Question about tagging aspects

[JesterPoet]

I have run Dresden WAY too many times to have this question, but such is life with learning to run/play a new RPG, right?

I have a question with regard to aspects.  Let's say that Larry the Demon (NPC) maneuvers with INCITE EMOTION (p. 173) to enrage Mary the Knight of the Cross (PC) into attacking him.  Perhaps the aspect is something like "Must destroy the spawn of Satan (Larry)."   Mechanically, when it comes to Mary's turn, she is under no obligation to attack him, right?  I mean, technically she can just run from the room and head for the car.  What do you all do?  Do you have unwritten rules that Mary should roleplay the aspect and stay?  What if the aspect were something from evocation like "Bound with Air."  Again, I can see how tagging it on the enemy's next turn would give bonuses and such, but if you've bound the character (PC or NPC) with the intention of keeping him from moving, how does that work?

If there are rules that address this that I'm missing (which there probably are) it'd be awesome (but not necessary) for you to point me to them just so I can show my players too.

I feel dumb, but wow... it's a lot of rules.  I think I've done well to this point 

[Blackblade]

Larry the Demon puts "Must destroy the spawn of Satan" on Mary.  Larry then uses the tag to set initiate a compel.  The GM and Mary's player then discuss the compel; Mary accepts, gets a fate point, and flies into a holy rage (or rejects and pays the FP, etc.)

That is how I would set it up.

[devonapple]

The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. If that Invoke is something minor, like "Defense rolled as 0 for that Exchange" or "Fumble your weapon" then the player likely doesn't get a Fate Point (though the player can refuse it with a Fate Point).

If that Invoke for Effect is stronger, it becomes like a Compel, and you the GM can give the player a Fate Point for it (and the player, likewise, can refuse it with a Fate Point). The Fate Point doesn't come out of the Demon's supply (if any), nor does the Demon get the player's buyout Fate Point.

This particular bit was painstakingly researched by consulting the game writers, and it is not obvious from the RAW.

[JesterPoet]

The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. If that Invoke is something minor, like "Defense rolled as 0 for that Exchange" or "Fumble your weapon" then the player likely doesn't get a Fate Point (though the player can refuse it with a Fate Point).

If that Invoke for Effect is stronger, it becomes like a Compel, and you the GM can give the player a Fate Point for it (and the player, likewise, can refuse it with a Fate Point). The Fate Point doesn't come out of the Demon's supply (if any), nor does the Demon get the player's buyout Fate Point.

This particular bit was painstakingly researched by consulting the game writers, and it is not obvious from the RAW.

Wow... that's hugely helpful!  Thanks!

Now another question: Does that tag (whether it is simple effect or a stronger compel) happen immediately, or does it not happen until the demon's next initiative?

[devonapple]

Now another question: Does that tag (whether it is simple effect or a stronger compel) happen immediately, or does it not happen until the demon's next initiative?

There is some debate. Per the RAW, I feel that one can Invoke for Effect immediately (as in lay the Maneuver, place the Aspect, tag/invoke for effect, on the same Exchange - Disarmed is a good example of when this would work), but one would perforce have to wait until one's next Action to get a +2 on it (for an Aspect like On the Ropes, or Punch Drunk) the Aspect doesn't suddenly give you another attack, unless you have negotiated that with the GM.

Others feel that to be balanced, Invoking for Effect (a metagame effect) is something a character must do on their next available Action (a game effect).

[Tedronai]

If that Invoke is something minor, like "Defense rolled as 0 for that Exchange" or "Fumble your weapon" then the player likely doesn't get a Fate Point (though the player can refuse it with a Fate Point).

Is there RAW support for that devonapple?  I ask because I do not recall reading as much.
(and more specifically, I would contest the idea that 'defense rolled as 0' would be 'something minor' - it's certainly far more potent than the standard +2)

[Mr. Death]

I was always under the impression that the only difference between a Tag and an Invoke was that no fate points were spent or received.

[devonapple]

Is there RAW support for that devonapple?  I ask because I do not recall reading as much.
(and more specifically, I would contest the idea that 'defense rolled as 0' would be 'something minor' - it's certainly far more potent than the standard +2)

No RAW, just conversations with the game writers which have been chronicled on the boards.

The trend is that a momentary inconvenience (no defense for an Exchange, no attack for an Exchange) is within an standard Invoke for Effect, but that something which seriously constrains the characters choice or options in a conflict is grounds for an Invoke-for-Effect which triggers a Compel between the GM and the target.

[devonapple]

I was always under the impression that the only difference between a Tag and an Invoke was that no fate points were spent or received.

We ground that discussion out at length many months ago.

I suspect that the recent server crash seems to have wiped out the logs which the Search engine used to catalog the posts, so I'm now understanding why a lot of these questions are coming up again: new users just aren't finding the extant posts on the subject.

So that discussion will take awhile to find, but it is somewhere in the previous entries, and maybe someone else will find it before I get a chance to!

[sinker]

Long story short, you're pretty much right, but if the tag triggers a compel then the compel is negotiated between the GM and the target and the GM funds the compel.

[Sanctaphrax]

As far as I know there are no actual rules for what an Invoke For Effect can do. It's pure fiat. So if you don't think that fumbling a weapon or whatever is a worthy compel, then it doesn't have to be a compel.

I think.

Personally I think that you can tag whenever, even if it's not your turn.

[devonapple]

I try to go back to running players and NPCs using similar mechanics.

If you're a player, and you land this cool Aspect using a Maneuver (Disarmed! Woo, the giant Troll is Disarmed!) and it makes sense for you to expect to be able to Invoke for Effect to give the Aspect more than just a +2 to something, without having to spend a Fate Point for it, then an NPC should be able to do the same.

Likewise, if an NPC uses an Invoke for Effect on an Aspect landed on a player, and that player feels like it's more than just a momentary disadvantage, that it is a Compel meriting a Fate point, then perforce, any similar actions by a player against an NPC should be resolved similarly.

If the player wants it easier for the player, then that is a different negotiating stance.

[UmbraLux]

The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. If that Invoke is something minor, like "Defense rolled as 0 for that Exchange" or "Fumble your weapon" then the player likely doesn't get a Fate Point (though the player can refuse it with a Fate Point).

Personal opinion:  If it costs a fate point to say no, the player should be offered one to say yes.

[JesterPoet]

This has been really helpful!  Thanks to everyone who commented! (and I'll keep reading, but this gets me back on track for tomorrow night).

[Darkshore]

If Mary the Knight had a high Conviction or Discipline and perhaps a stunt or aspect relating to such things, could said aspect cancel out the demon's invoke?