DFRPG Tutorial, Part 1: Aspects...

[UmbraLux]

Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking and Invoking For Effect?  Both are just using aspects to gain a benefit.

Invokes modify a roll or allow a reroll while invoking for effect creates a narrative effect - it directly modifies the story.   So there is a difference.

Do we really need to make a distinction between Invoking For Effect and Compelling?  They both seem to be doing effectively the same thing, only that one targets internal aspe uhcts and the other targets external aspects.

The line here is nebulous.  The differences really revolve around where the fate chip comes from and who is initiating.  Probably could use the terms interchangeably for most uses, just need to remember to pull a fate chip from the bag when a tag is used to initiate a compel.

Next, Generating Aspects...

Doesn't this all really boil down to:

• You can take action to discover a hidden aspect (Assessment), or create a new aspect (Declaration).
• You can use fate points or skill rolls* to do either.
• The length of time a generated aspect remains useful is determined by the time a character spends generating it and the quality of any skill checks made to generate it.

*I'm including combat generated consequences and aspects as a part of "skill rolls".

For the most part...there are a few differences but, as you point out, it`s primarily a difference in terminology.  Things like not paying a fate point to make a maneuver - it would be a declaration instead.  But I don't think you`ll run into any issues if you lump aspect creation and discovery types together.  Not in play at least.  The different terms  probably will help when discussing ramifications online.

And finally, the Costs...

In other words...

In general:

• Get a fate point when you accept a complication from an aspect.
• Spend a fate point to gain a benefit or avoid a complication from an aspect.
• If you took action to generate an aspect, you get the first benefit for free.
• The GM acts as the "banker" for fate points.

Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free."

Hope that helps.

[sinker]

Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free."

Not so. If you make a declaration with a fate point there's no reason why you would not get to tag it.

[Pbartender]

Invokes modify a roll or allow a reroll while invoking for effect creates a narrative effect - it directly modifies the story.   So there is a difference.

Sure, I see what you mean, but we could also say that since one invoke gives a flat bonus and the other gives a reroll, Then we should have different terms for them as well?     Silly, I know.

My point is, invokes and invokes for effect both give benefits to the character initiating them.  Plus, any time a situation allows you to invoke, you can likewise invoke for effect.  So, why make the distinction, if it only causes confusion?

The line here is nebulous.  The differences really revolve around where the fate chip comes from and who is initiating.  Probably could use the terms interchangeably for most uses, just need to remember to pull a fate chip from the bag when a tag is used to initiate a compel.

Yep...  That pretty much confirms what I was aiming for.

For the most part...there are a few differences but, as you point out, it`s primarily a difference in terminology.  Things like not paying a fate point to make a maneuver - it would be a declaration instead.  But I don't think you`ll run into any issues if you lump aspect creation and discovery types together.  Not in play at least.  The different terms  probably will help when discussing ramifications online.

Understood...  My goal here is to create a simple, straightforward cheat-sheet that me and my players can reference during play.  I'm mostly concerned with fast, intuitive understanding and functionality during the majority of situations.

Item 3 should be "If you rolled to successfully learn or create an aspect the first use is free

What about Declarations created via fate points?  No rolling necessary.  (Ninjaed by sinker  )

[UmbraLux]

Not so. If you make a declaration with a fate point there's no reason why you would not get to tag it.

What about Declarations created via fate points?  No rolling necessary.  (Ninjaed by sinker  )

You've already paid a fate point so I wouldn't characterize that as 'free'.  You are correct in noting an additional fate point isn't needed for the tag.  My point was that you don't get a free tag on an aspect you've guessed correctly and you do on an assessment even though the aspect was pre-existing.   

Oh, it may also be worth pointing out that you can pass those free tags on to friends and allies.

Sure, I see what you mean, but we could also say that since one invoke gives a flat bonus and the other gives a reroll, Then we should have different terms for them as well?     Silly, I know.

My point is, invokes and invokes for effect both give benefits to the character initiating them.  Plus, any time a situation allows you to invoke, you can likewise invoke for effect.  So, why make the distinction, if it only causes confusion?

You can, of course, rewrite whatever terminology you want for personal use.  However, unique definitions / uses may make communication difficult.   

More to the specific point, compels (and invokes for effect) are not always for the initiating individual's immediate benefit.  Often they're used to limit choices or add a complication.  Take the aspect everyone loves to hate as an example:  "The Building is on Fire!" doesn't really benefit anyone when compelled.  But it may force people to evacuate, destroy property, set off spinklers, start a countdown for when the fire department arrives, or a number of other potential narrative effects.  Contrast that with simply invoking the same aspect.  It'd give you a +2 to your attack (or other) roll because of the distraction provided or it will allow you to re-roll a stealth (or other) roll as you use the smoke and flames. 

