Yes, A Free Tag Can Invoke For Effect

[ScottMcG]

My interpretation is that the GM conjures a fate point for this that is essentially spent on the player's behalf. Otherwise the comment about "..and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel" doesn't seem to have any meaning.

I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.

[Drachasor]

I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.

That's the part with the GM acting in your stead as far as Fate point economics are concerned.  (It was Fred Hicks, one of the authors of the RPG who said this was correct...that's who Iago is).

[jybil178]

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, does the system become so much more malleable and workable.  Thus does resources of the players (and villains) become so much less easily depletable..

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...

[Drachasor]

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...

Yes, that is my understanding.  A "tag" is essentially a one-use coupon that can replace a Fate Point for a given aspect.  This "virtual" Fate Point can be used with that aspect in any way a normal Fate Point could.

[ScottMcG]

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...

[devonapple]

I'm pretty sure the GM is backing the free-tag Invoke for Effect with a Fate Point from his own pile.

[infusco]

I'm pretty sure the GM is backing the free-tag Invoke for Effect with a Fate Point from his own pile.

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."

[ScottMcG]

So what you're saying is essentially that the target of the compel off of a tag would not receive a fate point for accepting the compel, but if they wanted to buy it off they'd still have to pay a fate point to the GM?

I think that's consistent with the example as well.

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."

[devonapple]

"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."

I guess I should change TANSTAAFC (There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Compel) with TANSTAAFFP (...Free Fate Point), eh?

[Drachasor]

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.

Explain how that is different.  What does the first part mean?  Seems to me it can only mean that the GM handles paying a Fate Point if the Compel is accepted or taking one if it is resisted.

I don't accept what the book says on this, because it is pretty clear based on what Fred said that the book doesn't properly cover this.

Page 106 says Invocations can be used for Effect, but a Compel, as written, is NOT an Invocation technically speaking, so it isn't going to necessarily follow the same rules here.

So Tagging works like this as I understand it:
You can use a tag to Invoke for a +2 bonus, a reroll, or for Effect.  In these cases, you under no conditions give a fate point to another party.  However, using a Tag to Invoke for Effect can be used to make a Compel, in this case the GM pays the Compelled target one Fate Point if they accept (or takes a Fate Point if they resist), as per normal Compel rules (which are technically not Invocation rules).

Or you could think of Tagging as allowing Invokes of all sorts and Compels, but in the case of compels fate points are still received by compelled targets.  I am not sure what the most succinct way to word it is.

[sjksprocket]

I think for my campaign I'm going to give the fate point to whomever it goes, even if it is from a tag. It just seems more fair that way to me. I just want to point out that one thing no one has mentioned that everyone might want to consider. Which ever you choose it should work both ways. If a player can do it to a npc, said npc (especially if said npc is important) should be able to do it to said player. If a player tags an aspect for effect or compel or whatever, and your group is going with the "no fate point spent, none gained" concept, and the npc doesn't get a fate point, then make sure the group knows that if GM does the same thing to a player the player will get no fate point out of it. Talk it out with your group. Maybe your group won't like the fact they might not get fate points out of something. I believe that the more fate points floating around, the more interesting the story can get because fate points equal narrative control.

Explain how that is different.  What does the first part mean?

I don't accept what the book says on this, because it is pretty clear based on what Fred said that the book doesn't properly cover this.

Page 106 says Invocations can be used for Effect, but a Compel, as written, is NOT an Invocation technically speaking, so it isn't going to necessarily follow the same rules here.

So Tagging works like this as I understand it:
You can use a tag to Invoke for a +2 bonus, a reroll, or for Effect.  In these cases, you under no conditions give a fate point to another party.  However, using a Tag to Invoke for Effect can be used to make a Compel, in this case the GM pays the Compelled target one Fate Point if they accept (or takes a Fate Point if they resist), as per normal Compel rules (which are technically not Invocation rules).

Or you could think of Tagging as allowing Invokes of all sorts and Compels, but in the case of compels fate points are still received by compelled targets.  I am not sure what the most succinct way to word it is.

In Fred's example the tag is not being used for a compel. It is being used as an Invoke for Effect. If said Invoke for Effect does something to the recipient that would be compel worthy, then the GM would compel it. So the player is Invoking for effect, The GM is compelling it for better story.

[Drachasor]

I think for my campaign I'm going to give the fate point to whomever it goes, even if it is from a tag. It just seems more fair that way to me. I just want to point out that one thing no one has mentioned that everyone might want to consider. Which ever you choose it should work both ways. If a player can do it to a npc, said npc (especially if said npc is important) should be able to do it to said player. If a player tags an aspect for effect or compel or whatever, and your group is going with the "no fate point spent, none gained" concept, and the npc doesn't get a fate point, then make sure the group knows that if GM does the same thing to a player the player will get no fate point out of it. Talk it out with your group. Maybe your group won't like the fact they might not get fate points out of something. I believe that the more fate points floating around, the more interesting the story can get because fate points equal narrative control.

That will just encourage players to place aspects on each other and avoid ever doing it on enemies.  Same net effect, pretty much, but they don't have to give the enemy a Fate point.  Remember that to tag you have to use an action to place the Aspect (typically), and that's not a trivial sacrifice.

In Fred's example the tag is not being used for a compel. It is being used as an Invoke for Effect. If said Invoke for Effect does something to the recipient that would be compel worthy, then the GM would compel it. So the player is Invoking for effect, The GM is compelling it for better story.

Which is for all intents and purpose a tag being used for a Compel (GM taking or supplying a Fate Point to the target as needed).

[infusco]

Yup, I'd apply the same rules in both directions. Remember, a new negative Aspect should at least once prove to be decidedly disadvantageous to the player or NPC gaining it. Or else, you'll have players who will actively try to acquire Mild Consequences to get some fresh Fate points. Getting hit with a negative Aspect should never be taken lightly.

Although given the whole Free Will vs Nature aspect of this game, I'd still allow a player or NPC to buy out of a Compel by spending a Fate point. But note that that Fate point buy out goes *only* to the GM and not the initiating player as per the standard Compelling Other Aspects section (YS107): "Once the initiating player spends the fate point, he does not get it back even if the target buys out of the compel". Same rule applies for a Tag, just with the difference that the Tag means the initiating player did not have to spend a Fate point.

[bitterpill]

Can you get a free tag mild concequences i thought to get any use of them you had to spend a fate point, I thought it was only extreme you got a free tag of.

[ScottMcG]

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."