, it's compelled so frequently, that he surely gets fate points from the 2nd instance onwards.
-
I believe that what's makes YS106 not specifically relevant to this example is that the tag allows the free invoke-for-effect, and the effect you are creating is a compel. No fate point is given or received as the result of invoke-for-effect. And at this point the invoke-for-effect is complete and resolved (see the "Full Stop" part of the sequence example). The triggered compel (involving only the GM and the target of the compel) is now running independently of the tag *and* the initiator. Therefore, the compel is not obviously subject to the verbiage on YS106.
For the record, I don't necessarily think you're conclusion is wrong (you may be spot on), I just don't think YS106 leads us obviously to that conclusion.
The initiator of ANY Invoke or Compel that targets another does not get a Fate point if a Fate point is payed off to ignore it. It's pretty clear from the line I quoted.
I'm not concerned in the sense that I see every player as a dangerous twink in the making (although we have all dealt with those in the past, no doubt). What I am implying is that every victim of a *freshly created negative Aspect* should not be rewarded for the initial Tag used to take advantage of it. It's, in my opinion, quite explicit on page 106. Be careful to stay within the spirit of the rules and not try to find a loophole in the semantics to justify circumventing that.
1) Fred stated that a Tag could be used for an Invoke for Effect leading to a Compel.
2) The section on Tagging states that no Fate point is rewarded for Tagging to a character's detriment.
3) Ergo, Tagging on an Invoke for Effect that leads to a Compel does not reward a Fate point to it's victim.
As for the Harry comparison, most of the bad stuff that tends to happen to Harry is mostly due to Compels on existing Aspects, such as the fact that he is headstrong and has a tendency of sticking his foot in his mouth. Also, even when a Consequence becomes an issue for him, it's compelled so frequently, that he surely gets fate points from the 2nd instance onwards.
-
For me I look at it from the series point of view. During the escalation to the final confrontation Harry is constantly being beat on (and starts gain fate points from the all the consequences and compels he's getting) and then goes uber and wins (dumping a lot of the faint points he just gained to win). The gaining a fate point even if tagged, for me anyways, is more in sync with that. Plus it would depend on the group. I don't believe my group would abuse it like you think.
I mean that players will naturally do things to avoid giving the enemy an advantage. Making tagged Invokes give a Fate Point like Tagged Compels will mean players will avoid doing tagged invokes. You've made those tagged invokes more expensive to do...it's simple economics. So I think the net result is it will be that it makes the game LESS fun, because there will be a lot fewer aspects placed on enemies. It's not about abuse..placing Aspects on allies isn't abuse. This just makes aspects on allies a lot cheaper, hence encouraging their placement over aspects on enemies (which is already discouraged by the more significant resistance an enemy can potentially give).
You'll still have lots of stuff happening at the end as people spend fate points they've accumulated, use tags, and invoke aspects that have already been tagged.
Compels that come from an Invoke for Effect are different, of course, since a Compel immediately puts the opponent at a non-trivial disadvantage. That certainly is deserving of a Fate Point as per normal compel rules.
Yes and No. It is partially semantics, like you say, but it would limit things to a certain degree too. A compel coming straight from the PC could have a much wider ranges of effects, or be much harsher. The compel from the GM would IMO be in a narrower frame of things seeing as the GM would only do the compel if they see it as appropriate and apply a potentially more subtle effect. Plus, as I see it, it also effects if the effected party will get the fate point. If your going with "no fate paint spent, none gained" then the effected party would not get the point from the Invoke for effect, but since the GM initiated the compel the target would get one from the compel.
I mean no offense, and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're coming from the perspective that this is a big loophole and could be exploited. I see it as what would be a better story, and what would everyone enjoy better. If that means that A tag could be essentially be used as a compel, I'd go with it. But I still retain all my rights to say to a player "Okay, now your abusing it."
As for this conversation overall regarding how to word things about tagging, I am coming from a purely pedantic standpoint. I am just trying to figure out the clearest way to word all of this (because the book certainly doesn't do it). Is it best to have Invoke For Effect have a nested Compel as an option, or just to explicitly state that one can Compel with a tag? Generally I think avoided nested stuff is less complicated, and mathematically speaking this is certainly so if you would just have 3 options (long story).
