Yes, A Free Tag Can Invoke For Effect

[ScottMcG]

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:

[infusco]

I don't have a problem with the idea of triggering a Compel via an Invoke for Effect.

But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?

For example, say a party is taking on a powerful Red Court vampire. And using for example the above Invoke to Compel of a foe spending his action getting up. Can a strong martial character just keep chaining maneuvers with free tags to keep the vamp down on the ground while his buddies beat at it?

Or another that  concerns me ... can you use a maneuver to compel, or grapple, to completely remove someone's ability to defend and make their defense count as 0 (mediocre)?

Or worse ... can you use a maneuver to essentially completely disable them, a la grapple (which is a block), so that they cannot defend, attack, or do anything at all? The rules say that if someone is not focused on the target to keep the maneuver going, would it mean that the target to break out of it is 0?

Given the fair amount of GM fiat involved, does anyone else have any ideas as to how you would handle it as a GM? What logical limitations you'd put?

[UmbraLux]

But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?

It's negotiable and situational.  So the aspect Room on Fire might compel a BCV to spend one turn moving away from the fire, flee the zone, or even flee the fight entirely.  It's up to players and GM to agree on how much that fire will affect the vampire.

[luminos]

I don't have a problem with the idea of triggering a Compel via an Invoke for Effect.

But how powerful can you make this? Are there any recommended guidelines?

For example, say a party is taking on a powerful Red Court vampire. And using for example the above Invoke to Compel of a foe spending his action getting up. Can a strong martial character just keep chaining maneuvers with free tags to keep the vamp down on the ground while his buddies beat at it?

I would say that if a character is using his action to remove an opponents ability to act, he should be using a block, not a maneuver. 

The book is pretty clear that you can't ever remove a persons ability to defend, so even with invoking for effect I wouldn't allow it.  That situation is much better suited for taking a +2 against their attempt to defend.

There is a lot of GM fiat involved in what can work for invoking for effect, but a good guideline is that it shouldn't be unilaterally more powerful than other options. Invoking to block an action is the same as blocking an action, with the added bonus of the other guy having a negative aspect on him.  Thats unilaterally more powerful than a block, so its out.  Invoking to prevent a defense is unilaterally more powerful than invoking for a +2 against the defense, so it too should be out.  And so on.

[Drachasor]

Hmm, Invoking for Effect is NOT a Compel.  It's like a declaration.  That means you can state some fact or circumstance beneficial to your character or some other fact about the scene.  While of course this is negotiable in a group, I think it is too powerful to allow it to force particular behavior out of an enemy (well, probably compelling goons would be alright, since they aren't as important).  So I would think it would be too much to say an aspect like "Loose Weapon Grip" could be invoked to make the enemy drop the weapon...to do that you'd have to do a compel and use a fate point since you are making an enemy take a disadvantageous action.  On the other hand, if they have something like "Bad Luck" as an aspect, you could Invoke it to have them standing under a chandelier or over a weak spot on the floor.  Setting the scene up around them to their detriment seems ok as an invocation for effect, but forcing them to take a particular action to their detriment seems like you need a fate point exchanged (otherwise disarming people, pushing them off a ledge, or the like is way too easy).

That's my thought on the matter.

[noretoc]

So I would think it would be too much to say an aspect like "Loose Weapon Grip" could be invoked to make the enemy drop the weapon...to do that you'd have to do a compel and use a fate point since you are making an enemy take a disadvantageous action.  

A tag does just that though, without a fate point.  The enemy can still spend a fate point to ignore the aspect.  If they take the compel though, they do not get a fate point since it is a free "tag".  Remember the only way to get a free tag is to reveal or place the aspect, so that means a maneuver (When you could attack instead) or causing a consequence.  It seem fair to me that if you hit a vamp hard enough with a shotgun, that he has to take a "broken leg" aspect, you can then tag it to invoke for effect that he can't run up to you and attack.  You should be able to do it for free once, as you are the one who gave him the broken leg.  Now though, it turns into a compel.  The GM decides if he spends a fate point to ignore the pain and run up anyway, or if he doesn't want to spend it, he stays where he is and tries to throw something at you.  Now if next exchange you want to invoke it again, you have to spend the fate point.  Compel #2,  That damn broken leg keeps getting in the way, but at least this time since the tag is not free, if the vamp takes the compel, he will get your fate point.  Manhole cover #2 coming your way.

[Drachasor]

A tag does just that though, without a fate point.  The enemy can still spend a fate point to ignore the aspect.  If they take the compel though, they do not get a fate point since it is a free "tag".  Remember the only way to get a free tag is to reveal or place the aspect, so that means a maneuver (When you could attack instead) or causing a consequence.  It seem fair to me that if you hit a vamp hard enough with a shotgun, that he has to take a "broken leg" aspect, you can then tag it to invoke for effect that he can run up to you and attack.  You should be able to do it for free once, as you are the one who gave him the broken leg.  Now though, it turns into a compel.  The GM decides if he spends a fate point to ignore the pain and run up anyway, or if he doesn't want to spend it, he stays where he is and tries to throw something at you.  Now if next exchange you want to invoke it again, you have to spend the fate point.  Compel #2,  That damn broken leg keeps getting in the way, but at least this time since the tag is not free, if the vamp takes the compel, he will get your fate point.  Manhole cover #2 coming your way.

