Tags and Compels

[mrsleep]

I finally, finally, got my hands on The DFRPG and am starting up a game.  As with anything, there's a bit of a learning curve.  I ran Night Fears as a test scenario last night and a few things came up.

The one situation I can't find an answer for either in the books or on the forum is Tagging for a Compel.

Normally, when a player (not the GM) decides to Compel another character (PC or NPC) he can spend a Fate Point, identify the Aspect he's using and outline what he wants to happen for the Compel.  If the character being Compelled doesn't accept, he needs to buy out with a Fate Point of his own.

So, hoe does this work if the character setting up the Compel doesn't use a Fate Point, but Tags instead?  When you Invoke with a Tag, the recipient doesn't get a Fate Point because no Fate Point was spent.  Does that carry over to Compels?

Are Tag Compels useless because the recipient doesn't have to spend a Fate Point to ignore them?

Or does the Compel recipient have to buy his way out with a Fate Point?  This seems like it could be abused, as characters could Assess someone to Fate Point Bankruptcy, then Compel them to do dangerous or suicidal activities.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it's possible to compel another character via an invoke. You can use an invoke to set up the circumstances of a compel, though, which is almost the same thing.

So you spend your tag, then the GM compels the character. The compel is in all respects normal.

Does that help?

PS: Reported this for movement.

[devonapple]

What Sanctaphrax said. The GM acts as an intermediary, brokering your free tag (invoke for effect) to the target (trigger a Compel).

[wyvern]

Sanctaphrax is correct - compels are solely the purview of the GM.  If a player wants to compel someone else (PC or NPC), the sequence of events is:

1) Invoke-for-effect to trigger a compel.  The GM (and table) must agree that the compel is reasonable; there can be negotiation at this stage over what is or isn't reasonable.  This can be using a free tag, or it can be via spent fate point on a known aspect.
2) The GM then compels the target - again, there can be negotiation here as with a normal compel.  The target may accept (gaining a fate point), or buy off the compel (spending a fate point).  Do note that, if they buy it off, that fate point is simply spent - it does *not* go to whoever initiated the invoke-for-effect in step one.

This is kinda listed in the book somewhere - I forget the actual page number - but isn't explained in great clarity.

[UmbraLux]

So, hoe does this work if the character setting up the Compel doesn't use a Fate Point, but Tags instead?  When you Invoke with a Tag, the recipient doesn't get a Fate Point because no Fate Point was spent.  Does that carry over to Compels?

Are Tag Compels useless because the recipient doesn't have to spend a Fate Point to ignore them?

Or does the Compel recipient have to buy his way out with a Fate Point?  This seems like it could be abused, as characters could Assess someone to Fate Point Bankruptcy, then Compel them to do dangerous or suicidal activities.

This is one of those areas where terminology can get in the way.  As Sanctaphrax points out, players technically can't initiate compels.  Instead they "invoke/tag for effect" which initiates a GM compel if appropriate.  Functionally, the players can use a tag to 'compel' from the bottomless bag of fate chips...it's simply not called a compel until the GM pulls the fate chip out and offers it.

[sinker]

Yeah this is something we wound up asking Fred about. His answer was that the player tags the aspect to create a circumstance where a compel is likely, then the GM decides whether or not to offer a compel (or if s/he wants to deal with the invoke in another way) and then negotiates that compel using their pool of Fate points.

[mrsleep]

All right, I appreciate the feedback greatly, but it brings up another point that I'm not clear on.

Invoking one of your own Aspects for Effect, such as Perfect Timing to show up on time, I can understand.  How does Invoking another character's Aspects for effect work, or even their Temporary Aspects?  For example, say a NPC has the On Fire Temporary Aspect put on them.  I can see a great many ways to Invoke for Bonus, but what happens when a PC decides to invoke for effect?

PS: Reported this for movement.

Not a problem.

[sinker]

Things like "on fire" have a grand tradition around here of making us all want to hit each other. Exactly how something like that is dealt with is widely contested. Also "on fire" is terrible for personal use (though I don't mind it as set dressing). It's transient in a weird way, but in some ways is more consequential. It's one of those things that are hard to ignore, but unless a fate point is spent you have to ignore it, and it's always used with the most boring intent.  /rant

Now an actual response to your question. When you invoke an aspect for effect (or really when you invoke an aspect at all) you are bringing that aspect to the fore, making that aspect important to the story. When you're playing the game you're writing a story. Now look at how a lot of books deal with the room being "on fire." In the real world I would imagine that being in a room on fire would be very distracting and make it difficult to do much of anything. In books however we see many people fighting and doing other things in a burning room, without really interacting with the flames or smoke until suddenly it's important. Suddenly something collapses or someone can't get to something or someone is overwhelmed. This is what you're doing when you invoke an aspect. You're bringing the fire up in the story. Suddenly it has impact on what you're doing.