Invoking is directly beneficial to a single roll.  Compelling / invoking for effect is directed at the narrative, not a roll.

[sinker]

You've already paid a fate point so I wouldn't characterize that as 'free'.  You are correct in noting an additional fate point isn't needed for the tag.  My point was that you don't get a free tag on an aspect you've guessed correctly and you do on an assessment even though the aspect was pre-existing.   

Something else to consider though is that if you guess and are incorrect, but it reveals an aspect then you do get a tag on that.

[Sanctaphrax]

A strict legalese reading of the rules could be taken to state that you cannot tag aspects that were Declared for FP.

I don't think that it's a very good reading, though.

[UmbraLux]

Something else to consider though is that if you guess and are incorrect, but it reveals an aspect then you do get a tag on that.

Not sure where you found this, but am also not sure it matters.  Mostly because I don't see how a wrong guess can possibly get you a correct answer.  At best it narrows down choices for future guessing.

[sinker]

Actually Sanctaphrax, the section on tagging mentions declarations as part of the list on the previous page. Additionally as I mentioned before when you guess and guess incorrectly it specifically mentions that you receive a tag. Since the section on tagging does not say that those are the only situations and since there are other situations mentioned later one could conclude that it's possible to tag any time an aspect is introduced (or at least that the list is incomplete).

@UmbraLux It's in the Guessing aspects section on YS113.

If the guess misses the mark, but missing the
mark tells you something significant and potentially
secret, the fate point is still spent. This sort
of circumstance almost never comes up with
scene aspects, but it can come up when guessing
at aspects on another character, and may even
amount to a “reveal” (see “Assessment,” page 115) of
the target’s true aspect.

And of course on 115 it talks about how you can tag a revealed aspect.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yes, it lists Declarations. But it also requires a roll, which is not involved in FP Declarations.

I don't really like this reading, but it is about as valid as the alternative.

[UmbraLux]

@UmbraLux It's in the Guessing aspects section on YS113.

Thanks - I see where you're getting it.  One more area for potential confusion...   

[noclue]

I stand corrected.

However, it seems to me that a purely GM-initiated compel should be ... well, not rare, but not exactly common, either.

I think youve confused me. I'm not sure how a purely GM-initiated compel pertains to a compel on an NPC. It seems obvious that a compel on a one-eyed NPC in combat is going to originate with the players. Repetitive compels in that context would most likely be boring, but that's what invokes are for.

As for GM compels, they are the default compel that FATE runs on. That's classic example of a compel. The GM compels a player with a FATE point. Not only should they be common, they should be thick on the ground. So, I'm obviously not tracking something here.

[sinker]

I think youve confused me. I'm not sure how a purely GM-initiated compel pertains to a compel on an NPC. It seems obvious that a compel on a one-eyed NPC in combat is going to originate with the players. Repetitive compels in that context would most likely be boring, but that's what invokes are for.

To be purely technical the GM compels NPCs as well, even if the players initiate it. A player invokes for effect to create a situation where a compel is appropriate and then the GM compels or a player suggests a compel to the GM and then the GM compels. Most of the time a compel is purely a GM tool.

[noclue]

To be purely technical the GM compels NPCs as well, even if the players initiate it. A player invokes for effect to create a situation where a compel is appropriate and then the GM compels or a player suggests a compel to the GM and then the GM compels. Most of the time a compel is purely a GM tool.

Yeah, my confusion comes from the use of the word purely GM-initiated, suggesting that it is something that is different from a compel that was provoked by a player invoking.

[sinker]

Ahh, the argument we were having had to do with compels that were suggested to the GM (requiring no effort from the player) as opposed to a compel that was the result of an invoke for effect.

Becq was saying that compels of an NPC that require no effort from the players should be rare, I was saying that they should have impact, but we agree that one that is simply an advantage for the players with no benefit to the story is not great.

[UmbraLux]

Ahh, the argument we were having had to do with compels that were suggested to the GM (requiring no effort from the player) as opposed to a compel that was the result of an invoke for effect.

Becq was saying that compels of an NPC that require no effort from the players should be rare, I was saying that they should have impact, but we agree that one that is simply an advantage for the players with no benefit to the story is not great.

Not sure it's what you're referring to, but I tend to compel NPCs behind the scenes on a regular basis.  It's what keeps the bad guy trying a new plan after the PCs foiled his last one.  It's what keeps a predator hunting...and leaving bodies behind.  It's why a necromancer experiments...even when he knows he's being hunted.  It's why an overly confident villain toys with victims instead of simply slaughtering them.  It's also what gives them a fate point or two for confrontations with the PCs...