Hey all:
I'm GMing a game on the board right now (Forced to Fight), and recently a disagreement arose between me and the players. The issue is whether you get a free tag on aspects that you put on yourself (naval-gazing aspects), like you would if you put the aspect on somebody else.
I'm against this, for three reasons:
1. When the book mentions tags, it does so specifically in reference to tags on other people/scenes (YS106). The book doesn't mention placing aspects on yourself at all until page 207, and even then, it doesn't mention tags. By contrast, when discussing tags, the context is on using aspects of other PCs, NPCs, and the scene.
2. Disallowing tags on your own aspects increases player interaction, since they can tag each other's aspects but not their own. Rather than a wizard giving him 'fireproof' and then tagging it to run into a burning building, for instance, maybe he gives it to another party member and then tags that so they can run through the building. Or the other player tags it, perhaps as part of a social attack ("Look, my friend's freaking fireproof, here. We can take anything you dish out.") Allowing the tags would let the wizard just do this all himself, which isn't as interesting.
3. Naval-gazing manuevers are almost always unopposed and thus very easy to place (YS207). It seems unbalanced to give people a free +2 bonus for a roll that is usually against a difficulty of 0. (I'd already said that I'd be willing to allow tags in cases where the aspect-placing rolls are opposed).
The player objected, saying that this defeats the point of placing manuevers on oneself in the first place, since they can't be tagged. He added that maneuvers on oneself also take up a round, and since tags usually have to be used soon after the aspects are assessed or created, this is a significant cost (so point 3 wouldn't apply). Finally, he said that the sections on YS 105 and 106, when thy refer to tagging other aspects, only exclude tagging the character's 7 major aspects (HC, Trouble, etc). I'd argue, though, that because the sections explicitly refer to the aspects of the scene, NPCs, and other PCs, and don't mention oneself, that those pages do not refer to any aspects that one has on oneself.
Does the forum have any wisdom on this issue?