Funny. That's the same amount of time I've spent doing martial arts.

I find that a quick look at somebody's stance and how they move once the fight starts gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.

In DFRPG wouldn't that quick look be an Assess?

It seems to me that the GM has a lot of narrative options. He can show the block, but not its strength.

"The Neuromancer pops out and goes boo! He's surrounded by a shimmering blue electric field of power. What do you do?"

She can not show the block until it is triggered:

"The Neuromancer pops out and goes Boo!"
"I yell Fuego! And launch my fire blast!"
"It erupts against a dome of force which flares with blue lightning. Lets see if you can get through a block 6."

He can show the Block and its strength.

"The necromancer pops out and goes boo! He's surrounded by a shimmering field of blue lightning. You're going to need to blast through a block six to hit him."

Each of these choices colors the experience in different ways and each is a good or bad choice in different circumstances.

Our GM doesn't tell us about blocks we have no way of knowing about, and he's super transparent. Why would I want him to tell me "Before you consider attacking anyone, please know the Vampire is protected by a Block 7 shield, the ghoul has a block 10 shield protecting him. So you should probably attack the Vampire." How about instead if I jump in, blast away at the Vampire (or the Ghoul) and then he say's "Cool! Let's see if it gets past the shield. You'll need to beat a 7. That's what a great evocation?"

Then there's all sorts of cool effects as my spell either bounces off the shield, or blows it away. And I get to invoke my aspects and all that fun stuff that Fate does.

For something we would know about, like being pinned down by bullets, sure. He might say, "You'll need a great athletics roll to run through that" or whatever. A wall of fire, sure. We'd see a massive wall of flames, but we'd have to do more to get any idea about it's strength. Heck it might be an illusion.

But a magic shield that we can't see? Why would he tell us about that before we throw our attack?

It's unbalanced if the invisible dome is invisible and he stone wall looks like a stone wall?

Is a horde of pixies an evocation block?

No, it was a horde of pixies hopped up on Cinnabons and Orange Julius. But I did opt to throw that block rather than an evocation.

This, definitely. Neither side of the conflict is, or should be played as, a single entity all under the direct and omniscient control of a being seeking to exploit every vulnerability the instant it comes in. Both sides of the conflict are filled with individuals who are going to be motivated by things other than a calculation of relative skill rolls and block strength.

So yes, a vampire is going to run smack into a wall of force to try and attack the person behind it. Someone is going to attack the wizard even if he puts up a shield, because the wizard is a major target on his own, whatever else happens.

+1

Fair point.

Is there a difference? 

If you don't want to use the wizard's high concept you can simply declare A Wizard is Near by spending a fate and immediately tag it for the same effect.  Declarations don't take an action and fate points get transferred the same as in noclue's description.  I don't see a meaningful difference.

Yeah, so here's what I've been thinking about. The examples with unintentional hexing and wild gunfire aren't great for digging into this from a design issue. The situation is easy to fix. It's a scene aspect. Done. Or, save a step and just compel the aspect from one character's sheet on another character and done even faster.

So, it looks like its fine either way. It looks like if you don't have a relevant aspect on one character's sheet, just look at another character's sheet and compel that. But, I think there's something elegant hidden beneath the question that makes me want to look it in a different light.

So, let's say we have two characters, Alvin and Sheila. Alvin is your stereotypical nerd accountant type. He can best be summed up with the aspect "Bookish accountant with a head only for numbers." For Sheila, we'll go with a cliche as well, like "Fresh-faced beauty." Sheila's been selling breadcrumbs at tuppence a bag but she doesn't seem to be making a profit and she's come to ask Alvin for help.

So, in she walks and I think it would be really cool to spark off a romance between these two characters with a compel. I look at Alvin's sheet, and I got nothing. If Alvin had "Accountant with the heart of a poet," I'd have him. I'd compel that poet heart as he looks up while she steps into his room. But, he doesn't and I can't. Similarly, I look at Sheila's sheet and I got nothing there. If she had "Looking for love in all the wrong places" or "No more bad boys for this good girl," or something I'd be good. But, nope.

Of course, if they were in some kind of conflict, Sheila could invoke her "Fresh-faced beauty" aspect for a bonus and Alvin could use his single mindedness to help him ignore her by invoking his own "...mind only for numbers" aspect. But as the GM, the players haven't given me relevant Aspects to push things where I want them to go. Even if we all think a relationship between Alvin and Sheila would be cool, I don't have anywhere to spend my fate points yet. I don't really get a say.

And that's a good thing. This is a good problem to have. Because, who the fuck am I really. The player created Alvin and he crafted all those aspects to represent the character. The game is going to advocate for Alvin to be the best Alvin he can be. If he's built to be blind to Sheila, then where do I get off trying mess with that? I haven't earned the right to push him there. Same with Sheila, she's not built to be interested in Alvin. That's not something I can poke at.

And if one of them were created with Aspects that drove towards romantic sparks in this situation, that's where I should push. That's the character I should be looking at with my FP in hand. That's the one I should be prompting into action, based on their aspects that they built. If Alvin has the heart of a poet, I poke there. If Sheila's looking for a sensitive guy who's good at math, I push there.

So, let's say everyone's on board with this romance idea, but no one has Aspects built for it. That's cool. Because the characters can roleplay their little hearts out and create a romance and the game rewards that. Now, I can look at the situation and say "Hey, I like this thing we've built in play. I think I'll just compel this "Budding Romance" that we all know is there now." I can turn to Alvin's player and say "you know getting involved with Sheila is going to piss off Frank, but...." And now we're cooking gas. It may have taken longer to get to where the Aspects were relevant, but now everything makes sense. I don't have to impose on Alvin or Sheila. I can just use the Aspects that are organic to the situation and push there.

And that's what I really want out of aspects. Not the fastest way to get to a +2, or even the most expedient way to push the fiction where I want it to go, but a currency that builds a cool experience based on the things we each bring to the table.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I'm talking about. It seems to be just an outline of a particularly lazy GM not bothering to describe things, which isn't what I'm talking about.

Assume equal description in both examples.