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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

I think the point he was trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether or not a wizard uses a Rote spell for a reactive block since even Rote spells cost a minimum of 1 mental stress.

I think the optional rules as written in the sidebar on page 253 are fine as is. It's already more limiting than a regularly planned block since you can't extend it past 1 exchange, you can't roll a defensive roll on top of the shield's block, you can't use it as armor, and, at least the way I see it, you can't extend the block to cover your allies. All of those options require the kind of concentration that would require you to spend an exchange doing so. Likewise, you can't *reactively* extend the duration.

You're an ace sharpshooter.

You turn into a bird.

Go ahead and just try to pick up that gun, let alone shoot it.

Didn't really want to start a new thread since one already exists for this. I too have wondered how it works as worded.
Here's my take on it:

Normally, a maneuver is used to place an Aspect on a target which can then be free tagged once, and then Fate point invoked afterward. Someone who is affected can then use a Maneuver themselves to clear out that aspect ... so essentially, even with an extra shift of success to make it sticky, it still only lasts until someone clears it.

What I could envision with Evocation based maneuvers is this: Every additional shift (so above those shifts used for the maneuver roll, which is not necessarily 3) put into the spell not only makes it conventionally sticky, but also *renews* itself every additional exchange so that the Aspect can still be Invoked afterward (obviously, you only get one free tag on that Aspect). How's this as example:

GM: Troll sees you and charges you. *dice are rolled and Troll's swing doesn't break Wizard's magical block*

Player: Goddamn! I take step back and cast an Earth evocation maneuver to have the ground grasp his legs and give him the Aspect Earthbound! Let's say 4 shifts for the Maneuver and 2 for extra duration. *rolls against Troll's athletics and succeeds*. I use my free tag to Invoke this effect: He's stuck in place and can't attack me until he frees himself!

GM: Sure, why not! Troll uses a Might roll to break free ... uhm, yeah, do I even bother rolling? He breaks free and advances on you. That's his action.

Player: That Evocation is still active. I pay a Fate point to get the earth to grab him again! And my action, I toss the incredible fury of my fire blast at his face! Wooo! 8 successes! In your face!

GM: Troll rolls a 3 on his athletics roll, so 5 damage goes through. 2 is absorbed by his natural toughness, so it hits his 3rd stress box ... You hurt it's feelings. As his own action, he once again frees himself from your Earth spell. How are those Fate points there?

Player: Uhm, yeah, kinda ran out. So taking on this troll was a bad idea, huh?

GM: Well, maybe. Depends if you survive. Pick your next action wisely.


I think the only place where it could be different is on a grapple. I'd say in that case, even if magical, the Wizard has to concentrate and use his own action each turn to keep his opponent immobilized or else it would be way too overpowered.

I think this method might provide a good way to let player judge on whether they'd prefer to pour lots of shifts into what they hope is an unbreakable maneuver, or if they prefer to throw shifts at duration hoping to rely on their Fate point pool to keep control.

Thoughts?