Compelling an Aspect created through Evocation

[Watson]

I have a question about spells as maneuvers: If a spell is cast as an evocation maneuver, it basically places an Aspect on the target – does it actually do anything else (in terms of rules mechanics) than to give the target an Aspect? And what about players compelling that Aspect?

As an example, if you use the Whirlwind spell (YS295) to place the Aspect “KNOCKED PRONE” on the target, does anything actually happen to the target or is someone required to spend Fate points for the target to physically stay prone? If a Fate Point is required to actually make the target stay put (through a compel), would it really be that simple to take out a target by spending a Fate Point, compelling the “KNOCKED PRONE” Aspect and then have the target locked in place?

If the "KNOCKED PRONE" Aspect is not good enough for taking someone out of combat, one could change that Aspect to "LEVITATE OFF THE GROUND". Can a player then simply compel that Aspect to have the NPC hanging helpless in the air? In that case, taking out any target with negative Fate Point scores (i.e. most powerful NPC’s!) is extremely simple…

Or how would you otherwise treat such a spell that places such an Aspect on a target? Is it only there to provide an opportunity to get a +2 modifier or a re-roll (Invoke)?

Or is it fair to say that if the players want to use (read: exploit!) such an Aspect (except getting a +2, re-roll or invoking for effect to state a minor fact), then the player must compel the Aspect (thus costing a Fate Point, and passing the approval of the GM)?

I can see that in case one wanted to lock targets in a zone in place, creating a Block is much more suitable (but as I can’t really get a grip on the Aspect placed by the spell and compelling that Aspect, I ask the question). And afterall, the "Whirlwind" spell is in the rule book...

[Papa Gruff]

Ok. Lots of questions in one post... I'll try to answer some.

Basically maneuvering with evocation isn't any different in terms of effect then any other kind of maneuver, except for some minor things concerning the aspects duration depending on description and other stuff.

I'll stay with your example for now: If you established KNOCKED PRONE on your target by pushing it with a gust of air and he fails his defense roll, then it actually takes place in game. You knock the target over and get a free tag of the introduced aspect in a subsequent exchange (rather sooner then later). The tag reflects the advantage you gained over the opponent. Getting up or some other action involving movement might be difficult for the guy now, so it becomes likely that he is compelled by someone. This can be the player, but more likely the GM will do it by compelling the NPC he controls.

If you LEVITATE OFF THE GROUND somebody, it technically isn't any different. The description of the aspect is just likely to lead to other compels...

Remember: The target can always buy out of a compel if he has the FP to do so, but for most low level NPC it isn't very likely to happen since they don't have a lot of FP... Also keep in mind, that the target of your maneuver may always try to remove the temporary aspect from himself by maneuvering on his own, so taking someone out of combat through maneuvering isn't always going to cut it.

Using maneuvers to look somebody down usually is a gamble. It might be necessary for you to compel the aspect you introduced yourself (if the GM isn't willing), so it can drain your FP fast if you are doing it continually. In most chases it is easier to establish a block. In game this block might even may even be described exactly like the maneuver of the example, as a whirlwind that holds the target... 

[Watson]

Yes, there were a lot of questions in one post, sorry about that. 

One of the key things, that I am struggling with, is the question what an Aspect actually means when placed on an opponent (through magic or otherwise). As I see it (correct me if I am wrong) – it does actually not mean anything [seen from a rules mechanical side] other than that it enables anyone to invoke it (for a bonus or for effect) or that anyone can compel it (which costs Fate Points). This also means that someone that is KNOCKED PRONE or LEVITATED OFF THE GROUND is not really technically restricted by those Aspects (unless they are compelled by either the GM or a player), they would [technically] be allowed to move and act freely (but the GM ought to compel the NPC!). 

The fact that the GM might want to compel the NPC’s using the Aspects created by the spells cast by the PC’s is a different story (as this gives the NPC’s Fate Points).

[Papa Gruff]

Your understanding is correct from my point of view.

The concept of aspects may be difficult to get behind at first, but I can assure you that it is not that difficult and usually pretty fun as it keeps things simple.

I'm also getting the impression that you are forgetting about the tagging of aspects, witch is a very important thing. Basically it means that if a PC or NPC introduces a new aspect through maneuvering he usually can get a +2 bonus out of it for free without spending a FP. This resembles the advantage the PC/NPC gets over the opponent through his maneuver. If you remember this you can't really say that the introduced aspect doesn't mean anything. As a matter of fact it can be huge, especially if the maneuvers and their tags get combined in a team effort...