Beyond that, I don't see how the player doing the compel without needing a Fate Point is different from the GM here. What can be compelled in either case is very dependent on the Aspect in question. I don't see how an Invoke For Effect limits the nature of possible compels at all...anything that can be compelled is arguably something that can be Invoked For Effect (which would cause the compel), as best I see it. Is there something I am missing here?
-
I mean that players will naturally do things to avoid giving the enemy an advantage. Making tagged Invokes give a Fate Point like Tagged Compels will mean players will avoid doing tagged invokes. You've made those tagged invokes more expensive to do...it's simple economics. So I think the net result is it will be that it makes the game LESS fun, because there will be a lot fewer aspects placed on enemies. It's not about abuse..placing Aspects on allies isn't abuse. This just makes aspects on allies a lot cheaper, hence encouraging their placement over aspects on enemies (which is already discouraged by the more significant resistance an enemy can potentially give).
I don't see how you are getting here. Are you talking about tagging IFB (Invoke for bonus) or IFE (Invoke for effect)? If you tag a IFB then the tagged shouldn't get a fate point. I feel that a IFE, being narrative control, should have a fate point given to the tagged, but that's just me personally, even though I know that the RAW might disagree with me. I see it as IFE giving narrative control. If someone is taking NC over someone then that person should get something in return. But most likely I would just use a tagged IFE to lead to a compel to give a fate point, which seems to be okay.
Compels that come from an Invoke for Effect are different, of course, since a Compel immediately puts the opponent at a non-trivial disadvantage. That certainly is deserving of a Fate Point as per normal compel rules.
As for this conversation overall regarding how to word things about tagging, I am coming from a purely pedantic standpoint. I am just trying to figure out the clearest way to word all of this (because the book certainly doesn't do it). Is it best to have Invoke For Effect have a nested Compel as an option, or just to explicitly state that one can Compel with a tag? Generally I think avoided nested stuff is less complicated, and mathematically speaking this is certainly so if you would just have 3 options (long story).
Beyond that, I don't see how the player doing the compel without needing a Fate Point is different from the GM here. What can be compelled in either case is very dependent on the Aspect in question. I don't see how an Invoke For Effect limits the nature of possible compels at all...anything that can be compelled is arguably something that can be Invoked For Effect (which would cause the compel), as best I see it. Is there something I am missing here?
I agree with ScottMcG about that ruling. The RAW is does have some funny circuitous wording. The difference I can tell is that according to RAW you can not tag a compel, a tagged IFE would not give a fate point, but a tagged IFE that leads to a GM compel would get the fate point. I know it is a very round about way of doing things, and if you want to limit this and come up with a simpler way of doing things, I think you might even get encouraged to do so seeing that Fate in general is all about Moding for your own purposes. What ever makes it easier for you.
The difference I see is that a player is more likely to try to go overboard with a compel, or at least try to get the most out of it. Where as the GM might want to try to fit it in the story better. I see it as a GM having more control over their npcs. That's one thought anyways. It really comes down to how you campaign and your group runs. You might want to leave these things, like IFE leading to a compel during battle, up to your players.
-
The difference I see is that a player is more likely to try to go overboard with a compel, or at least try to get the most out of it. Where as the GM might want to try to fit it in the story better. I see it as a GM having more control over their npcs. That's one thought anyways. It really comes down to how you campaign and your group runs. You might want to leave these things, like IFE leading to a compel during battle, up to your players.
Remember that the moment a Compel is involved, it becomes a negotiation process. A GM will listen to your description of the Effect/Compel and either accepts the chain of events as you describe, or refuse it and ask you to describe it differently. Anything leading to a Compel, regardless of whether or not a Fate point is awarded to the victim or not, involves GM Fiat. Merely tagging or invoking an Aspect for a bonus or reroll is straight forward and almost always accepted as long as the Aspect is relevant.