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."

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...

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.

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

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.

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:

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."

Thanks for the input, all.

The resources angles don't really hit what I'm looking for,  as the gambling I'm looking at  is more story-oriented and less about access to monetary resources.  I think having a stunt that would allow the player to use one of the skills of their choice as "gambling skill" for any gambling might do the trick.

Thanks again!