[mostlyawake]

step 1) You Knock Prone someone, through either a spell or a physical maneuver (same thing).  
effect of step 1) the NPC now has the Sticky Aspect "Knocked Prone", meaning a free tag for the person who applied the aspect (or whomever he hands it off to) and it stays around until countered by a second maneuver.

step 2) the NPC goes to act, before the PC can act again.  The NPC can do anything he could do on the ground... fire a gun, cast a spell, ect, ect..., or to do a maneuver to counter the sticky aspect of knocked prone. As nothing is keeping him prone right now (the spell had no duration, ect), this is pretty much an athletics check of 0, meaning he's going to stand up if he wants. Note, however, that this technically costs him his action (as he is doing a maneuver). Alternatively, as this is really an uncontested, pretty much unrolled action, it sounds perfect for a supplemental action, costing him a -1 to whatever his action is this round.

but the GM and the player both have the potential to spend a FP to compel the NPC to fail any action here. The PC may choose to do so when it becomes apparent that he is going to lose his free tag, but he will also try to calculate how likely the GM is to compel the aspect (and thus save a fate point).

So as a GM, you have to decide to compel or not. Generally, I base this on the narrative I want to write. Is this an easily beaten bad guy, that I know the character will quickly defeat? Compel it, because it's a cooler story if the baddie just flops around and gets pwned.  Is this a character that I think the PC is going to intimidate for information, and leave alive? Compel it, slipping the bad guy a FP for a later scene. Is this guy supposed to be tough, or fighting to the death, and present a real physical challenge to the PC? No compel, because it doesn't fit the story.

So, if it doesn't get compelled, or is compelled and bought out of, lets say the NPC stands up and the aspect is gone. Otherwise, it gets compelled, the NPC loses an action, gains a fate point and we move to..

step 3) the PC goes again, and tags the aspect for a +2 to punch the guy in the nose. woot.

step 4) identical to step 2, because the aspect is sticky, and thus hasn't ended yet. The brilliant player says, hrm, I will compel the same aspect again, on and on, until I am out of fate points, because by then I will have pummeled him to death.  So he compels it.  The NPC spends the fate point he just got and ignores the compel, then stands up.

 Stun lock = impossible, because the first compel gives the NPC a way out of the second compel.

[Watson]

Thanks for the replies. I think that I am starting to get a grip on the Aspects (in regards to compels and Aspects placed as manuevers). Getting rid of the Aspect KNOCKED PRONE as a supplemental action sounds like a really good point (not by the book, but I would allow it in this case).

[Becq]

I think I'd argue in favor of requiring the victim to spend the action, for a couple of reasons:

1) From a mechanics viewpoint, the attacker spent an action to get him on the floor.  It reasonable that either the attacker gets a benefit from that action, either by way of the free tag or by forcing the victim to spend an action to reverse it.  Otherwise, it doesn't seem fair that the victim brushes off a two-shift penalty (the free tag, plus the potential for future Fate uses) by taking a momentary one-shift penalty (the supplemental action).

2) From a flavor viewpoint, it's not necessarily as simple as "I'm on the ground, I want to stand up, so that sounds like a supplemental".  Rather, some sort of (probably violent) action just threw you to the floor, whether it was a leg sweep knocking you off your feet or a gust of magical wind blasting you to the ground.  Spending the action represents not only getting to your feet, but also perhaps taking a moment to recover your balance and gather your senses.  (Note that you can still potentially do a normal action without counter-maneuvering, but the aspect could then be tagged (and later invoked) to penalize you for trying to fight "from the ground".)

[Watson]

Is it correct to say that all effects of an Evocation (other than being strictly a maneuver, attack, block or counterspell) MUST be part of a compel (i.e. costing the caster a Fate point, and letting the target “resist” by paying a Fate point in return)?

As an example, the Evocation cast by Harry in Dead Beat where he hurls an enemy out through a window and across the street using Evocation – how this work (as an Evocation technically can’t send someone flying as part of an attack, block, counterspell or maneuver)?

Would it be considered a maneuver, placing the aspect “WIND STORM” on the target, then Compelling that aspect, sending him flying across the street (into another zone)?

Or would it be an offensive air Evocation causing physical stress (i.e. regular attack) and the “flying across the street” is just “color” (a narrative description) – the target is technically still in the same zone as Harry (even though this sounds strange, as “inside the shop” and “the other side of the street” seems like two different zones)?

I assume that a “tag for effect” or “declaration” can’t send an opponent flying across the street as above.

Thanks for the help!

[WillH]

Would it be considered a maneuver, placing the aspect “WIND STORM” on the target, then Compelling that aspect, sending him flying across the street (into another zone)?

Or would it be an offensive air Evocation causing physical stress (i.e. regular attack) and the “flying across the street” is just “color” (a narrative description) – the target is technically still in the same zone as Harry (even though this sounds strange, as “inside the shop” and “the other side of the street” seems like two different zones)?

I would handle this based on the sprint rules. Evocation with power shifts equal to the number of zones you want to move them, Zone borders act as armor reducing how far they move. If you want to hurt thm in the process put more shifts into weapon rating for the spell.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Is it correct to say that all effects of an Evocation (other than being strictly a maneuver, attack, block or counterspell) MUST be part of a compel (i.e. costing the caster a Fate point, and letting the target “resist” by paying a Fate point in return)?