As far as the mechanical implications of invoking for effect, the book is really hazy, but it's generally about making some narrative effect. You make something happen that changes what can or cannot be done.

[Sanctaphrax]

As far as I know there are no rules for what Invokes for Effect can do. They're pure GM fiat.

Which is actually a good thing, in my opinion.

[mrsleep]

Fair enough.

Thanks for the responses guys.  Between your feedback and what I've dug up in the forums, I'm starting to feel like I have a feel for these oh-so-nebulous concepts.

I have one more question on this subject.  How long does Invoking for Effect take?  Can a character do it as a free action?  Is it supplemental or full?  Or does it depend on circumstances and play-group?

All feedback is appreciated and thanks again.

[sinker]

An invocation is not a character action, but a player one. The character does nothing to make it happen so it takes no time.

[Taustealthsuit]

We just need to go over some vocabulary

Invoke - here you spend a fate point to get a +2 or a reroll

Compel - here an aspect is used to do something far more story related, any where from causing a character to act a certain way all the way to losing an encounter.  Some people have stated that compelling is solely the pervew of the GM, how ever this is not true.  The rules specifically state that a player can spend a fate point to compel an aspect.

Tag - this is basically gets you a free invoke, because you either created th aspect or you assessed it.  However the rules for tagging never say that you can use a tag to compel for free.

So, let's say you perform a maneuver and put some aspect on one of your enemies.  If the maneuver is successful, you can then invoke the aspect once without spending a fate point, however, if you want to compele that aspect it costs a fate point.

I am not saying this how I play, or even how I think you should play, I am just explaining the rules as written, as I understand them.  However, if I am wrong I would be happy to hear it.  I am still trying to learn the rules myself.  I would just ask that you includ pg numbers where I can find my mistake in the actual rule books.

[sinker]

Some people have stated that compelling is solely the pervew of the GM, how ever this is not true.  The rules specifically state that a player can spend a fate point to compel an aspect.

Technically the book mentions players "initiating," "triggering" or "suggesting" a compel. At no point does it suggest that a player may simply compel with no input or complicity of the GM. Further, as our only word on the matter from Fred states that a player "invokes for effect, which may trigger a compel that is run by the GM" it is fair to assume that a compel is the sole purview of the GM.

However the rules for tagging never say that you can use a tag to compel for free.

So, let's say you perform a maneuver and put some aspect on one of your enemies.  If the maneuver is successful, you can then invoke the aspect once without spending a fate point, however, if you want to compele that aspect it costs a fate point.

But Fred has stated that a tag is an invoke and can do everything that an invoke can do, including the above invoke for effect, triggering a compel.

[Taustealthsuit]

Absolutely, players can only really suggest a compel, but the basically compele by spending a fate point as long as the GM agrees.

The larger point is that a invoke and a compel are different things, and an invoke is what you get from a tag and not a compel

[InFerrumVeritas]

My group decided to set some guidelines for running compels like "On Fire" or "Stunned" (that is, with boring aspects, really).  Maybe they'll help your group too:

Compels should, ideally, narrow the character's choices rather than force them to a specific action.  They should be used for narrative effect and tactical benefit (if via an invoke for effect) and not for mechanical benefit (that's what the +2s are for).

Compels can do save or suck type effects with the caveat that they only last for a single exchange.  That is, if the target is "Stunned" I can compel this to prevent their acting for a single exchange.  If the aspect is sticky, I can continue to compel for as many fate points as I'm willing to give him, or until he removes the aspect.

Compels on aspects like "On Fire" can be used to initiate an attack, but ideally the character would be given a choice.  (Ex.  Here's a fate chip.  You're on fire.  You can either stop, drop, and roll this exchange to avoid burning or burn.)  The strength of the attack would equal the strength of whatever established the aspect (if no roll established the aspect, unlikely in this case, the GM sets a reasonable strength).  Characters defend with the appropriate skill (in this case, athletics).

Again, these are not RAW but extrapolated from RAW and playtesting it different ways.  Take what works, ignore the rest.