Ok, so running the first part of an adventure last week, the wizard used a tracking spell to track down a missing person to a rail yard that was moving human "cattle" for certain evil forces.

Thing is, when he got there the person was not among the "cattle". So now he's wondering why the tracking spell led him to where someone WAS rather than where they are.

As the GM, I have to tie up this loose end (as clearly I'd not thought it all the way through and was just running with the flow of the game).

I could have it be that the person was moved just after the wizard's arrival, but that seems a little too cheesy and simplistic an answer. So, what other things could make a tracking spell return a false positive, or in this case a somewhat "stale" positive?

Reading the evocation rules, it occurs to me to ponder if a wizard could conceivably "hijack" a spell using something like the counter-spell and redirect rules to force the energy of the target spell into another spell.

I'd probably run it as a counter-spell check first, followed by a redirect, perhaps waving the typical automatic 1 stress cost (since they didn't have to gather the initial power themselves), but making the character take stress on any power (shifts) that exceed his/her conviction as per normal evoking.

Perhaps even requiring Sight use if they wanted to usurp thaumaturgic spells since this is something a bit more involved than just shorting out the spell.

Thoughts?

The other day, Fred Hicks was kind enough to do a little Q&A with me regarding the game and the use of scene aspects in certain hypothetical situations. I had some areas I was fuzzy on and Fred cleared them up nicely for me. Out of respect, I'm posting the relevant bits of the conversation here, for posterity, in case it might help clear things up for anyone with questions like mine. I've highlighted Fred's responses for easy spotting. Heaps of thanks to Fred for his helpful feedback! So, here we go:

Let's say the scene is an old abandoned house that the GM is having the PC visit. The house is old and in poor repair, and thus the GM has decided it has the Old and Busted scene aspect.

Now situation one might play out like this:

The player enters the house and asks or is asked to make an Alertness or Investigation check. Let's say it passes and the GM reveals the Old and Busted aspect (and of course describes the house dramatically). Since this was an Assessment, the player is entitled to his free tag at sometime on the scene aspect.

So let's say he explores the house, no problem, but perhaps he's on his way back out when he gets confronted by a ghoul at the end of a hallway. The player decides he might be able to use his tag to use the Old and Busted aspect to his advantage against the ghoul.

As I understand it, he could then use the tag to invoke Old and Busted, either getting a +2 on his roll or a reroll, or he could invoke it for effect.

Your scenario is correct so far. (Though honestly sometimes I just reveal aspects up front as a GM and let the players get a tag out of it if they can come up with an inventive use.)

So what has me wondering is let's say he decides to invoke for effect with the tag and Declare that the ghoul is standing on a weak, rotting section of the floor. Would he then have to use an additional actual fate point (having used up his tag on the declare) to get a +2/reroll to invoke the aspect again to perhaps blast the weak floor out from under the ghoul (maybe getting an easier roll than the Gm would give him on a "strong" section of floor to better reflect Old and Busted)? Or would it be more appropriate for him to use the invoke for effect to declare the ghoul steps on a weak spot and falls right through? The method in which this could play out, and the "power" of invoking for effect is fuzzy for me.

The latter is more appropriate in the kind of game I'd run. Simply saying "the ghoul is on a weak section of floor" is simply a color detail of little consequence. It doesn't interact with the system or the drama in any way until something happens as a result of that.

The something that happens could be:

Invoke: "... so he stumbles and gets his foot caught when I pull out my pistol, giving me a +2 on my Guns roll!"

Invoke for effect: "... so he falls right through when he tries to leap at me!"

It's in the text (though not always caught by the reader) that Invoke for Effect is, in essence, an event that begins a compel. The GM runs that compel (because it's her job to run compels), but the IFE is what got that ball rolling. So unless your IFE has the "teeth" of a compel, it's not worth charging a fate point (or free tag) for.

What brought this question into sharp relief for me was the Skill Declaration process because situation two might play out like this:

The player explores the house, but Old and Busted never comes up (maybe GM never thought of it). Then the ghoul confrontation happens and the player thinks, "Hey, this is an old house, maybe it's not so sturdy and I can use that against the ghoul." So the player states the house might be in bad shape and he'd like to try for an alertness roll to declare that the ghoul is standing on a rotting floor in this old house. Let's say the GM agrees and it passes. The player then gets to declare the floor under the ghoul is Old and Busted and also gets to tag it (getting his +2/reroll as part of the "package") since it was a skill declaration.

That sequence of events is equivalent in effect to the player assessing the existence of the aspect and then making use of the aspect that results.

Or equivalent to the player undertaking a maneuver to weaken the boards in the floor and then making use of the aspect that results.

That's the "secret" of assessment, declaration, and maneuvering, in fact -- they're all the same action, in essence, a skill roll that gives rise to an aspect, which offers a free tag out of respect to the successfully made skill roll. The only difference between them is in terms of how the authority model appears to work. Assessment is a discovery of something the GM thought of, uncovered by a successful skill roll. Declaration is the establishment of a player-invented reality, backed by a successful skill roll.  A maneuver is a character-imposed change in circumstance, successfully established if the player makes a (often contested) skill roll. But outside of those authority models, it's the same basic game move.

This seems to suggest that "on the fly" skill declarations are somewhat more "bang for the buck" than assessments (as mentioned in the blurb on page YS116). One seems to suggest a tag and a fate point to use the aspect fully, where one seems to get it all for the price of a skill roll. Thus, I'm trying to "reconcile" how the assessment version of the scenario would be able to approach parity with the skill declaration scenario. Since I may have it all wrong some way, I'm asking you, the Jedi Master.

I think anything that increases player investment and authority helps the game, really, so in a social sense, declarations are more bang for the buck. But not everyone's going to be comfortable with that authority model having broad applicability.

That said, aside from the differences in authority model, I continue to assert that assessments and declarations are identical.

One final question, can a tag be used to "buy off" a compel? Say for instance the PC does his assessment, gets his tag, and then wants to use it to pay off a compel when the Gm tries to use Old and Busted scene aspect to compel the PC to fall through the floor himself.

Maybe -- that might be a fine way for folks at your table to feel comfortable about any perceived difference between assessments and declarations.

Personally I'd take the fate point, though. They're yummy.

I've only had the DFRPG books for a week or two, and I'm finding that the binding on my copy of Our World is questionably flimsy, and perhaps on its way to giving up the ghost. I don't subject my books to extreme use, just laid flat reading, so it's a bit disturbing. It seems like for the cost, hard cover rpg books just aren't made like they used to be.

Is there a replacement policy for new books that fall apart prematurely? Mine hasn't yet, but it seems in threat of it.

...saying hello.

(okay, really sitting and typing, but let's not get stuck on semantics)

Read the books, planning to run the game. Planning to introduce some incarnation of Set Abominae (from the Iced Earth concept albums if you're not familiar) as a major antagonist. Speaking of which, that band's album "Horror Show" is a good listen; it being a concept album for things that go nom nom nom in the night.

So, that's all I have to say about that (for now).

Cheers!