As an example, the Evocation cast by Harry in Dead Beat where he hurls an enemy out through a window and across the street using Evocation – how this work (as an Evocation technically can’t send someone flying as part of an attack, block, counterspell or maneuver)?

Would it be considered a maneuver, placing the aspect “WIND STORM” on the target, then Compelling that aspect, sending him flying across the street (into another zone)?

Or would it be an offensive air Evocation causing physical stress (i.e. regular attack) and the “flying across the street” is just “color” (a narrative description) – the target is technically still in the same zone as Harry (even though this sounds strange, as “inside the shop” and “the other side of the street” seems like two different zones)?

I assume that a “tag for effect” or “declaration” can’t send an opponent flying across the street as above.

Thanks for the help!

Why not just hit them with an attack and apply that as the "Taken Out" result. Or, possibly a good negotiation for a consequence on someone?

[Watson]

What I was looking for is how to, by the book, create an Evocation that replicates the effect in the book store from Dead Beat (the target is blown away, through the wall (obviously into another zone), taking considerable damage). The opponent is not “taken out” as he comes back to attack Harry later in the scene.

Using a house rule allowing to “sprint” the target into another zone is fine by me, but not when trying to understand how the more tricky Evocations are supposed to be handled (thus my two suggestions above).

How would you replicate the Evocation if using the rules in the book (i.e. no house rules)? It feels strange to be forced to Compel the Aspect created (as I suggested above) to generate an effect that throws the target to the outer side of the street (as this would then not be possible to do for a NPC, without Fate points).

[MyNinjaH8sU]

What I was looking for is how to, by the book, create an Evocation that replicates the effect in the book store from Dead Beat (the target is blown away, through the wall (obviously into another zone), taking considerable damage). The opponent is not “taken out” as he comes back to attack Harry later in the scene.

Using a house rule allowing to “sprint” the target into another zone is fine by me, but not when trying to understand how the more tricky Evocations are supposed to be handled (thus my two suggestions above).

How would you replicate the Evocation if using the rules in the book (i.e. no house rules)? It feels strange to be forced to Compel the Aspect created (as I suggested above) to generate an effect that throws the target to the outer side of the street (as this would then not be possible to do for a NPC, without Fate points).

You could certainly do what you are saying with the compel, but (at least in my game) the GM would supply the compel and not the player, as it makes sense. I can see that argument both ways though, so I think it's a matter of preference.

I also think that dealing with it as a consequence isn't unrealistic either. As in, you deal enough stress to warrant a moderate, and it is negotiated to be a mild, but also fling the other guy through two zones or some such thing.

[MijRai]

This discussion is why I use offensive blocks and magical 'grapples' to incapacitate my enemies instead of a manuever. I save the manuevers to affect zones or as a stepping stone to boost an attack later (Applying Drenched to a foe, then hitting them with a lightning attack, for instance).

[mostlyawake]

Contrasting what one person said (it should cost an action to get off the ground after a maneuver is applied to you) versus what another said (this is why i use spells as blocks):  my reasoning that you could probably get away with rising from prone (aspect: Knocked Down) as a supplemental action is this:

The effect has ended. It is not keeping you down. The caster chose NOT to use a type of spell that would keep you pinned, probably to sae on power. The action is thus unopposed, thus you need no roll really. The only reason the aspect is sticky is that you actually have to do *something to get up*.  Movement across an entire zone (technically, you could move from the far side of one zone, across a barrier, and to the far side of the other zone) cost you a supplemental action.  Getting back to your feet costs about the same amount of time as that.
Seems like a decent use of the supplemental action rules.

Now, if you tripped someone and stood over them, applying the knocked down aspect, I see your point. That's going to take an action of athletics vs fists/athletics/weapons to rise, because it's very conceivable that you could keep them from rising quite simply.

 If you placed, then, a scene aspect of "buffeting winds" with magic, then compelled (with your free tag) the the person to be knocked down, this also probably takes the opponent an action to rise versus the strength of said winds, which are assumed to be ongoing. But what is the strength of buffeting winds?  What if you called the aspect "strong buffeting winds" or "hurricane force winds"?  Is the same strength spell going to be more effective because you were more clever at describing it, or should the GM make you use a block action using the normal evocation rules?

I'd probably rule that placing an aspect on the scene (which requires what, 3 points to do so, and 1 to make it sticky) makes it a flat strength 3, despite any description.  Which is pretty good, given that they are then rolling an athletics roll vs 3 to even get off the ground.  but if you want it stronger, use evocation rules.

[newtinmpls]

"Would it be considered a maneuver, placing the aspect “WIND STORM” on the target, then Compelling that aspect, sending him flying across the street (into another zone)?"

I'd call that an aspect on the scene, not on any particular person; I would allow it to be tagged.