Maneuver power and tagging/compelling for effect?

[UmbraLux]

You might think this is kinda game breaking.

As you imply in the post above, it's worth noting compels are negotiated not automatic.  So whether a blindness aspect turns into complete blindness or simply some negative or limitation to actions involving sight is up to the group.

I do think compelling of temporary aspects tends to be underutilized.  IMO, compelling a negative aspect against the victim is often more effective than invoking for your roll.  Of course all depends on the aspect in question and your goals...

[Becq]

I think the strict RAW answer would be (as others have said) "an aspect is an aspect" and that mechanically, there are no aspects that are aspect-ier than others.  Probably most aspects should be treated as having about 2 shifts of effect.  In the examples given, that 16-shift psychomancy should probably have been cast as an attack instead of a maneuver, and if it had would likely have inflicted several meaty consequences or even taken out the target (depending on whether it was a mook or a major character).

If the table decides this isn't meaty enough, one quick answer would be to use the overflow rules.  If only 8 or less shifts were needed to inflict the maneuver, then the remaining shifts would be enough to apply a second maneuver, thus double the power.  I think this is not allowable per the RAW, though, since overflow can only be used for a non-combat effect, and applying a negative aspect probably counts as combative.

That said, there's certainly room for GM judgement.  If a player achieved a 16-shift success on an intimidation attempt (spell or mundane), then invoked the generated aspect for effect, I could certainly see the sense in a GM ruling that the target simply flees due to the resulting compel.  But the GM would not be required to rule this way.  Of course, if the aspect was tagged for a bonus, instead, it would only be worth +2, as normal.

[ways and means]

There is spin rules where if you beat your opponents roll by 3 you get a free aspect.

[Becq]

There is spin rules where if you beat your opponents roll by 3 you get a free aspect.

... but only on a defense rolls, and it's a +1 or -1 to the next action, rather than an aspect.

[sinker]

In SotC it's the application of an aspect, which is the way I prefer to play it, but you're right, that's on defense rolls.

[Falar]

Sorry to commit thread necromancy, but I read a blog post of Ryan Macklin's recently and I thought it might be helpful in this instance.

Basically, the better you succeed, the more free tags you get on an aspect - which would probably work out for what you want, Belial. Here's how it works:

Whatever way you introduce an aspect through a maneuver you do it with a skill roll against a certain threshold. Normally, if you just beat the difficulty, you introduce it as a fragile aspect - tag it in one turn or it goes away. A second shift beyond that might be enough to make it sticky - it will last until someone uses it. Now what about shifts beyond the second? What Ryan Macklin proposes is that each two shifts beyond the first two allow another free tag later on down the line for you to use.

Throw in another houserule that adds the ability to use an unlimited number of free tags from a single aspect (as long as they are only free tags) and you can then tag that aspect you've created on your next turn for a large amount on one roll.

Example: You're fighting a mook and you maneuver to place "Knocked Off Balance" on him. He rolls Average (+1) and you roll Superb (+5). Fair (+2) is enough to place the aspect, Good (+3) makes it sticky, so it will last until the mook gets rid of it and Superb (+5) is another two shifts, so you have two free tags, which you pass to your pal Lenny.

Lenny smacks him upside the face with his Gauntlet of Smiting (Weapon:2) and double-tags Off Balance for +4 on his attack. Which is, of course, a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am knock out of the park for him.

[Tedronai]

First off, sticky aspects don't last merely 'until they are used', but until the end of the scene or until they're removed, whichever comes first.
Second, maneuvers only have to MATCH, not beat, the defense roll in order to successfully place a fragile aspect.

[Falar]

Eh, either way, the intent is the same. I think Ryan Macklin was talking off the notes for Fate Core or another form of Fate, so just subtract a shift from what I said. And my sticky goof was totally wrong - I have no idea why I wrote that. I think I was just trying to summarize too fast from what Macklin was talking about to a specific application here so people wouldn't have to go read his blog.

More important is the actual play application - what do you think of that, Tedronai?

[Tedronai]

I think it would represent another kick in the face to evocation maneuvers

[devonapple]

I think it would represent another kick in the face to evocation maneuvers

Not if they worked the same way, would it?

[admiralducksauce]

I agree that an aspect is an aspect is an aspect for most cases, but as GM when I'm thinking about Compels, I'll keep things like Severe consequences in mind for Compels much more than Mild ones.  I think Aspects placed by ridiculous successes would fall into the same boat.  Of course, also as suggested, it may just be that most of time, the wording on Severe consequences is such that it's easier to compel.

[Falar]

I think it would represent another kick in the face to evocation maneuvers

Why would it do that? If I were to use this in a game, it would apply to evocation maneuvers as well. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this ...

[sinker]

I think I see where Tedronai is coming from. Evocation maneuvers are all about the shifts, and the control roll only effects whether it works or not. In your example if we were using a spell that's a five shift spell (substantial for a non-submerged caster) to get one additional tag. The likelihood of someone getting a 6-8 on a skill that they're good at (their apex skill say) is decent. It's a little harder to get that with a spell.

Now that I think about it though, it's not that much harder, and the rule actually has the potential to be abused by casters throwing 12-15 shift maneuvers...

[Sanctaphrax]

I like the idea.

I should ressurect the house rule thread again...

Anyway, there's just one thing that worries me here. At higher power levels, the difficulty of your average Navel-Gazing Maneuver is trivial. But an extra tag is still just as important. So you'd have to adjust difficulties.

Maybe the difficulty could vary based on the strength of the opposition.

[Tedronai]

Why would it do that? If I were to use this in a game, it would apply to evocation maneuvers as well. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this ...

At which point it becomes a kick in the face to one of the primary benefits of thaumaturgy over evocation