A tag cannot be used to compel, only to invoke.  There's a difference between the two things.  A compel is more powerful than an invoke as it forces someone to take an action.  An invoke gives you a +2 bonus on an appropriate roll or you can make some sort of declaration, but you don't invoke compels, they are a different thing.

[bitterpill]

You can invoke for effect, so what counts as an effect, using the broken leg example you could argue that an appropriate effect of having a broken leg, or at the extreme end hamstrung is that the enemy falls over this seems a reasonable result of a broken leg, now you wouldn't neccessarily have to force her to give up her go that would be a compel, but you could argue that if she didn't give up her go then she would remain on the floor with all the limitation that brings, meaning that at the very least to get rid of the aspect fallen she would either need to spend a full action getting up or a supplemental action doing so at the GM's disgression.   

[iago]

So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?

Exactly this.

[Drachasor]

Exactly this.

Technically, you can't do that.  If your group is ok with it, then you can, but that's a house rule.  Personally, I think compels are pretty darn powerful, and compelling a non-mook shouldn't be done without an actual fate point spent.  It should be significant, not something you can whip up with just a maneuver.  Otherwise it seems to me that the value of fate points would be cheapened quite a bit.

That said, compelling a mook for free with a tag seems like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me, though maybe my opinion will change with more experience in the game.

[BumblingBear]

Technically, you can't do that.  If your group is ok with it, then you can, but that's a house rule.  Personally, I think compels are pretty darn powerful, and compelling a non-mook shouldn't be done without an actual fate point spent.  It should be significant, not something you can whip up with just a maneuver.  Otherwise it seems to me that the value of fate points would be cheapened quite a bit.

That said, compelling a mook for free with a tag seems like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me, though maybe my opinion will change with more experience in the game.

You know that you're arguing with someone who helped actually create the game, right?

[iago]

Technically, you can't do that.

Technically, wise guy, I can (as the publisher and one of the original creators of Fate, as well as a guy who has read the rules), and this has been the ruling we've put down about tagging for effect for several years now.

Merge the understanding of what a tag is (a free invoke) with the language about compelling other aspects on I believe YS107 and I believe the findings are clear.

[Drachasor]

You know that you're arguing with someone who helped actually create the game, right?

No, I did not.

However, the book does have a very clear distinction between invocations and compels.  If a compel is type of invocation, then why does the book make a distinction?  Might as well have three types of invocations if that's the case (one of them being compels).  Certainly as far as the book says it, there's a distinct difference between the invocations and compels.  So, I am going to stand by my position that what Iago said is not what the book says as best I can determine (e.g. it seems to be a house rule strictly speaking)*.

Given that, if he could expand on his thoughts on the matter, I'd appreciate it.  Hmm, further, could one PC place an aspect on another PC, tag-compel and produce a fate point for that PC?  (Obviously the normal rules regarding compels not being weak would have to apply to this).

*Which I do not have a problem with.

[Richard_Chilton]

In case it's escaped people's notice:
iago = Fred Hicks = Evil Hat Publishing = as close to official word as you can get.

Oops - iago replied as I was typing this.  Oh well, the introduction might still do a bit a good.

Richard

[Drachasor]

Technically, wise guy, I can (as the publisher and one of the original creators of Fate, as well as a guy who has read the rules), and this has been the ruling we've put down about tagging for effect for several years now.

Merge the understanding of what a tag is (a free invoke) with the language about compelling other aspects on I believe YS107 and I believe the findings are clear.

I am not being a wise guy...just perhaps a bit pedantic.

Hmm, rereading it again, I suppose the rules seem to indicate there are Invokes, Invoke for Effect, and Compels, and tagging only allows the first one.  Whether right or wrong, that's what the book says.  If you say they are all supposed to be the sort of thing you can invoke with a tag, then I suppose that should be something put on some errata at some point.  Perhaps calling using a tag an Invoke, then have something like Invoke for a Roll (either +2 bonus or reroll), Invoke for Effect, and Invoke for a Compel.

Again, being a bit pedantic here.

Edit:  Perhaps we should make a sticky and put stuff like this there.  Unofficially Official Errata (and Clarifications) or something? (Or I suppose it might as well be official).

Edit2:  If you want, I could comb through your posts and see if other things pop up and make a post with all that stuff, though perhaps someone who has been here longer would be more familiar with it.

Edit3:  Or I guess you could expand on it from the tag angle, Tag for Invoke, Tag for Invoke for Effect, Tag for Compel, but I thought moving everything under "Invoke" made more sense when I wrote the above.